digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at flickr.com

How To Handle Sign Carrying Religious Nuts 3.0 [PIC]

flickr.com — The guy on the left is my buddy Josh. Last year, this same protester stood outside of his apartment, and he peacefully showed his lack of interest in the hate that this man was spreading. This year, he got a little more creative.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • MrBabyMan, on 07/04/2008, -17/+142See also the companion pic: http://digg.com/comedy/How_To_Handle_Sign_Carrying ...
  • polygons, on 07/04/2008, -8/+85Nice improve Swifer mop handle.
    • damntourists, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1hah i was going to say the same thing.
    • BobaFettTDG, on 07/05/2008, -3/+5Epic spelling fail.
      • Szandor, on 07/06/2008, -1/+3Yeah. It's Swiffer, dumbass.
      • polygons, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Must be my fat fingers getting in the way of typing that extra "f". Whoops.
  • GeckoSlayer, on 07/04/2008, -36/+360How awkward would you feel holding that sign? There'd be a few weird glances from bystanders..

    Is it really worth the embarrassment to show up some christian nuts?

    I think so.
    • Ramble, on 07/05/2008, -4/+94Considering it was at a gay pride festival, I doubt he'd be too fussed.
    • MisterRik, on 07/05/2008, -6/+46Feel free to explain what would be embarrassing about it.
      • ubrikkean, on 07/06/2008, -1/+4He's assuming that all homosexuals are uncomfortable about it.
    • Disease, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Yes, it would.
    • rjc5056, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4From the end of one such anti-everything march at the end of fantasy fest in key west :
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/28263592@N05/26397063 ...
      (Probably NSFW)
      • LeeSoong, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Pole dancing the Cross!
        - Great new line of baby doll T-shirts coming right up ...
    • drakethegreat, on 07/05/2008, -2/+4Only if you are a homophobe
    • Shuukyoku, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1I think any awkwardness you'd feel would be worth it for the joke. Well done.
    • Arkavus, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4I'd hold it up and I'm straight. Hell, I'd hold it at the festival.
    • lazerflesh, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Embarrassed, hell no- that would feel damn exhilarating.
    • merrickx, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Yes.
    • exhilator, on 07/06/2008, -5/+3HAHA EMBARASSING MY ASS. ***** THOSE CHRISTIANS AND WHAT THEY BELIEVE!
    • LenBaird, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1My guess is he is "gay and proud."
  • Sham1969, on 07/04/2008, -15/+42Culture Jamming is always fun. When you mix it with taunting fundies, you make a good thing even better.
    • q1006662, on 07/05/2008, -11/+3Buried for saying both "Culture Jamming" and "fundies"
      • TheMoniker, on 07/05/2008, -3/+3Buried for saying both, "culture jamming" and that other word.
    • pkonink, on 07/05/2008, -7/+2I have to admit any term that ends with "ies" automatically earns the speaker or writer my personal scorn. I wish that stupid trend would die already. I swear if I hear one more pretentious sub-degenerate mental midget use the term "foodie" I am going to go on a shooting rampage at the nearest overpriced nouvelle cuisine slop-house. AAARRGGGHHHH!








      lol
    • DesertDude, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1Josh is not taunting fundies; he's a genuine *****.
  • serenityflexed, on 07/04/2008, -20/+53I only wish I could digg this many, many more times.
    • maadmonkey, on 07/05/2008, -3/+2Don't worry I'll digg it for you :)
    • scimitar91, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1you could try reddit, it's been on there for a while now
  • str3ama, on 07/04/2008, -21/+9Sin-sational
    • Acglaphotis, on 07/05/2008, -5/+16You amaze us with your ability to read and regurgitate obvious things. Please do more.
  • sogeshirts, on 07/04/2008, -17/+6haha thats a nice twist.
  • JimmySpaza, on 07/05/2008, -172/+13What is sad is that the guy (?) on the left is clueless and blind to his situation in life. Just because something FEELS good doesn't make it right.
    • LMaxey, on 07/05/2008, -5/+113The same as THIIINKING you're right doesn't make it so.
      • dondara, on 07/05/2008, -1/+52A fact completely lost on Jimmy "all my comments get buried because I am a ranting moron" Spaza.
      • transfuse, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3Thiiinking?
    • SuperWinner, on 07/05/2008, -4/+38Continuing the tradition of being the ultimate bury king, god luv ya Jimmy...
    • punkcat, on 07/05/2008, -4/+46exactly, just because you FEEL better about yourself for going to church doesn't make it right.
    • Ramble, on 07/05/2008, -17/+5Yes it does.
    • michael43, on 07/05/2008, -53/+3You are absolutely 100% correct, and it's sad you are being dugg down for stating an obvious truth.
      • TheMoniker, on 07/05/2008, -2/+19Well, it's pretty hard to see how he's 100% correct. There are at least three statements that Jimmy made either explicitly or implicitly here and I'll point them out in turn.
        1) Explicit: That the fellow on the left was, "clueless and blind to his situation in life." Now, just because someone is making fun of a bigot doesn't make them either clueless or blind to anything. Not 100% correct.
        2) Explicit: Just because something feels good doesn't make it right. Although this statement is argued in some quarters, I'd say that it's close enough to 100% correct.
        3) Implicit: Homosexuality is wrong. While there may be a case against homosexuality, it isn't presented here. Hence, it isn't clear that it is an obvious truth or "100% correct." It is rather difficult to base one's morality on the bible, given that the god presented therein also, at one point in time, commanded his people to: put to death children that curse their parents; if a father-in-law sleeps with (including rapes) his daughter, to kill both him and the daughter (a potential rape victim); stone a fellow to death for cursing and blaspheming. I could go on and on, but it's obvious that this deity is a moral cripple and basing a morality on his judgements is questionable and sycophantic at best.
    • swicken, on 07/05/2008, -3/+31Just because you think somethings wrong doesn't make it wrong.
      Stop imposing your beliefs on other people. It only makes you look stupid.
      • siszam, on 07/06/2008, -7/+2I guess you would support child molesters and rapists too. Because they don't think what they do is wrong. Your perversion is not more acceptable than theirs.
      • SteelCurtain08, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3Wow. So two consenting adults having sex is the same as someone taking advantage of a child or unwilling victim?

        And how is supporting the rights of two consenting adults not to be oppresed by YOUR flawed moral code the same as supporting child molesters and rapists? How stupid are you?

        Just because you deem something gross or perverted, doesn't mean society does. As was pointed out before, your moral code is seriously flawed, and if your are going to call homosexuality a sin, then wearing woven cloth is a sin, eating crops within the first three harvests is a sin, as well as a hundred other equally retarded sins you have chosen to ignore because the "times have changed."

        It should be a sin to be so stupid.
      • swicken, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4siszam, what you're referring to imposes on another rights and freedoms .When you molest/rape a person you take away their freedom and right to choose who they interact with sexually.
        What gay people do does not impose on anyones rights and freedoms. YOUR view is that is a perversion, and you're free to believe that, however you can't impose upon their freedoms and tell them they're not allowed to do it.
        What makes you a moron is your flawed logic. You failed horribly.
    • enki25, on 07/05/2008, -5/+32Thankfully the modern world has outgrown listening to retarded turnip farmers about what is right or wrong. Go suck a dick JimmySpaza.
    • Jimmerz, on 07/05/2008, -3/+22What is his situation? That he has a sense of humor? That he isn't a knuckle dragging bigot?

      Or are you jumping to the conclusion that because he is making fun of an ***** he must be gay?
    • asus2000, on 07/05/2008, -20/+1The Council on Public Relations was created in 1917 by Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud to control the mass population. Back then women didn't smoke but they used sexuality and the phallic cigarette to empower them and get them to. Now this shift away from families has women working (more slaves, more money to exert their influence and control around the world) and increased the need for instant sexual gratification in men. They make people act irrationally for their gain, and they brainwash the masses.

      Learn about it here: http://www.youtube.com/v/9Kp24ZeHtv4
      People think they are in control of themselves but they aren't. Keep the people satisfied so they won't rise up.
    • BackEnThaWomb, on 07/05/2008, -2/+7Does that count for masturbating?
      • blackjack75, on 07/05/2008, -3/+11If you're a good christian you keep a dead woman's arm handy for this.
    • wolfboy2883, on 07/05/2008, -1/+5Are you a closet ***** Jimmy? Did you experiment at summer bible camp and feel bad about it or something? Why do you hate homosexuals so much? I've told you this before, but you do not heed my words: READ THE GOSPELS! Jesus preaches forgiveness and redemption. Jesus never once condemned gays. No, I don't care about the old testament nor do I care about Paul's letters to the Romans. I am a Christian meaning that I follow CHRIST: who's life's teachings and actions ARE THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL AND VITAL PART OF CHRISTIANITY.

      You are severely misguided my son. I will pray that God will open the eyes of your heart to love and tolerance as God has opened my eyes. Cast aside your eagerness to dispense damnation and surrender your soul to the mercy and wisdom of Jesus Christ. If you want to know why you are wrong in doing this, again I point to the gospel:

      “But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is Merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you.”
      - 6 Luke 35:38

      If you continue to condemn others then you will inevitably doom yourself to the cursed fate you so readily assign to others. Please my son, I implore you to change course and repent before it is too late. God is watching, and God has all the love there is to give to you if you would only cast aside your hate and accept the Lord into your heart.
    • shakeZ, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3i love the way religious people talk to normal people as if we're going to take them seriously
    • DarkReign16, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3And that, Jimmy, is why 90% of digg has you on their block list.
      • SteelCurtain08, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2I can't put him on the block list, he's too ***** funny. And retarded.
  • TimeIsTissue, on 07/05/2008, -18/+8Boner-riffic!
    • VanHuizen, on 07/11/2008, -1/+0Congratulations, you should be a comedian.
  • sophiaperennis, on 07/05/2008, -6/+49Yeah these people are not religious in any spiritual sense, they are plain nuts! They should save themselves!
    • Daniel591992, on 07/05/2008, -4/+14I agree. My religion teacher agreed that being gay, and acting upon it, should not be a sin. He said that there are many great gay people who devote their lives standing up for human rights and he'd like to believe that God would give them a break.
      • dragon76, on 07/05/2008, -2/+25Since homosexuality exists in nature, it's a hard argument to put forth that you need to devote your life to standing up for human rights just to "get a break" from God. Either God doesn't know everything or there is no Hell because why would God knowingly populate Hell?
      • susilou, on 07/05/2008, -3/+2Give them a break? How benevolent.
      • TheTaoOfBill, on 07/05/2008, -15/+8Homosexuality is a sin because sex without procreation in general is a sin. There is nothing that makes homosexuality more sinful than premarital sex.

        As a Christian I do think homosexuality is a sin but I don't think it's a very big deal if you choose to do it just like it's not a big deal if you choose to have sex for pleasure and not for baby making.

        I consider myself in the same sinful boat as homosexuals in that regard lol.

        God does not expect us to be sinless. It's simply not possible. Even this guy holding the sign has his dirty little secrets that God would look down on. But what I think this teacher is saying is that as long as you can counter act your sins with good works and stand for the things Jesus stood for (love your neighbor and don't judge others for their sins) there is no reason God can't forgive this sin any more than any other sin.

        But the bible does have something to say to the people who love to cast stones at others for their sins.

        Matthew 6:14-16
        "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

        If the bible is true and God exists (I know...big if...) these people holding their signs that say homosexuals should burn in hell are going to be met with a surprise when God is just as unforgiving for their sins as they were to other people.

        No matter what your sin is if you show forgiveness and compassion God will show it back when your judgment day comes.

        At least that's what I believe. You might disagree..
      • ZellD, on 07/05/2008, -0/+7The place I'd have a huge disagreement with you is your assumption that homosexuality is synonymous with sex. All your wording is around the idea that is a sexual choice rather than an overall attraction to the same gender.
      • rearlgrant, on 07/05/2008, -0/+11From Tao - "these people holding their signs that say homosexuals should burn in hell are going to be met with a surprise when God is just as unforgiving for their sins as they were to other people."

        Amen
      • TheTaoOfBill, on 07/05/2008, -8/+2ZellD

        That's not what I am saying. Regardless of if it is an act of a natural feeling called love the sin isn't that it's gay. It's not that it's a choice. It's that it's sex without the purpose of procreation that's the sin. It doesn't matter if it's boy boy girl girl or boy girl. If it's sex without procreation it's considered a sin.

        It's more just so that when you have sex it's a commitment thing. And it's a lot easier to not follow through on that commitment to your partner if kids aren't involved. That's the whole aim of why it's a sin in my opinion. It's to keep your sexual partners to a minimum to protect you from STDs.

        Technically even sex with your spouse is a sin according to the bible. This is why nuns and priests in certain Christian sects do not have sex and never get married.

        It's not about attraction or choice. It's about respect for your body.

        It might not be a choice on who you are attracted to (I do think there is a gay gene) but it is a choice of whether you decide to have sex or not. But I look at that choice as no different than a person deciding if they want to become a priest or a nun and never have sex all their life. I don't think God will really hold it against you that much if you decide to have sex without the purpose of procreation whether it is gay or straight sex unless you are a major major slut.

        Do you get what I'm saying?

      • TheTaoOfBill, on 07/05/2008, -6/+3I really think the pope should come out and give priorities to sins. This way minor sins like gay sex don't get blown WAY out of proportion.
      • whatever01, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1* Doing good deeds to counter act sins: grace vs works. I believe the general consensus is that it is by grace and not by works that we are forgiven, even the Vatican now agrees with that.

        * "Technically even sex with your spouse is a sin according to the bible." Or do you mean "may be" a sin? I'm not a bible scholar. Is this why the Shakers didn't procreate? It always seemed odd to me that a religion would call for a great die off.

        * Pope prioritizing sins: Carnal vs Venial sins. But the Pope doesn't speak for all (or even most?) Christians. Many (most?) Christians don't approve of the Pope, actually.


        Just asking. Not trying to start anything.
      • kayala, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Then Bill, why don't you go ahead and not have premarital sex?
      • TheTaoOfBill, on 07/05/2008, -3/+2Whatever...

        There are many sects of Christianity. catholics, who follow the vatican, are going to prioritize worship over works. I disagree fully. I believe it is more important to serve your fellow man than to serve God. And I think Jesus agrees with me as he was constantly having battles with the pharisees over whether it is more important to follow the laws or to help your fellow man and he was always taking the side of his fellow man. For example there is one passage where he gets bitched at by the pharisees for healing someone on the holy sabbath day when you are not supposed to work.

        As for sex in general being a sin. It's not that Jesus or anyone in the bible thinks we should all not have sex. It's that if you want to be a man of God and you want to live the most pure life you can then you shouldn't have sex. It's a lifestyle choice.

        I'm not an expert on the shakers other than I know they shook a lot when they went to church so I don't know what they believed but it is possible there is a sect of Christianity that does not believe in sex period. But I don't think for obvious reasons it would not be a good thing is everyone followed that way of life. It's simply for those who wish to be closest to God. It's not for everyone.
      • TheTaoOfBill, on 07/05/2008, -4/+2Kayala had you read my post you would have seen that I admited that I regularly have sex without the purpose of marriage or procreation and I said my sin is no different than the sin of gay sex. I still believe I am going to heaven because I forgive everyone who seeks forgiveness and the bible says God will respond in kind.

        As far as Christians go I am probably alone in this but I also think this applies to non believers. If you live the life Jesus intended you to live without actually believing in Jesus I think God will let it slide just like any other sin.

        If you are forgiving God will be forgiving in return. That's what the bible says.
      • kayala, on 07/05/2008, -1/+4The Bible can say anything the Bible likes, and it's your prerogative to believe that the Bible is the word of the correct "God". You can live in line with those Biblical principles up to the point where you begin to violate the rights of others. Go ahead, go for it.
        I do wonder, though... "It's that if you want to be a man of God and you want to live the most pure life you can then you shouldn't have sex."
        So you're telling me that "God" gave you a healthy sex drive and then told you to completely ignore one of your most basic biological impulses? Your answer will be something like "It's a test of my faith, I have to prove myself worthy", I'm sure, and that just makes me think that "God" is a lot like a jealous girlfriend. You know, "If you love me, you'll do it!"
        Now, like I said, you're free to have pretty much any sexual morality you like. You're not free, however, to turn that into legislation when that morality is expressly Christian. I heartily encourage you to do whatever it is that you do to please your "God" in the privacy of your own home, on your time. Meanwhile, I will make use of the sex drive that you think your "God" gave me and I will enjoy my sex life. I only wish you would too.
      • chaoswings, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4@TheTaoOfBillTheTaoOfBill

        I hope your being sarcastic if so you forgot your /sarcasm tag.

        "As for sex in general being a sin. It's not that Jesus or anyone in the bible thinks we should all not have sex. It's that if you want to be a man of God and you want to live the most pure life you can then you shouldn't have sex. It's a lifestyle choice."

        So by your logic that means that God would prefer that Humanity cease to exist, since you have to have sex to reproduce. This is not hate towards religion just pointing out a flaw in your logic. I hate how people try to interpret things and go too far and this is an example of it.
      • xanadu2113, on 07/06/2008, -2/+4"Imagine there's no Heaven
        It's easy if you try
        No hell below us
        Above us only sky
        Imagine all the people
        Living for today

        Imagine there's no countries
        It isn't hard to do
        Nothing to kill or die for
        And no religion too
        Imagine all the people
        Living life in peace

        You may say that I'm a dreamer
        But I'm not the only one
        I hope someday you'll join us
        And the world will be as one

        Imagine no possessions
        I wonder if you can
        No need for greed or hunger
        A brotherhood of man
        Imagine all the people
        Sharing all the world

        You may say that I'm a dreamer
        But I'm not the only one
        I hope someday you'll join us
        And the world will live as one"

        John Lennon - Imagine
      • TheTaoOfBill, on 07/06/2008, -3/+1Kayala you seriously fail at reading comprehension.

        I said that having no sex at all is not something that everyone is supposed to do. In fact quite the opposite. God told us to be fruitful.

        However in some sects of Christianity it is required that priests and nuns be of the highest purity and that involves no sex. It's 100% a choice that you do not have to follow. I do not follow it and I have sex with my girlfriend whenever we feel like it. If God sends me to hell on that basis alone then he is not the God I know.

        It's not important how many times you have sex. But if you are like a nun and never have sex in your lifetime it shows an extreme sense of respect for owns body and for God's creation and credit deserves to be given where credit is due.

        It's just for brownie points and it's basically a career choice. No one in the religion is forcing you to not have sex. Unless you are gay...which I think is ***** because gay sex is no different than any other sex not meant for procreation.

      • TheTaoOfBill, on 07/06/2008, -3/+1Chaos. No. I did not say that. It's only something that is encouraged through priesthood and nuns. Those who want their bodies and their soul to be as pure as humanly possible.

        Christianity isn't the only religion to do this with it's priests.
      • kayala, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3"I said that having no sex at all is not something that everyone is supposed to do."
        ...but having sex for the enjoyment of it is sin, amirite? You're contradicting yourself.
        "If God sends me to hell on that basis alone then he is not the God I know."
        So... God doesn't want you to have sex for fun, but you do it anyway, and you don't think he's gonna punish you for it?
        Whatever, I'm done talking to you. Figure out your own theology and then we'll talk.
      • whatever01, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4Tao: "There are many sects of Christianity. catholics, who follow the vatican, are going to prioritize worship over works. I disagree fully. I believe it is more important to serve your fellow man than to serve God."

        Perhaps I wasn't clear. One of Martin Luther's gripes (since accepted by the Vatican) was that it's by God's grace that you are admitted to heaven, not by Your works or Your worship (as a proxy for your faith). God lets us in to God's Heaven, we can't buy or bargain our way in. It's not up to us. It's not a "Let's Make a Deal" situation. It's up to God. That's the basic Catholic teaching now, and it's something that they realized Martin Luther was right about, so I'm guessing it's pretty typical protestant theology, too. Numerically, that would probably account for the bulk of Christians.

        Serving others is extremely important, and I'm not sure what the Vatican's formal teaching on serving others vs serving God. I'm sure it's along the lines of serving others is serving God. There isn't the conflict that you imply. I don't they have a calculus of when it's okay to serve God explicitly versus when you should help your fellow man.

        I'll go with Kayala though, perhaps you shouldn't speak for other religions, and concentrate on your own philosophy?
    • biotch, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2whats the difference?
      • node3, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1The Christian above (sophia) disagrees with the Christian in the picture (fundie jackass), therefore the Christian in the picture is not a True Christian.
      • biotch, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2If by "Christian", you mean "person whos plain nuts".... then yeah
        One can use those terms interchangeably.
    • Stormwern, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Sadly, truely spiritual people are vastly outnumbered by the "super secret club"-religious (Tom Cruise, cults in general) and the "fight the heathens"-religious (bin laden, Rod Parsley, gay bashers etc.). The two overlap a bit, neither have alot of perspective.
    • joegibes, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3I'm a christian and I agree... Christians should show love, not hate.
  • SuperWinner, on 07/05/2008, -6/+277Why do religious people never hold up signs saying the things they like about other people, or something nice like "Hey, we're all saved by jeebus so take it easy and have a few beers"?
    • punkcat, on 07/05/2008, -2/+139its all about feeling better than other people.

      • willief, on 07/05/2008, -19/+32my church gives out free wine every sunday along with a small appetizer of fresh baked bread. It's so good, people stand in line for it.
      • TheWorm, on 07/05/2008, -2/+18Funny, I feel superior by not being one of them.
      • ch33sehead, on 07/05/2008, -2/+7No idea why willief is getting dugg down.
      • noelsusman, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2Yeah same, I got the sarcasm...
      • Andysan, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1It's called narcissism -- you feel good when you make someone else feel bad. It is a certifiable personality disorder.
    • Ramble, on 07/05/2008, -4/+59If they gave out free beers I might be more interested in their message.
      • mossblaser, on 07/05/2008, -1/+9They give out free wine*

        Wine may be undiluted ribena [blackcurrant squash] and comes in 3 ml servings....
      • schrankage, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1or even massage.
    • Sidzilla, on 07/05/2008, -1/+30Probably the best question asked on Digg this year! Maybe Rastafarians are the only ones that have it right.
      • kawaiirobo, on 07/05/2008, -0/+11Best question? Yes. Rasta's getting it right? No, sure the pot smoking is cool and all, but the rabid racism that, albeit based on historical truth, runs rampant in the religion is honestly sick. When ever you hear Rasta's talking about 'Babylon' it's in reference to the old testament Babylonians who enslaved the Jews, but metaphorically means the white man for enslaving the Africans. Basically, if your White, they hate you.
      • lazerflesh, on 07/05/2008, -1/+6Pastafarians are the one true. Long live the Flying Spaghetti Monster !!!
    • dondara, on 07/05/2008, -5/+22Because lost sheep like to listen to assholes who have their own agendas and use their blind faith to mislead them. It's the same way terrorists get kids to strap on bombs or invade other countries to steal their oil.
      • SuperWinner, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1If we're stealing it, why the ***** am I paying $4 bucks a gallon???????

        ????
    • bsmang, on 07/05/2008, -6/+23They do. I see them around - "JESUS LOVES YOU" and similar, which is also scary. I really don't want some guy named Jesus loving me. And especially not if some creepy guy holding a sign wants me to want that.
      • macweirdo42, on 07/05/2008, -1/+29If Jesus really felt that strongly about you, I'd hope he'd have the guts to come up and say it to your face. What is this, middle school?
      • DephexTwin, on 07/05/2008, -0/+18This may be the first time that I have heard someone reject Christianity because they are worried Jesus's love is gay.
      • valrus, on 07/05/2008, -0/+22DEAR MACWEIRDO42:

        DO YOU LIKE ME
        ___ Y ___ N
        CHECK ONE PLEASE

        - JESUS
      • bsmang, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3Lol DephexTwin! I was only joking.. The sexual orientation of Jesus really has nothing to do with why I reject Christianity.
      • Stormwern, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Those people are always really sweet though, they've managed to corner me a few times :)
    • NotOptium, on 07/05/2008, -2/+10The same reason religious people want the 10 Commandments outside of court houses, but not the Beatitudes, even though in Christian tradition those are supposed to take precedence. There's just not enough fire and brimstone, and they're all about loving and respecting one another, which was Jesus' ultimate message.

      Of course, radicals would rather quote Old Testament books that say homosexuality is wrong. They don't care that the 6th Beatitude says that the clean of heart (meaning those whose intentions are pure) will see God. It doesn't jive with their mentality.
    • BackEnThaWomb, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3They need to prove everyone wrong.
    • 808ethan, on 07/05/2008, -0/+9Because if you are happy and well adjusted you don't get religious.

      You must be desperate before you start giving 10% of your income to build marble chapels while people in Africa die everyday.
      • Stormwern, on 07/05/2008, -3/+3As opposed to going to vegas or any of the other million pointless money sinks in our society? Churches are generally very involved in relief aid aswell, not just building churches.
    • bmwboy2844, on 07/05/2008, -1/+5As a Christian, I honestly don't think that's a bad idea. Drinking isn't bad in itself (hell, it even happened in the Bible...) Some churches (Most..) focus too much on telling people what is wrong in their life instead of showing them neighborly LOVE. Where are all the down-to-earth Christians? Honestly, there's only a few. If we can show Jesus in getting together and drinking beer and honestly just having a good time playing video games, why not?
    • codeWorm, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Perhaps a half-and-half approach would do a better job of drawing in their audience. For example, why not try, "Gay Sex Is Sin, But You Throw Such Lovely Parties And Have Magnificent Taste And We'd Hate To Miss Out On All You Have To Offer In Heaven." I bet that would kick off a lot more conversation with passers-by. Do you think that's what they meant, or do you think they really just wanted to demonstrate their own self-assessed moral superiority? I can't tell.
      • Stormwern, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1They think they are at war with evil, it's really quite sad, not to mention scary.
  • fattony89, on 07/05/2008, -22/+17epic win
  • MaceSoul, on 07/05/2008, -9/+11My money is next year the religious guy will have a third sign that says "way to go to hell".

    Freedom of speech on flickr is better than a fight on YouTube, IMHO.
  • Molle7, on 07/05/2008, -3/+124This one is also great: http://www.flickr.com/photos/duanecmoody/175676563 ...
  • Apotheose, on 07/05/2008, -9/+4treat others as you would like to be treated. Isn't that nothing christian? But i think, that are some guys who don't know that we live allready the 21th century.
  • adml_shake, on 07/05/2008, -8/+3Something tells me that camcorder is more likely for when he throws a rock at the cop passing by then he can record the "injustice" the office then inflicts upon him and get famous on the internet.
    • Suricou, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1A likely theory. I frequent the types of sights that people like him will have visited, and a lot of them describe how murderous gays will turn on all those who try to preach and beat them to a pulp. If he is at a pride parade or similar event, he probably has it so he can record the expected *****-hordes.

      Pro-life protesters carry cameras for the same reason - so they can film the attacks by pro-choicers they fully expect.

      Personally, I think it a good idea to carry a camera to *any* protest you intend to be peaceful, regardless of which side you are on... but less of a good idea to carry it so prominantly, unless everyone else has a camera too.
  • GregofJersey, on 07/05/2008, -22/+101Jesus freaks don't seem to understand that Jesus was a hippy. Look at his hair! He walked barefoot everywhere and probably smoked some good stuff back in the day. I don't think ole' JC would care about gay sex.


    My two cents.
    • wyrdness, on 07/05/2008, -2/+24I suspect that you're right and JC didn't care about gay sex. Look in the bible to see what he said about it. Absolutely nothing, not a single word. You'd have thought that if it were such an important issue then he might have mentioned it. But no, it doesn't appear to have been an issue to him. So when then is it the topic that so-called Christians seem to rant about more than any other. Can't they take a leaf out of their own book and STFU about it?
      • GregofJersey, on 07/05/2008, -1/+5Nope. But I love your comment!
      • zephyr42, on 07/05/2008, -1/+6The Bible does refer to it directly... but all the bad stuff about it is in the old testament aka... the part modern Christians ignore. The new testament really doesn't talk about homosexuality *at all* sure you can pull up the book of Romans and it vaguely refers to something like homosexuality, but it never explicitly says it's wrong. Jesus was all about loving fellow humans because we're all the same deep down. I don't see how these people protesting homosexuality justify their condemnation... the new testament *specifically* speaks out against that. This has been a round-about-way of agreeing with you.

        "oh the times they are a-changin..." -Bob Dylan
      • joegibes, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1But it wasn't that important of an issue in Israel at that time... In Rome however, it was buttsecks galore (see Romans 1).
    • Notasheeple, on 07/05/2008, -25/+5You guys are showing your ignorance in the matters of the Bible.
      "Look at His hair"...........seriously? I thought to myself. That is so dumb. You think those pictures are accurate? Consider that the best pics. of Him are from 500 years after His death. Also in the ancient Hebrew world long hair for men was deemed disgraceful.

      "Absolutely nothing. Not a single word." Wow, just wow. What do you know some one who is trying to justify his actions because it's not in the Bible. This is the classic ignorance that has become Americans understanding of the Bible.
      Rev. 22:15 JESUS said: "Outside are the dogs, those who practice magical arts, THE SEXUALLY IMMORAL, the murderers, the idolaters, and EVERYONE WHO PRACTICES FALSEHOOD." Jesus clearly understood that sex is for marriage. So unless you live in Cali. and have been "married" you probably better think hard and study even harder. (or move)

      Please don't go around acting like you have studied the Bible when clearly you have not. Both of your guys' points have been refuted rather easily. If you are simply believing in the "wisdom of men" because it helps you justify your actions then consider this. "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." Just because someone else has told "It's okay" does not mean that it is.

      Let the digging down begin!
      • spectre_25gt, on 07/05/2008, -2/+21The quotes that you reference do absolutely nothing to refute the parent's argument (if you wish to call it that.) Where is "sexually immoral" defined? How does practicing falsehood have anything to do with gay sex? These are your interpretations. Your arguments, sir, are built upon sand.
      • arobicha, on 07/05/2008, -1/+16Normally I'd point out that the particular passage you have decided to use as proof of your claim doesn't talk about homosexuality, it talks about "the sexually immoral". That could be rapists, or pedophiles, or necrophiliacs, or anyone who actually does something offensive involving sex. Falsehoods could mean anything as well, and shouldn't be considered proof of your point.

        But the real issue is that you're under the impression a discussion on morality requires someone to study the bible. People imagine mr. christ in whatever image they like because he's supposed to be a savior of the masses. It's not hard to imagine JC doing any gig you want, smoking pot, standing up for "morality" (specifically whatever yours is supposed to be), plugging for peace, standing up for [race, religion, other stupid segregation], inciting war between factions, etc...

        Regarding your last "real" statement: "Just because someone else has told [you] 'It's ok'[,] does not mean that it is." You're absolutely right. You should question everything you're told. In fact, your life would be ill spent if you spent all your time standing up for something you never critically analyzed. I advise you to read up on some real science, maybe take some classes to make sure you truly understand the principles, and start re-evaluating your religion. It would be good for you, and the objectivity would do wonders on developing a working, and dynamic moral code of your own.

        PS - I dugg you down because I disagreed with your message; unless I got through, I expect the same from you. It's the purpose of the digg counter.
      • Notasheeple, on 07/05/2008, -12/+1Got through with what? Yes sexually immoral does mean all those things as well. It also includes unmarried heterosexuals and homosexuals. Practicing falsehood means those who purposely, knowingly do the opposite to the teachings in the Bible. Shouldn't be considered proof? Look, the guy said Jesus didn't say anything about the subject. I beg to differ and have shown you why. Not based on my own teachings but those of Jesus Himself. So if you want to argue with Him, be my guest. But to say that should not be considered proof falls into the category of itching ears. You tell yourself that it's okay because you don't want to face the facts. You want to be okay with everything you do so you can say"I'm a good person." And that may be true, but it does not mean that you do no wrong.

        These guys are the ones who brought up the Bible, not me. If they think they can spout off all kinds of falsehoods based on their lack of understanding, and then expect people to believe them, well, they are wrong.

        I love how you assume I have never "critically analyzed." How do assume that? Why? Because it's not your "professor's" views? Your last paragraph has so much junk in it I could write an entire essay on how backward your thinking truly is. Maybe your the one who needs to "critically analyze." It would be time well spent in developing a moral code of your own.

        But thanks for responding instead of just digging me down like most uninformed cowards.
      • aookay, on 07/05/2008, -1/+6Do you eat shellfish?

        That's a sin too. Gay men having sex while eating crabs, blasphemy!
      • arobicha, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3While it is true that homosexuality could be portrayed as sexually immoral, I don't think there's enough evidence in the passage you provided to conclude that your argument is correct. You could have hauled up and passage where JESUS said sex with someone of the same gender = wrong, but you showed me a piece that doesn't explicitly say that. If I recall properly, there are a few choice things about homosexuality in the bible (specifically in the old testament), but to the best of my recollection homosexuality is (relatively) untouched in the new testament. (Mind you it's been over 10 years since the last time I've read the bible)

        I suppose you're entitled to correct any misgivings people have about the bible... but I doubt you've truly studied the bible. I know a reasonable amount about quite a few things, but I wouldn't consider myself an expert in any of them by a long shot... Christianity is one of those subjects. I knew enough about it in the past, now I just wish I could forget it.

        I assume you've never critically analyzed your religion because you're satisfied with your view of the world, and you're quoting revelations... Your religion requires something called "faith". Faith is the rationalization of an argument or belief based on evidence which is either fallacious, or just not present. You didn't come to the logical conclusion that your religion merits faith, your faith brought you to the conclusion that your religion is logical. There are plenty of things in the bible which don't require faith to believe, but they also don't require the presence of a god. As for the rest, they are either unphysical (and require a god) or are outright lies... Considering people make up stories all the time, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter.

        As for my "professor's views", in the 5 years I've been a student my professors and I agree that religion is something best not talked about in the sciences. It has no place there. We're interested in what we can know absolutely, and that means being selective about what you describe. I'll never be able to touch the existence of a "god", but I can tell you your bible has been lying to you with some certainty. You wouldn't consider the matrix to be real, why would you give a 6000 year old collection of stories any more credit?
      • Notasheeple, on 07/05/2008, -6/+1This is good, I really do appreciate the time you are taking to write.
        I'll say it again. Yes sexually immoral does mean all those things as well. It also includes unmarried heterosexuals and homosexuals.

        You need to stop with judging me about truly studying the Bible. In fact may times in "church" I am considered the radical. someone who questions the status quo. Someone who you have to prove it to before I will believe it. I never believe anything anyone tells me. Ever. Only through study and self examination do I feel satisfied in my knowledge. I'll give you an example. For a long time now people have said that "hell is a place where you will be tormented forever" in my own study however I have come to think that annihilationism is probably more accurate. Now, this has caused major riffs in my family because they are all staunch conservative Christians and if you question what they believe then you are Satan himself. And while this has been a struggle, I will never be live them simply because "i told you so." So can we please just stop that part of the discussion? If you want me to take some sort of "religious" test them fine. But let's just drop that mmk.

        Now back to your response. Let's say someone decides to kill a woman for whatever reason. The Bible says "thou shall not kill" right? So if I say nowhere in the Bible does it say thou shall not kill women, does that mean that my sin is justified because woman was not mentioned in the passage?

        Look at what Jesus said in Lk. 12:54-7 54He said to the crowd: "When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, 'It's going to rain,' and it does. 55And when the south wind blows, you say, 'It's going to be hot,' and it is. 56Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don't know how to interpret this present time?
        57"Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?

        What is he saying here? Look at how smart you people are. you can figure out the weather, you know about science, you fools,you hypocrites. Why is it so hard for you to figure out what is wrong or right?

        You see this is not hard at all. If you use half of the wisdom you have been given then this is very clear.(In terms of Biblical study) Only when man's desires overcome him, does this become difficult to understand.

        Please elaborate on how the Bible has lied to me.
      • whatever01, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2Shoot, you don't even have to go on to eating shellfish to find immorality. Your 50-50 cotton poly blend T-shirt will do the trick!

        BTW, I'm digging you down, NOTASHEEPLE for calling people who digg you down without getting into a pointless argument (since neither side will prevail, it's pointless) with you. HTH.
      • arobicha, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Alright, I'll lay off the assumptions for now. I have a history with religious groups shunning me, and atheism. I'm not trying to be insensitive, I'm just saying there might be a time when you have to be a little less forgiving with certain interpretations of the bible in order to come to terms with yourself and the world around you. We were getting nowhere with that and the discussion of referencing anyway... Religious debate is a penchant of mine, I always enjoy a discussion with someone who opposes my point of view.

        The bible says "thou shalt not kill", that includes women, men, children, etc... Killing is the act of ending life. Sexually amoral acts however is undefined in this case, we need a reference point. What IS sexually amoral? Who defines it? Where is it defined? Did Jesus include homosexuality in that definition, and if so, where did he define it. If you can show me a passage where Jesus himself says "Homosexuality is immoral", then I'll back off.

        So the gospel of Luke then; One could argue that like 57 is telling people to take a dynamic moral stance... Don't rely on written rules, just consider the evidence and come to a conclusion. I believe he was saying that verse in response to the concept that "morality cannot be quantified". And while it cannot, it's also not difficult to come to ethical decisions on the spot given proper consideration. Even your interpretation implies that, and that conclusion would essentially put the strict moral code of the bible on the back burner for careful deliberation. You don't need the bible, you need compassion and a brain.

        Lying may be a bit harsh, but "telling tales" is definitely in order. The walking on water, water into wine, parting of the red sea, the staff into a snake, etc... These are all examples of things which are not physically possible as the stories are told. The chemical composition of water lacks the proper elements to spontaneously re-arrange itself into wine. The energy required to reform the proteins in a wooden stick into that of a snake, and then bring it to life are too high to occur randomly in nature. The buoyancy of the human body is too low to float flat-footed entirely above water. Don't even get me started on Noah's ark, and the repercussions of Adam and Eve being the source of all human genetic materials is... troubling... at best. These are all things which are the nitpicker's guide to tearing apart the credibility of religion... If those things can never happen, then they must be metaphors. If they are metaphors, then the entire bible cannot be taken at word. If the entire bible cannot be taken at word, then what's its purpose? To get us to think critically? Arguably not, by current observations of modern religion.
      • 201487, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1I really appreciate the discussion here. As an atheist myself I've tried exploring many different beliefs in search of something more, waiting for something to click in my head. The bible is written by man, a second-hand account of what happened. Man is flawed. From what I've seen, the bible guides people, guides them through life even 'til the casket. This is way of life for some people, not me. I feel that I don't need to beleive in a higher power or a religion created by others to be fair, happy, and do the right thing. This is the first comment I've written on digg in the 2 years I've been coming here.
      • Notasheeple, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1arobicha and 201487. I have been gone all day so I wanted you guys to know that I have not dug you down. In fact arobicha that last comment was a half way decent post. (minus the last paragraph) Because God can do anything He wants to. And good on 'ya 201487 for getting involved.

        I guess this is how it all boils down to me.
        In 1 Cor. 6 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
        12"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."[b] 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
        18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

        While this is not Jesus talking, it is a lesson from someone who was there. Someone who followed Jesus' teachings and actually tried to live them by his example and is far more than "qualified" to speak on such matters. To be an apostle is indeed a great honor and commitment.

        So, arobicha, to me sexually immoral is sexual acts between anyone who is not married. I have been "sexually immoral" at times in my life. But I don't go around trying to make everyone believe what I say is the truth, just so I can justify it and rally others around me to make me feel good about myself. These are the kinds of things Jesus taught Paul not to do.

        Paul said in Eph. 5:3-6 3
        But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient.

        "do not be deceived" is mentioned twice in these two passages. Do you think that Paul knew this topic would a hotpoint? I wonder if he would teach something contrary to the teachings of Jesus?

        One last point. If indeed people do not care about the Bible and it's teachings, then why are they so easily offended by it? It seems to me that people want to be happy with any and everything that they do because being told you are wrong is never any fun in any subject.

        I actually have friends that were at one time gay. So to all who say I am judging, you are wrong. In fact where in these posts have any of you gotten that notion? Just because I believe that homosexuality is wrong does not mean I hate anyone who is.

        "and that is what some of you were" Including myself. (Not a "homosexual offender" but "sexually immoral")

        It's been a good discussion. I wish more people had the nerve to reply with logical arguments rather than the normal "homophobe, Jesus freak, non-science believing" type of responses that are all to common in the digg community. So for that arobicha, TY!
      • arobicha, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2@ (what I assume is a serial number) 201487:

        Don't rush yourself. There is a great deal of beauty in the world that doesn't require faith, or therapy to appreciate. Some people find art pleasing, others enjoy the precise formulas that make up the standard model. Find something that you simply can't deny, and hold on to it. Cheers.
    • thundacracka, on 07/05/2008, -18/+10Wow. Your ignorance is impressive. The Bible does clearly and consistently tell us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Whether you believe the Bible or not is completely up to you, but don't project your two cents onto something where it is already clearly defined.
      • spectre_25gt, on 07/05/2008, -8/+21The word "bible" and phrase "clearly defined" should not go in the same sentence.
      • ParanoydAndroid, on 07/05/2008, -3/+17The laws of Moses don't apply to Christians, so the old testament prohibitions against homosexual sex don't apply in the same way that the prohibitions against eating shellfish and cutting the corner of your beard don't matter. As far as Romans, etc ... goes- I don't have the time or inclination to respond to each biblical quote line-by-line but suffice it to say that generally speaking the original Hebrew was best translated as speaking against male prostitution, not homosexual sex. The currently accepted translation was originally a political move, that ended up entering into accepted "fact."

        There's plenty of sites online that document this.
      • kineticarl, on 07/05/2008, -1/+18The Bible also allows for certain other actions which we find morally reprehensible today. So how do you decide which Bible-based values to follow or not follow?
      • nonfatmilk, on 07/05/2008, -0/+11The bible can be interpreted in 238749278349 ways
      • jaej, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2lolz
        i believe wyrdness is correct. jesus never condemned homosexuality during his teaching. read your own damn book silly
      • wyrdness, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2Thank you for proving my point. I said that there is no mention in the bible of Jesus saying anything about homosexuality. You've countered with four quotes - two are from the Old Testament, written hundreds of years before he was born, and the other two were from the letters of Paul, written many years after Jesus's death by a man who never met him.

        So again, if homosexuality is such an important issue for Christians, why did Jesus never even mention it in his teachings?

        Game over, insert coin.
    • Shawn4168, on 07/05/2008, -1/+9How do you have any idea what Jesus's hair looked like?
    • GregofJersey, on 07/05/2008, -1/+6Wow, the pro-Jesus people attacked me because I commented on his hair. Guess I'm done for the day...

      Really? I follow Jesus but I think the Bible is a load of horse ***** and I think organized religion is even more annoying than hearing a pre-teenage girl bitch about her boyfriend dumping her. Jesus advocated peace, so did Gandhi, so do I. If JC were alive today, I'd pay big money to roll one with him. I wouldn't sit around and quote some damn book or argue religion. Jesus was a man, not someone who walked around holding a sign saying "don't have butt sex." He was pro-peace. Do you honestly think that holding a sign saying a gay relationship is going against Jesus or God? No, that's creates arrogance and annoying Christians who FIGHT to ban gay relations.

      Once again, wasn't Jesus pro-peace? Albeit, hippy?

      Support love, equal rights, Jesus (if you wish), but don't support angry people saying gay-sex is wrong. That's just arrogant.

      PS. I love Digg.
      • mardybum, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Just to be the devil's advocate, Jesus did say, "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

        Then again he also said, "I did not come to be served, but to serve" and "in me there is no condemnation" and "love others as yourself" oh and last but not least "do not judge others lest you be judged" which these people seem to have forgotten.
    • alphaterminus, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1Jesus was a Hippie and the statements attributed to him are noble and admirable. Paul, however, ***** up the canon with his bigotry and phobias. I think the "thorn in his side" was a dildo in his ass, as the only people who write or teach like him are former practitioners of the stuff they preach against, but still long to do.
    • schroderr224, on 07/05/2008, -1/+4Clearly JC partied. I mean he turned water into wine - in the desert! What a nut!
      • Issius, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2He could have turned grass into weed and flour into coke
    • WiLdRiCe, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1do u have any idea what Christ actually taught?
  • vibrate, on 07/05/2008, -51/+3all yiy digg morans are gin to hell, jeusus loves us, but nt yiu. how does it feel to be godless+? i poty you all, your going to hell and god hates yoi
    • jakethelake, on 07/05/2008, -0/+19Pardon?
    • ShitStainedBall, on 07/05/2008, -1/+11Oh no! The flying spaghetti monster is angry at me! NOOOOOOOOOO!
      • digitalpencil, on 07/05/2008, -0/+7don't mock the FSM.. he will strike you down with his noodley appendages
    • enki25, on 07/05/2008, -0/+9Very authentic retardese accent you got going on there pardner.
    • stevene, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3What does "godless+?" equal?

      Also, you said that you poty all of us. That sounds dirty.
    • maadmonkey, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Judging by this guys other comments i think he might be joking.
    • mardybum, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1Someone needs to upgrade their sarcasm detector...
  • mediaspree, on 07/05/2008, -3/+37Being sinsational is sacrilicious...mmmmmmm...sacrilicious
    • frieddonuts, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1I believe that you just invented my new favorite word, sir.
  • errorunknown, on 07/05/2008, -4/+18"duanemoodydotcom Pro User says:

    Holy *****! Almost 20k views; most of them today!! WTF? "
  • rootsm3, on 07/05/2008, -3/+6That sign guy totally took it.
  • dabura, on 07/05/2008, -17/+2I'd love to see female ***** sex....
  • Krysis, on 07/05/2008, -13/+1Reminds me of the Maggot punks.

    http://www.maggotpunks.com
  • mike7899, on 07/05/2008, -16/+3digg is a sausage fest
    • thevoiceless, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Actually, I'm a vegetarian.
      • acetv, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3When was the last time you tossed a salad?
  • NightRiderkami, on 07/05/2008, -3/+62"What I found interesting, is that the guy holding the signs not only looks like a total bear daddy..."

    WTF is a bear daddy?
    • reechme, on 07/05/2008, -0/+61He means, the bloke looks like a hairy gay gentleman ;)
    • fessla, on 07/05/2008, -1/+7yeah, i also was completely clueless.
    • Suricou, on 07/05/2008, -1/+16There are two steriotypes for homosexuals. The big, hairy, manly butch (Think 'prison gay' or 'biker gay') and the effeminate, weak man with great fashion sense. Dispite being polar opposites, the two steriotypes coexist happily. The bear is a term for one of the former classifications.
      • sithie, on 07/05/2008, -2/+3There are a LOT more than 2 stereotypes. Never been to a gay bar, I assume?
      • whatever01, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1He said two stereotypes, not ONLY two stereotypes. But, yeah, I had to read that twice.
      • Lunchbox37, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1The more you know...

        /shooting star
    • Linzee82, on 07/05/2008, -0/+6It's a reference to a certain 'type' of homosexual male. Think grizzly bear.
    • danthepiercer, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Think grizzly Adams...
    • ParanoydAndroid, on 07/05/2008, -1/+4Think Bear Grylls... Mmmmm
    • blackjack75, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3A bear-daddy is probably someone who looks like Colbert's father.
    • bunki8, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_community
  • JointVenture, on 07/05/2008, -19/+6Those sign carrying religious nuts are now Obama's people with his NEW spin support of Faith Based charities.
    • Hypomanic, on 07/05/2008, -0/+8I see what you did there.

      Here let me help you: Hillary lost. Paul dropped out. Barr has no chance. McCain will blow up the world.
  • DiggerUpper, on 07/05/2008, -25/+3Gay...literally
  • bigsteve3OOO, on 07/05/2008, -29/+2nice to see the gheys having a sense of humor. most of the time I find they are too serious about their gheyness. most of us don't care what they do we just don't like the constant lecturing and guilt trips. so I say good for you ghey guy enjoy your gheyness and have fun.
    • geodebug, on 07/05/2008, -1/+25You afraid that if you spell it correctly you'll come down with a case of the gays yourself?
      • bigsteve3OOO, on 07/05/2008, -17/+2nope I spell it that way because I think it is funny I was caught up in the moment of good natured ghey humor. A straight guy embracing the humorous side of the ghey community if you will.
      • kawaiirobo, on 07/05/2008, -1/+17you thought spelling gay 'ghey' multiple times was Funny? Are you also 13?
      • bigsteve3OOO, on 07/05/2008, -12/+1yes i did didn't you? I also thought the ghey guys sign was funny. did you?
    • ssn697, on 07/05/2008, -0/+10All my years in the Bay Area, never lectured once by gays.

      Was your "lecture" before, during, or after you gave him a blowjob?
  • defektiv, on 07/05/2008, -14/+11I think I'd just stand there quietly with a sign that read, "Look, I'm standing with Americas greatest problem!"
  • Zenls, on 07/05/2008, -22/+5photoshop.
  • heartsblood, on 07/05/2008, -16/+11I didn't ask anybody to die for my 'sins'. If you think what i'm doing is worth dying for then by all means don't let me stop you. Just don't expect me to change my ways once you're long gone.
  • defektiv, on 07/05/2008, -16/+3got an even better one. stand there facing the intolerant idiots with a sign that reads, "I show up at places where I'm outnumbered and not wanted to prove what an idiot I am."
    • DarkReign16, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1I assume you're speaking in the third person?
  • spankaccount, on 07/05/2008, -8/+2This also applies to deranged anti-war nuts with BDS.
  • Palaceguard, on 07/05/2008, -2/+4I just ignore them. I don't follow their religion
  • Sharky35, on 07/05/2008, -4/+11I guess he's a bottom.
  • eth3l, on 07/05/2008, -16/+2How do you handle sign carrying liberal nuts?
    • azimir, on 07/05/2008, -1/+4You tell them to get back in their free speech zone.

      How anyone came up with that idea and name.......
    • danthepiercer, on 07/05/2008, -1/+4"How do you handle sign carrying liberal nuts?"

      well big boy...when this liberal is carrying a sign, i prefer my nuts to be handled with the utmost care and affection...none of that butch rough play for this girl!
      • eth3l, on 07/05/2008, -5/+1So it important to "handle religious nuts" but when someone DAAAAAARES to counter a liberal nut its HANDS OFF!

        http://protestwarrior.com/signs.php?thumb=1
      • whatever01, on 07/05/2008, -0/+6Actually, I think he was playing off the word "nuts" as a euphemism for testicles. Since your question could be interpreted as "How do you fondle the testicles of a sign-carrying liberal?" as well as "How does one deal with a sign-carrying crazy person?"
        HTH
  • mwaleed86, on 07/05/2008, -11/+3GAYS!...LOL!!
  • muleskinner, on 07/05/2008, -2/+37Heres a link to the nutjobs website.
    http://homosexissin.net/

    I do wonder some times, what kind of person feels it necessary to push their beliefs onto others this much.
    I can definitely understand it if people personally feel that "***** sex is sin", but what gives these people the right to abuse others with with their religion?
    If these "christians" feel that they have the right to protest at gay events, because *****'s are sinners of course, then shouldn't they protest at every religious event that is not directly in praise of their J-man? Certainly anyone who prays to any other God other than the J-man, is also sinning, right?

    I almost wish that there really was a rapture coming, just so everyone could laugh at these ***** for not getting into the heaven that they yell at everyone else about.
    • kawaiirobo, on 07/05/2008, -3/+1the site is retarded, but he gets props for referencing a Soderbergh film.
    • talkingwires, on 07/05/2008, -0/+16"Homosexuals fellate almost all of their sexual contacts (and ingest semen from about half of these). Semen contains many of the germs carried in the blood. Because of this, gays who practice oral sex verge on consuming raw human blood, with all its medicalrisks."

      I don't think this guy's had a blowjob in his entire life.
      • Quistie, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2I took a peak at the website too and saw this quote. I couldn't believe what I had just read.
      • BrewBeau, on 07/05/2008, -0/+5He sure has thought in some great detail about sexual acts he's disgusted by.
      • lisaawesome, on 07/05/2008, -0/+6What about the non gay head givers? I find it interesting he mentions an act that both gay guys and straight women do but completely ignores the act within a heterosexual context. So is the semen somehow not "tainted" as he implies when it's swallowed by a good christian wife?
      • talkingwires, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Good Christian wives don't give head. *cues music*

        "Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good!"
    • spectre_25gt, on 07/05/2008, -0/+6He believes he's saving the world one day at a time. One of the standard parts of Christianity is that you need to go out and spread the word to save others. I'm sure he believes that being homosexual is purely a choice and that they've chosen to be in league with the devil. They're lost souls to him, or maybe worse. His job is to let people see that, especially now when homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted every day.
      • kawaiirobo, on 07/05/2008, -0/+8he can believe whatever he wants, he just doesn't need to be a dick about it.
      • talkingwires, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1You comment is one of the more insight ones I've read in this thread. Yeah, most people here don't agree with his beliefs or the way he chooses to express them. But unlike most Christians, as well as most of the US population, he's actually doing something to express them. Instead of, I don't know, posting on Digg or something.

        Of course, this is coming from a guy who as a teen protested a speech by Billy Graham's son by wearing a shirt with an arrow pointing at his crotch and a caption stating that "Jesus Touched Me", while blasting a Dead Kennedys tape from a boombox. So take my remarks with a grain of salt.
  • DopplerDuck, on 07/05/2008, -4/+1Brilliant!
  • Axemantitan, on 07/05/2008, -5/+147Matthew 7:1

    "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

    Did these religious nuts decide to conveniently skip that verse?
    • macweirdo42, on 07/05/2008, -9/+44Very, very few of them have actually read or understood anything of that wonderful book of fairy stories they're always thumping.
      • digitalpencil, on 07/05/2008, -2/+7TBF, very few of them can actually read..
      • chas25stevens, on 07/05/2008, -9/+3The book is not just fairy stories.
    • danthepiercer, on 07/05/2008, -3/+25Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."
      ...that was the verse they read.
      and there are plenty more that are equally hateful and ignorant.

      lets not sugar coat religion anymore.
      • hakkola, on 07/05/2008, -6/+13Old testament, not new. HUGE difference. Let's not comment on what we don't understand anymore.

        That would be a valid argument against Judaism or Islam, not christianity.
      • danthepiercer, on 07/05/2008, -2/+7the bible is supposedly the word of god! the christian religion is based SOLELY on this book! (dont get me wrong...islam and judaism are equally ***** up.)

        should we really lower ourselves to the level of 'moderate christians' and debate whether or not the bible promotes all that it does...slavery, murder, rape, etc?
        come on now.

        if youre a follower of this religion, then i certainly understand why you would want to separate the two parts. the NT is so much more warm and fuzzy than the OT.


        Lets not assume that because i loathe your ridiculous religion that i dont understand it.


      • chas25stevens, on 07/05/2008, -5/+0Your so right religous people base their hole life "Solely"on that book.
        Religous people need help.
        If you're religous get help..
        If you base your life around religon then you surely will never under stands Gods love for everyone.
        Its not a religon its a reliationship with Jesus, and if more people had that relationship more there would be no need for this digg...
      • hakkola, on 07/05/2008, -2/+4Again Dan, you're showing your lack of understanding. The New Testament is a change in ways, not an addition.

        Put simply, it isn't a sequel, it is more of a rewrite.
      • karel747, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Except Jesus explicitly stated that his teachings and his purpose was not to replace the old teachings (i.e., Old Testament).

        Also: "Old testament, not new. HUGE difference." - I think that message need to be spread a little more, as a lot of Christians aren't quite getting it.
    • vspazv, on 07/05/2008, -0/+25They also skip this one:

      Leviticus 11:7
      "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven-footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you."

      Mmm... bacon.
      • MidnightRIder77, on 07/05/2008, -0/+8God gives every man this unresistible urge to eat bacon then tells us not to. ***** that. If you want to play mind games with me I'll just eat the bacon.
      • joegibes, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1yay quotes out of context
    • arkan, on 07/05/2008, -3/+14Thank you for further quoting the bible out of context, as almost everyone who pulls out this quote does. If you read just one line further it reads, "for in the same way you judge others, you will be judged." What it is saying is that we must judge people in righteousness. Furthermore, John 7:24 says "Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly."

      I'm not standing up for the guy - I think people like him completely miss the message of love which is central to the gospel. Yes, homosexuality is clearly a sin, but that doesn't mean we get to treat them like subhumans or anything. My only point is that if you are going to quote the bible, do so in context instead of treating it like a fortune cookie.
    • ssn697, on 07/05/2008, -3/+7They skip EVERY verse that talks about a loving and compassionate God, and skip straight to "This all powerful, all knowing God is so petty, he is just WAITING for us peon humans to do something bad, so we can be smited and sent to hell!"
      • danthepiercer, on 07/05/2008, -1/+4uhhh...thats because all that death, destruction, hellfire and brimstone, murder and rape tend to outweigh the borrowed idea of the golden rule.
      • Notasheeple, on 07/05/2008, -3/+2You were obviously told that and did not figure that out for yourself.
    • spectre_25gt, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3That could be interpreted in a couple of ways, as well. Personally, I believe it to mean that you need to watch your actions. If you do something that you would condemn, accept that you have done wrong and be ready to take some hell for it.

      There are certain things that are pretty universally agreed upon as being wrong. Murder, for instance, would fit into that category. Should we not judge those that commit murder? Or drug abuse... Parents tell their kids not to hang out with people that abuse drugs. That's judgment and it's important to our daily lives.

      Punishment is what we need to avoid if at all possible. Someone commits murder? Lock them up, but do so to protect those that might suffer from them, not as revenge.
    • blackjack75, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3.. or maybe eventually, we should stop interpreting this and just treat it like what it is: a set of rules for people living at the time of the freaking Roman Empire (second testament) or earlier.
    • mogdor, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1They must not be into Metallica
    • lazerflesh, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Oh, we could quote biblical hypocrisy all day.
  • BrandNewAtheist, on 07/05/2008, -14/+28Their churches teach them this garbage. When you understand that God is your imaginary friend you realize that all that bible crap is made up.

    There is no such thing as SIN, there is no such thing as Jesus and their is no such thing as God.
    • heartsblood, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2*****
    • TheKeithD, on 07/05/2008, -0/+7However, there is such a thing as correct spelling.
      What baffles me is that you got "there" right the first two times, and then you went and spelled it incorrectly the final time as "their". How in the hell did you do that, man?
  • lucutus, on 07/05/2008, -2/+30Took me all of 4 minutes searching for the deffinition of "Sational" to get this joke. Man I feel dumb.
  • Anonchrist, on 07/05/2008, -3/+10Surprise butt-sex... He never saw it coming.
  • Jingoism, on 07/05/2008, -2/+7I love Jesus, but in a totally not gay way. Like if Jesus, was like "DIOS MIO! Su chorizo esta tan grande!" and he has, but i think he was drunk! I would be like totally not interested, but I would be polite, and say "Gracias, Mi Amigo!"
    • Cornfedhusker, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Que?
    • blackjack75, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1How come your Jesus speaks like Bernardo the deaf partner of Zorro would have spoken, if he could speak?
      • whatever01, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1sorry, I don't get the reference. was he deaf, or mute, or both?
  • michael43, on 07/05/2008, -17/+48If you believe the word of God, you know homosexuality is a sin. You may not want it to be, you may still engage in it, but it is against God's wishes. On the other hand, persecuting and hating these people is also a sin, as Jesus taught to only hate the sin, but never the sinner, (I know that's not a direct quote, but it's what I gleamed from studying his teachings). It doesn't hurt me if you are a homosexual, I think you're wrong and I am sad that you are going down that road, but I don't' hate you for it. If that were the case, I'd have to hate everybody, because everyone of us, bar none, are guilty of something. It irritates me when people say the Bible doesn't condemn it though, because it is very plain.
    Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." That being said, think about this verse: Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Ok, start digging me down, for there is no surer way do ensure you are voted down than to quote the Bible. That's a shame.
    • cave, on 07/05/2008, -21/+7Shut up, freak.
    • Hypomanic, on 07/05/2008, -7/+14But what if God made that person gay and they can't change roads.
      • Notasheeple, on 07/05/2008, -15/+1How can God make you gay? 1 Cor. 6:7-9 .........homosexual offenders..............such were some of you. You can change if you want to.
      • Bennessy, on 07/05/2008, -2/+8Science has proven Homosexuality isn't a choice.
      • Notasheeple, on 07/05/2008, -10/+1Really? because I thought that the human genome project found that indeed there was no gay gene. So where is this proof that you have? Can you provide it? Or will you just continue to spout off all the things you have heard around the water cooler during your lunch break. Don't sit there and say science blah blah blah and then show no science. Only idiots will believe such nonsense.
      • Hypomanic, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2I don't need to give you proof. I know myself.
      • Gracenotes, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2Notasheeple: genes aren't 1-on-1 when it comes to function, you know. A gene in a gay guy could be inactive in a straight guy, or it could have a different epigenetic switch (and therefore intron splicing would yield two *different* functional proteins). The epigenome isn't yet fully understood.
      • joegibes, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2"Science has proven..."
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words

        Where is your evidence?
      • Gracenotes, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1joegibes: although it is incorrect to say that science can prove or disprove something (it can only confirm or reject, and I'm aware Bennessy said it first), here are some studies that may serve as food for thought:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/science/09cnd-sm ... Sexual orientation here is found to be physiological, not behavioral. The former cannot be changed. And, a more recent study: http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Brains_of_Homosexua ...

        An evolutionary basis for homosexuality, that of increased fertility of female relatives: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,368541,00.html

        See also this highly technical paper (warning: large PDF), http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/%7Elchang/material/Evol ... , which provides a social basis for homosexuality (in addition to already-existing "gay uncle" idea).

        I doubt there is any _absolute_ proof either way. But I'll take scientific studies over unvetted and disproven psychology models any day...
      • whatever01, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1There's a huge difference between mapping the human genome, mapping all functional elements of the genome, and understanding what each base pair means. There used to be a concept of "junk DNA" DNA that wasn't used in the creation of RNA, ergo, it was believed by many, to be useless. Yet it appears that it may have some regulatory functions. Some "junk DNA" is shared between fairly different species - humans and horses for instance - that indicates it's quite old and it has been conserved for some reason in both evolutionary lines.

        In other words, your comment that the Human Genome project showed there was no gay gene is massively oversimplified. You've been mislead by your sources, probably the media.

        Further, it could be a combination of genes. Or, it could be a combination of genes acting in cooperation with an environmental condition outside the control of the individual. There was a fairly recent suggestion that there was a correlation to a fairly high amount of testosterone during gestation. In such a case, there would be no "gay gene" but it would still be of no choice to the individual -- and a real bitch to deconvolute the data.
    • PostedOval, on 07/05/2008, -3/+25I dugg you up, not because I agree with you (I don't)...but at least you were thoughtful in your response and I respect your right to have an opinion. If more Christians behaved the way you do, we could probably have more intelligent conversations about topics like this.
      • asus2000, on 07/05/2008, -1/+6Dugg for the irony.
      • paulmer2003, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3What do you mean, you don't agree with him? His post is solid. If you believe in God, you believe in the word of God (the Bible). The bible specifically states homosexuality as an abdomination, as cited. That's all he was saying.
    • Sagard, on 07/05/2008, -3/+8I love how people bandy about the quote "Hate the Sin, but Love the Sinner" with regard to Christianity. It's really funny to me, as I know that the original author of that quote was none other than Mahatma Gandhi, who was .... wait for it ... a Hindu! Yes, that polytheistic, believing-in-false-idols, pagan religion!

      Now, if churches can incorporate the teachings of a guy who (apparently) is going straight to hell for the terrible deed of believing in other gods, than can certainly come to terms and accept some man-on-man loving, especially considering the extent to which they partake in it.
      • bogdan77, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2Quote from the Bible:

        Show mercy to still others, but do so with great caution, hating the sins that contaminate their lives. (Jude 1:23b from the New Living Translation).

        The Message (a paraphrased translation) says it like this:
        Be tender with sinners, but not soft on sin. The sin itself stinks to high heaven. (Jude 1:23)
    • danthepiercer, on 07/05/2008, -7/+9"...for there is no surer way do ensure you are voted down than to quote the Bible."

      true.
      but this is a good thing.
      in so many situations we are forced to humor your delusions and fairy tales.
      i am glad to see that so many diggers are intolerant of your myths, it gives me hope that some day intelligent people everywhere will laugh at your stupidity, rather than ride that bandwagon into the next holy war.

      • ZellD, on 07/05/2008, -2/+4While I don't approve his message at all, I think many diggers are terribly intolerant to religion and that's just as bad.

        I have no problem with atheism. I just have a problem with ignorant and spiteful atheists. Places like China harbor terrible religious persecution especially if you look back to the 'cultural revolution'. Turkey's laicite is causing huge issues as well with moves to ban political parties because of their religious views.

        Please don't be an ignorant atheist.
      • rhapsodisiac, on 07/05/2008, -0/+5I hope you aren't equating "I don't want to see any more of this fairy-tales-are-true crap, dugg down," with "ignorant atheism." Educated people have plenty of reasons to digg-down religious comments.
      • danthepiercer, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2being intolerant of ridiculous fairy tales and subscribing to ridiculous fairy tales are not equal at all, good or bad.
        why must we ignore logic and reason when talking about religion?
        are we going to be politically correct now and say that because someone is free to believe what they want that we should respect those beliefs regardless of how truly ludicrous they happen to be?!
        ***** that.
        yes china and turkey are pretty ***** up. but those are examples of a govt outlawing religion. i am talking about thinking rationally and refusing to tolerate myths that are no more credible that those of the flying spagetti monster!

        why cant we ever have a discussion where it isnt necessary to use his pastaness to make a point?

      • ZellD, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2The person said quoting the bible is a sure way to get dugg down (regardless of content) and dan followed this by saying that is a good thing. I take exception to the blind dismissal of religion. There are many people who hold religions in high regard not because of historical or scientific accuracy but because of the inherent wisdom in them.

        The problem many atheists have is that they cling to the western idea of science as being the prime solution to our problems. This is of course why advancements in medicine, physics, engineering, and other fields have brought physical and mental health to the majority in countries like the United States.....

        We live in a fairly sick society and I'm not sure if religion is the cure but it's worth investigating. That does not mean believing 'ludicrous fairy tales' but rather understanding what their message is and seeing if it is useful today. Much in the same way philosophical texts still hold prestige even if outdated by period-specific elements.
    • Zihuatanejo, on 07/05/2008, -2/+26Don't quote Leviticus unless you're willing to keep Kosher and not wear clothes made of two different kinds of cloth. That's right, if you're not wearing 100% cotton it's a sin.
      • michael43, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1I didn't know that, but I checked and I am wearing 100% cotton, so what are the odds of that?
      • whatever01, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2I thought it wasn't so much being cotton, but not wearing a garment made of mixed fiber. You could wear hemp shorts, and cotton jeans, if you wanted. I'm not sure if the elastic in your shorts counts as a fiber. Anyone want to ask a rabbi?
    • ZellD, on 07/05/2008, -1/+21Do you take the rest of leviticus as truth? If you do I give you a lot of credit. In my experience, however, a lot of anti-gay christians are pork and shellfish eaters and you don't see them bringing turtle dove or pigeon sacrifices to their local priest after birth. Also the parts about stoning young girls to death, beating your wife, and slavery also seem a bit antiquated.

      How can you take a few sentences of leviticus as holy truth while ignoring the vast majority of its anachronistic rules? I'm really curious actually.
      • michael43, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1Have you ever wondered if some of the laws were put in place for physical reasons rather than spiritual? As I've stated somewhere in the thread above, it seems logical to me that a being (God) who has always been and always will be, may know a tad more about what's best for the human condition then we do, considering we live a physical life of a few decades. I don't have time to do a comprehensive bible study today, but will be happy to assist you if you want to pursue the matter. It is my understanding that when Jesus died for us, the old ways were passed away, however, here is a verse from the New Testament, which I probably should have included in my original post.
        I Corinthians 6:9-10 reads in the NRSV: Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers - none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
        Please reply if you are really interested in studying to learn why Christians believe what they do. If you are only looking for an argument though, please find another so banter with. I am willing to listen to your questions and arguments if you are willing to grant me the same courtesy.
      • ZellD, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2It is interesting, because traditional christian rhetoric is that the "old ways were passed away". Yet, that doesn't stop most from quoting leviticus passages when condemning homosexuality while conveniently ignoring the surrounding lines. You did just that michael43. I think you should pause and think about why, if your beliefs rest in the New Testament, you still chose to quote leviticus.

        The problem is that the New Testament doesn't really provide a lot of material for anti-gay rhetoric. The few passages that exist are far more ambiguous than in the Old Testament and are not nearly as vehement. Hence, why you usually only see New Testament quotes after people have called them out on their use of Leviticus.

        As for the line you quoted it doesn't even directly refer to homosexuality. A better passage is Romans 1:26-27. But even that is not nearly as strong or direct as anything in the Old Testament. Especially if you look at the original and the context of who it is referring to. The passage does not refer to good christian men in monogamous homosexual relationships but rather a group of pagans who god punished with strange sexual behavior that included homosexuality.

        I think if you wanted to make an argument against homosexuality you could say that overall the New Testament promotes monogamous stable relationships between a man and woman as the norm. Therefore there is an implication that homosexuality is bad. Furthermore church precedent is fairly clear on it's treatment of homosexuality back unto antiquity. I, however, wouldn't be jumpi