BJean

Nanook brought up the most relevant word here: FEAR Fear is what drives the religious zealots who preach sin and hell fire damnation. Churches seized on the use of fear long ago - in fact when the Bible was written. It is a tool to make people feel really bad about themselves so that they would come to church to be instructed on how they can avoid hell and get into heaven. If you hear a right wing sermon, you'll usually hear them call people sinners and they'll tell stories about how horrible people are because of their sins (which they will graphically illustrate by telling about some so 'n so who was a blasphemous sinner). They will scream, shout and just generally get the congregation all stirred up and afraid. Then they go all soft and quietly tell them that the only way for those who have sinned to turn away from Satan and be welcome into heaven is to embrace the Bible and come to worship Him and sing his praises... and oh by the way, don't leave without putting some $$ in the basket so YOUR church can go about doing God's business, helping others to turn away from Satan and make their way into God's good graces. Fear! It's what they preach. It's what keeps people feeling like they are so bad that they must constantly read the Bible for instruction on how to be forgiven for their sins and the Bible underscores how important it is to worship Him and sing His praises and ask for forgiveness and be a good little "child" so you can get into heaven. It's all about heaven, you know. That's what they tell us, those hell, fire and brimstone preachers - which is what patty is. But what it is really about is fear - the fear of hell. They do all they can to convince us that we are sinners everyday and that the only way we can get into heaven is to be born again and beg God for His forgiveness. In the meantime, they will be the ones who tell us exactly what the Bible says we can and can't do and they'll even be the ones who tell us who is and who is not going to heaven. If they're not setting themselves up as God, the judge and jury, our St. Peter here on earth, our Jesus in the flesh, I don't know who is. I don't know if it was patty who insinuated that without the Bible man would have no rules to live by. That is such balderdash and poppycock! People have a human nature that I believe is basically good. People who have never seen the Bible have made up rules to live by in order to live with each other in peace. It's religion that causes all the wars. Religion that makes people feel superior and try to rule over others. It's those religious zealots who KNOW with all their heart that they have the key to life and who believe that they know what God wants who the whole problem and the reason why chaos will reign in this world. Those religious zealots can be Christians or Muslims, or any number of sects you can name - they all have extremists who think they know best and they are willing to take up arms against the sinners - either verbal or literal guns - to prove their point. Fear won't work against us if we don't let it. Ignorance is not bliss. There's a reason why a congregation is called a flock (of sheep). We're expected to follow without question. Read the Bible and come to church. No questions asked. People like patty are well coached and are fully loaded with armament (words) to keep you fearful. But it won't work if we call it what it is - propagandized poppycock. We know what is good. We know what is right. We know what a sin is. We know that God is love. We know that God would never cast out a man or woman because they are homosexuals or for any other reason. God is love. God is not hate or accusations or guns or women wearking berkas. God is not to be used to enslave others for them to do their bidding and call it God's bidding. Well, if any of you stuck through my diatribe and are still with me, I am surprised. But I am up to here with patty's preaching. I heard it most of my life and I'm not buying it anymore. I have learned better. I know that God is far better than what she's peddling and furthermore, I know that men wrote the Bible and much of it for their own selfish reasons. Anyone who accepts the Bible as literal and believes that God actually wrote it is a fool.

Heather I think that's exactly why we're talking about Octomom here and why her situation has been spread all over the news - it has to do with the order of magnitude of her behavior. I think patty is so hung up on people having as many kids as they can that she's the one who is doing the revelling about Octomom. She's made up every excuse in the book for her and no matter how clearly everyone points out how insane her behavior is, patty continues to take up for Octomom. Why would she think that bringing children into the world the way Octomom has - so completely irresponsibly - is not a bad thing? Well it's probably because she thinks the Bible tells us to be fruitful and go forth and multiply. That's one of the many problems with taking the Bible literally. It was written at a time when there were far fewer people on earth and the life expectancy of babies was not as high as it is today. And in fact, people's life expectancy in general wasn't what it is today. Why would God want us to over-populate the earth now? What is the reason for that? Maybe patty will give us a good explanation for it. She's fond of lecturing us on the Bible and how we should all live our lives, so I'm sure she can supply the reason behind following the Bible so literally that we all should be having as many babies as we can. Actually I wouldn't mind if she would explain why God would have found it necessary to instruct us to have lots of babies even back during the time when the Bible was written. Or does she think that we are never supposed to question the Bible, just take it as God's word and never veer from its' instructions?

yea, luluc. :smile:

But patty, comparing homosexuals to criminals is hateful. It's an ugly way to make your point.

Laptastic, me too!! Dirty pillows, right? Get thee in the closet to do your penance!

DownIn, I believe that the movement to ban gay marriage was started by certain groups of religious folks. There may be non-religious people who agree with them, but the finances and organization behind the movement have been handled by religious people. When one of the major players recently stated on Larry King that he had nothing to do with it, some of the media pulled up video of him, from some months ago, fully supporting it. Sorta scares you about some of the organized religions in America, doesn't it? These are the same people who believe that prayer (but only their kind of prayer) should be allowed in schools, "In God We Trust" should be on our currency, and other Christian symbols are appropriate on our public buildings. They say they believe that taking prayer out of public schools is why there are shootings and bad stuff that goes on in our schools. Of course they are also some of the same people who believe that we should be allowed to own machine guns. Sorta scary, right? Because at the very least, it's so contradictory and so exclusionary and so single minded.

gamyj, one question you asked was not answered that had to do with Jews going to hell. I won't presume to answer for pattygreen, but I can tell you that certain fanatical people, who buy into the whole "born again" dogma, do believe that anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, does not believe that he is the son of God, does not believe that Jesus died for our sins, is going to hell. For them there is no wiggle room - all but those "brilliant" few, are going straight to hell. In fact, even if you do believe some part of that statement, and you belong to a Christian church and profess to be a Christian, but you have not been "born again" you are still going to hell. And you better watch out because when Christ returns (and they believe that may be very soon) you're going to burn, baby, burn.

Yeah Carrie. This thread has gone pretty far afield hasn't it? Likening Britney Spears to Octomom. Well I guess they're both wacky, so I get that. But at least Britney has some talent other than having babies and having enough plastic surgery to make her look like Angelina Jolie. And Brit:thumbup:ney is very willing to work really hard to take care of her kids and herself.

But Beth, the government calls it "marriage" and the government uses the term "marriage" to delineate between those people who are joined by it and those who are not. So "marriage" it is. If the government wants to change the term to a different term that will cover all the same bases, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I see no reason for that to be necessary. Churches have their definition of marriage and SOME churches and certain believers (such as yourself and pattygreen) define marriage as a union strictly between a man and a woman and they use certain sacraments and ceremonies to represent that union. Other believers and churches do not barr homosexuals from getting married in their churches and receiving all the sacraments and ceremonies that a marriage union represents to them. Exclusion and intolerance is what this is about. People who are intolerant and who wish to exclude certain people in society who do not conform to their standard of beliefs, is what this is about. That is absolutely NOT what our government should be about. So support your church, believe with all your heart that you are right, but understand that it is wrong to tell citizens of this country that they do not qualify for, and are banned from having, all the same things that the law affords you.

No Beth, I did not mean that the Constitution guarantees everyone in this country that they can be married. I will try to explain: There are laws and rules that treat people who are married and those who are not married differently. When people who are committed to each other, and who live together, and who wish to have all the same rights and privileges other people have under the law, it is wrong to deny them those things purely because of their sexual orientation, therefore it is wrong to deny them the ability to get married because of their sexual orientation. I thought this was fundamental to this argument. I know people who are against gay marriage might think that it's just something that gays want that other people have, but the privileges that come with that marriage certificate that the government issues is what this is about. There has been an accusation that someone said this is a silly topic, but to reduce the condition of homosexuality to a teenage "fad" is trivializing it. To say, as some people here have, that being gay is simply a lifestyle choice, is to trivialize it. And patty, the reason I believe that some might accuse you of being hateful is because your beliefs cause you to try to disenfranchise other people because of who they are and what they believe. You essentially are saying you represent God and that by having read the Bible, you have the key to God's plan. So you fight against those things which you believe are an abomination. But when you hurt other people in that process, it sure seems hateful. And to many people, it really does not seem like behavior that God would ever condone.

Patty: "Question: Why do we revel in other mothers bad behavior, such as when Britney Spears was in the news for driving with her baby on her lap? Answer: If you're walking around in a perpetual state of code-level-orange anxiety, afraid you're going to make a mistake, it's very handy to have an example of someone who is so much worse. You can get off on the badness and the horribleness of that mother and comfort yourself that 'at least I'm not her.'" I think that there are some people who feel that way. And if they are "code level orange" anxious because they are so afraid they're going to make a mistake, it is because they are just plain ignorant and maybe more than a little stupid. And they have probably done something just as stupid and didn't get caught. So maybe that's the reason they "get off" on it. But most people who are intelligent do not "revel" in bad behavior. They are shocked and appalled by it. They want to call attention to it so that people can learn from that person's outright stupidity. And they might be able to help the stupid person in some way. But more importantly, they would like to rescue the children who are harmed by stupidity and ignorance, if there's anyway they can.

right on, luluc!

Nancy you bring up some good points. One thing that we might just be getting better at is that there aren't so many incidents of idiots physically attacking homosexuals today, like there used to be. Because homosexuality is being discussed more openly and it does not carry the stigma that it once did (except perhaps with right wing extremists), maybe the young kids think it is cool to play around with it. I'm not a teenager and am not living with one in my household so I have no idea what is really going on in that age group these days. But a gay friend of mine who was consistently persecuted while he was growing up, said that all of the psychiatrists and psychologists that he has seen have said that it is not unusual for most people to, at some time in their life, have homosexual thoughts and curiosity. They told him that if you have a healthy self-esteem and do find your own body attractive, how could you look at the body of someone of your own sex as being unattractive or ugly? It may be that teenagers today are confused and are trying to figure the whole thing out. I am glad that gay people are finding support in their communities these days rather than the condemnation and life threatening situations they were subjected to when I was a teenager.

Beth: "As for persecution, all sorts of God's children get persecuted by others, and the one group that seems to be most accepted against is Christians. I say that not to start a new thread within this one, but TONS of groups don't accept MY way of life, and I don't see the same people fighting for my right to keep my beliefs intact." No one that I know of is fighting against your right to believe whatever you believe spiritually or religiously and no one is working to take away your right to live a Christian life, whatever that entails - that I know of. Is there someone who wants to take away your right to believe in Christianity or the Bible? How are you persecuted? Beth: "Like I said, I have my belief on the matter, would (and have) vote(d) accordingly if/when brought before the people, and don't answer to anybody else except myself and my God. If me exercising my right in the voting booth makes it dispicable to you, so be it. I can still sleep at night, promise." You're turning what I said into something that I did not intend. I have no qualms with the way you vote - or whatever you choose to do when you close the curtain when you're in a voting booth. :thumbup: It is in no way dispicable to me however you choose to cast your votes. Discrimination against a segment of society when it comes to their Constitutionally guaranteed rights is what I find dispicable and unacceptable. I'm afraid I do not understand your rant that tore off in a direction that assumes I accused you of being dispicable because of your voting choices. :ohmy: I guess what you're trying to say is that you want to vote to take away the rights of some people, which they are guaranteed by the Constitution, just because they are homosexuals. Is that what you were trying to tell us? And, no worries, I am quite sure that nothing I say keeps you awake at night. (I might wish that some of the things you've said to me kept you awake at night though.) :w00t:

Beth: "... and I quoted it word for word, showing there really is no wiggle room (for those who believe in the scriptures)." But Beth the "wiggle room" comes into play when you speak to the fact that God didn't write the Bible. The men of the cloth back then were very motivated to ensure that their flock grew. The best way to do that was to claim that God said that there was no room, no tolerance, for homosexuality, and to condemn anyone who did not go forth and multiply. They said a man and a woman should marry and produce offspring and it appears that they were motivated for selfish reasons. If we do our homework and read the scientific data that does show some chromosome differences between homosexuals and heretosexuals, then one who believes that God is the creator of all things would reasonably conclude that God is not the one who condemns those that he created, it is man who does the condemnation. To me this persecution of some of God's children is not righteous and it is despicable.

As for the way Miss Cali articulated her answer to the gay marriage question, it was reminiscent of "somepeople don't have maps..." Pure genius. And as for her 15 minutes, you can be sure that she is being used, which suits her just fine.

And curious plain, where'd you all get your nut-ball governor?

Plain: "The only difference is that I was clearly stating my own personal opinion....and if anybody disagreed with me, I could totally understand that. Notice I didn't call anybody that didn't agree a "bigot" or "small-minded" or made another personal attack." I have no idea who you're referencing, but I never called anyone here a bigot or small-minded. I merely offered up a definition straight out of Webster's Deluxe Unabridged because people were saying that the term was being misused in this thread. I think it was probably being used properly but I didn't use it myself. When I post on a thread I merely state my own personal opinions and beliefs. That's it. I do not cite other people's writings or proclamations or newpaper or magazine articles or crap they post on politically driven websites. That's up to those of you who seem to think it somehow gives your arguments and personal opinions some merit. So your earlier comment about me is inappropriate if you're saying that I believe I have been posting facts. I am posting opinions. I state them sometimes in such a way that they come across as factual because I often BELIEVE they are factual. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is factual - as you and others so kindly point out at every opportunity. But my style of writing and posting is my own - take it or leave it. And plain, I am not against a citizens's right to bear arms. keep up the good work, luluc!

I read your earlier posts on this thread, luluc - good job! It is difficult to understand people who claim to be patriotic, Constitution-loving Americans, but they condone or endorse abridging one segment of the population's fundamental Constitutional rights. As far as the government is concerned, it has absolutely nothing to do with religion. The government is not in the business of conducting religious ceremonies to legalize and recognize a couple as married under the laws of the land.

Why nothing we have to worry our little heads about. We need to just butt out of that poor woman's business. Right patty?

Beth: "I'm saying it works both ways." BJean: Well, duh. What makes you and plain assume that I have taken the position of supporting gay marriage? Something I may have said previously? Plain, it really didn't or doesn't matter what I typed on my little machine here, you have argued against it. I absolutely do not have to post links or quote anybody or anything to support my viewpoints - I am the authority on all things and that should be enough proof for you when I make a statement. My friends, family and acquaintances know me as "The Source" Eat your heart out.* GREEN! Great to see you in print here. How's that marriage working out for you? Patty and I are glad that you finally get to consumate the relatiionship. Heh, heh, heh. *I've decided NONE of what I say or what you say makes one whit of difference anyway. We're all getting the swine flu today. Global warming, gay marriage, abortion and gun control are nothing we have to worry about anymore. Whee!

Beth: "I guess then it can be used against those who want to force something on the majority that is not popular opinion or creed as well and choose to hold blindly and intolerantly to their view as the only one that is acceptable." Uh, whut? I didn't make it up you know. Beth: "Thanks for the definition." Uh you're welcome, I think.

plain: "Regardless of which side of the issue you're on, I think it's beyond stupid to bash somebody on their opinion when it's asked of them." But isn't that exactly what you do to me nearly every time I try to answer one of your questions?

As for you folks who are unhappy with pattygreen's preaching, didn't she start this thread? Is it a surprise to anyone that she started it to give herself the opportunity to proselytize?

Labeling someone who doesn't agree with you isn't necessarily right, however when someone discriminates, for whatever reason, they are considered a bigot in our little world. The word bigot is defined as a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc. And they are also considered narrow-minded and prejudiced. It seems that the word "bigot" has been appropriately used in this thread.