Funeral Protester

words that lack true knowledge, understanding, wisdom, empathy, and compassion. This woman (no, nut) spews forth nothing but hatred and loathing for everything and everyone. Although she claims to be a Christian, she is not. She is a demented woman possessed by a demon.

Heckling sombodies funeral does not qualify as a peaceful protest. I'll bet one of their protests sparks a riot eventually.

this has got to be one of the dumbest females I've ever heard in my life.I don't fully agree with the war either, but she should have held her tongue on that subject.I think someone should help her open her eyes to true sense.....or maybe her head???

Phelps also picketed in New York City three times since September 11, 2001, with signs that read "Thank God For Sept. 11" and calling the FDNY a "F*g fire department." Recently he was in Hawaii, the site of the WWII attack on Pearl Harbor, with signs that read "Thank God for December 7".

lol .. after i catched your attention i want to say
look down at all the comments and see how many people use their time to write
they are writing ..just writing that someone else read
and if a tacher asks us to write a section on dogs .. we claim and say fuckk off
i like this in us .. we write and write ..
:P i didnt understand whats going on in this video .. and the main idea but i have noticed that too many wrote here .. and now i am one of them

Someone should give her a one way trip to led heaven

already got a one-way ticket -- to hell.

You are 100% right and I hope people on this site realize that you hit on a key note. And that is that God didn't create gay people - he created humanity. The point is that God gave humanity a free will. And it is that free will that often gets people into trouble.

can be gay as well, it's just nature.

Initiallly, she did I nice job of standing up to that idiotic woman and demanding answers about her idiotic beliefs and outrageous actions at the funeral but she then became rather strident and went on too long.

about to say something to this effect, there aren't that many hostile things being flung back and forth. it is pretty cool, that such a controversial subject, with such a nut as this woman, has led to such productive discourse with other people who are apparently trying to broaden their horizons. it is pretty cool. cheers everyone to one of the most productive string of comments i have seen posted on this website as of yet.

I hope that this teaches us not to judge a religion based on extremists like this hateful woman. Similarly, we should not judge all followers of the Islam faith based on the terrorists responsible for 9/11

why haven't you? Killed her, that is?

trying to be ironic? Its hard to tell.

to tell if he was being ironic or not. i laughed it off as he was trying to be ironic, if so, damn clever, if not, well, it he was serious, it is still funny, because he doesn't realize the irony, so either way, it is funny.

that is very true, hey, weren't you that guy that is the england fan that talks all that S**t over on the football clips? ha, it is you!!! cheers man!!! glad to see your interest lies in areas other than football!!!

Thanks for the best comment I've ever read on metacafe... I'm going to use it when ever I can, sorry but I'm probably also going to take the credit. lol.

:-)

They aren't going around to gay peoples funerals and protesting. They are going around to the funerals of soldeirs and protesting, because they are service members of the United States. They are protesting against the fact that the military has a don't ask don't tell policy and that homosexuality is condoned within the US. It has nothing to do with any personal information regarding the deceased. They go to any soldiers funeral in their area with the same signs- "Thank God fo IED's!" "God is punishing the Gays!" etc.

Luckily there are groups out there like the bikers that were mentioned, that have found out where they will be protesting, and position themselves between the church and the protestors. They then rev the motors on the motorcycles just enough so that the families can't hear the harted that they are spewing out while they are trying to grieve.

A few states have barred them from protesting within 500 feet of a church or cemetary, and hopefully more will do the same to keep them further away.

There's a schedule of funerals on the Westboro Baptist Church website for anyone who wants to disrupt their pickets: www.godhatesfag s.com/fliers/pi ckets.html (close the gaps put in because metacafe won't allow words > 15 characters).

the bible says "judge not lest ye be judged." It isnt my or any other mortal person's place to pass judgment on anyone. Does not the bible also speak of the creator's gift of free will? God will be the one to decide if homosexuality is a sin, not man. I realize that not everyone believes in a divine creator. I am not trying to get overly religious here but I do like to quote the bible at so called faithful bigots. Here is my last quote for this debate. Mathew 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in synagogues and on street corners that they may be seen...

people choose to sin. just because it's a choice doesn't mean it's not a sin. in fact, that's just what sin is, choosing to do the wrong thing.

Being gay is not a choice. The scientific theory is that it is caused by hormones in the womb affecting neural development.

its who they are, no frigin god made them like the same sex, and they did not choose it. so if there was a god, then i would not like him if he thought poorly of people because there hormones were different then others

But I really don't think being gay is a choice! I certainly could not choose to fall in love with a man. I have been falling in love with women since I was 5, there was never any doubt I wanted to be with women.

The same is true of gay men, they usually know they are gay from childhood.

The only people who really have a choice are bisexuals.

You have all these guns in America, why dont you put them to good use on bitches like her and their church of F**king bell ends?? Just an idea though.

Now we know that anal sex is commonly practiced by heterosexuals, why is there still an issue with it being practiced by homosexuals? That is why homosexuality was offensive to some people but attitudes have changed. I think most people who understood that homosexual doesn't equal paedophile didn't mind 'queers' long before it was legalised.

This woman's prejudices are way out of date. The interviewer should have allowed her to carry on - she would have been damned by her own words.

i cant see any muslims here claiming this is all what christianity is all about !!!!!! . Forward my message to that freak XS.

there are fools in every country, nobody is immune. in our country, these fools get airtime, maybe this is the difference. ignorance, that is all this is, i know hardcore christian conservative gun-toting bible-quoting people who think she is a nut. and i live in mississippi, the most conservative state in america. hahaha. she is a loon.

if you believe in making fairy stories your guide to life.

Hope you've been good this year or santa won't be coming!

i agree with purple nurple (strange name) it is like a fairy tale. jeez that took me a long time to write because i didn't want to copy purple nurple

Unfortunately, the ones who don't practise what they preach are usually the loudest!

whats the differents between a straight person and a homosexual, besides the obvious answer of "they like the same sex" which im sure if u said that then u'd follow it with "which the bible clearly states it is a sin" well forget the frigin bible, whats the difference? and where the fools!!

you americans criticize islam countries for using the koran as a guiding line for governing. but at the same time you use the bible as a base for your own society.
i hope YOU wake up.

except ith the "you americans" actually are lots of western countries doing this (fair is fair)

is it a sin

a bible

Which book,chapter and verse in the bible says that being gay is a sin

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
'Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.'

Also in Romans 1:26-27, and Leviticus 18:22.

my point was that the bible has been translated and translated beyond comprehension, i grew up going to sunday schol every sunday, and now everytime i hear the preacher on sunday, i just shake my head. i realize there is a place in this world for faith, it is in our DNA, there has always been faith, and there always will be. but i think as long as your faith makes you a better human, and makes those around you better because of your actions, it doesn't matter what it is. now i realize that my preacher would tell me "well, it doesn't matter what you do unless you believe that jesus was the son of god and died for YOUR sins, you can be a good person and still go to hell", i don't believe that. i think it is just something that got mistranslated along the way, as just another branch of religion. and i reiterate RELIGION, religion is man's invention, not GOD's. we are too futile to even comprehend what he or she or they mean, we will never grasp it. and the one attempt God made with connecting with us, the bible, has been twisted and changed so much, it is impossible to follow it literally. i realize that the bible says it is a sin to be a homosexual. it also says not to sit before your bottle of wine, but then jesus turned water into wine, so what do you do? i remember the bible story about soddom and gomohrra, i can't remember how you spell it, so just stay with me, about how the people of the town heard about the angels, they came to Lot's door, demanding to see them, so they could lay with them. haha. my point is, i don't think homosexuality is something you will burn for, but it is not the life for me. how can we judge people if they truly love someone of the same sex as them. i mean truly love, like the way you love your girlfriend or wife or husband, whatever sex you are. it is just the natural order of things for a man and a woman to be together. it is how nature uses us to reproduce. did god intend this to happen? maybe god is just the force that makes these things come about, maybe the bible is just man's attempt to make other people do what they tell them, because they have proof, "well it says in here that GOD says don't do that, so you musn't" you know? i know your smelling what i am stepping in. faith is something that is true and just and perfect, religion is man's device of twisting your arm into doing what he says. that's why i don't take the bible to literally, do what is right for harmony with those around me, and don't listen to what some guy says it says in the bible so you must do it because it says so in the bible. know what i mean? so do what you want, tell people what you believe, and if they accept it, then cool, and if not, then maybe they won't burn for it. but when you start telling people "YOUR WRONG!!!! YOUR GOING TO HELL!!!!!!! that is just silly. how do we know the buddhists aren't the right ones. look at them, they are all peaceful people for the most part. except for some of them.

look at all the principles of most religions, they all say the same thing, except for a few differences. minor differences. jesus said i am the truth, the light, none shall enter my kingdom except through me" do you really understand what he is sayin? must we go through him? like literally become spectres and float through him? so what do you do? your right, it does say that in the bible, we had a lesson on it, but the bible says absolutely nothing about the earth being round and at the center of the universe does it? we have since found that out on our own. what about the flood? the ark? can you please tell me how the llamas over in peru got to the area which is around modern day jordan? hmm? what did they swim? what about cain and able, it mentioned that he went away after he killed able, where there were many people, who were these people? did adam and eve spawn thousands of people in nations far and wide? who did cain and able marry? their sisters? isn't that wrong? see man, when you start to take one part of the bible literally, where does it end? everything in the bible is a grey area. it is like the constitution, you can manipulate it so say whatever you want it to. but don't take my word for it, i am just a person with an opinion, i can persuade you with words, look for yourself, nobody can tell you new things like your own self. peace man.

You are right in saying that because God is so far beyond us we cannot hope to understand him on our own. If he wanted us to know about him, he had to tell us himself. But if an all-powerful being wanted to tell us about himself, do you think he would let the bible be twisted out of all recognition? It doesn't really make sense.

You are also right in saying there are some parts of the bible which cannot be taken literally. This is because they were not meant to be- they were stories used to illustrate a point, not factual records. However the vast majority of the bible can be taken literally, and those pieces that can't can still be used to illustrate the underlying meaning. I am not familiar with the 'do not sit before your wine' passage, but there were people in the old testament (called Nazarites) who were not allowed to drink wine, as a sign that they had dedicated their lives to God. This did not mean that no-one was allowed to drink wine. You cannot take one verse out of context and apply it to every situation. Nowhere in the bible are we told christians must not drink wine, just that we must not get drunk.

You are right in saying that it is the natural order of things for a man and a woman to be together. We should all be thankful that our parents decided to give heterosexuality a try!

Christianity is very different to all other religions in that it is not a way of getting to God. It says that there is nothing we can do, no way we can be good enough for God, so God had to do the work for us. Hence Jesus dying on the cross to pay for our sins. This is what 'no-one comes to the father except through me' means. We can never earn a place in heaven, so we have to accept the place that Christ has earned for us.

You might find it interesting to know that in fact the bible does say the earth is round, in Isaiah 40:22.

I'm afraid I don't know whether llamas can swim, I don't quite understand what you're getting at there.

I would be interested in where you got your information concerning Cain, I haven't read anything about lots of people being where he went to. As for their wives, it was not wrong for them to marry their sisters at that time because God first forbade it in the Mosaic Law, which did not come onto the scene until much later, when the Israelites were brought out of Egypt.

How can anybody take seriously a religion based on a book that you can't take literally? "there are parts that tyou take literally and other that you dont" what kind of crap is that? So basically you believe in the parts that you like and that's it, i gess. Well everyone is free to believe whatever they please i gess...
And why was right to marry sisters first and later not? or why did a perfect god change his mind like he had made some mistake?
And if good takes so serious sexuality why would he let homosexuality happen at all? and if sexuality is so bad, why is the only way of creating live? there are other species that have non-sexual reproduction like amoebas. And if god hate us showing skin (just came from holidays and we went to visit a church in Croatia where they wouldn't let my girlfriend in because she was showing her shoulders and outside was 32C!) why are we born naked? and why are the images of Jesus always half naked then? weird weird...

That it is not all meant to be taken literally. The library has both fiction and non-fiction books in it, the bible could be thought of in the same way. It is clear which parts are to be taken literally and which aren't by the style of writing. Some parts are written as historical records, some are quite clearly marked out as stories- such as the parables. We are not supposed to believe these are records of actual events, but they still have important truths contained within them. If I just belived in the parts I liked I would be drinking a lot more Guinness than I do!

The problem with marrying close relatives is the genetic similarities, making any offspring far more likely to have genetic problems. In the beginning, there had been no time for mistakes to build up in the genes-dealing with a pure, perfect genetic code meant that there was no danger for the offspring of close relatives. Over time that would obviously change, as the genetic material degraded. Hence God's outlawing marriage between close relations later on, before it became a problem.

Sexuality is not bad- the bible is very pro-sex, but within marriage, as a loving emotional relationship is the only safe place for a loving sexual relationship. Victorian ideas about sex being 'dirty' or 'wrong' are not biblical. As far as creating life goes, that is certainly not a way of arguing for homosexuality!

God does not hate us showing skin- he created Adam and Eve naked, they only made themselves clothes after they had sinned. I do not know why the church in Croatia had a problem with bare skin, maybe this was a cultural thing?

it happens in most of churches. Also the religious people are always completetly covered as if asmashed of their bodies (a present of their god) because they think they can wake sexual feelings.
Ofcourse the bible is pro-sex in the marriage, in those days sex out the marriage where cause of unwanted pregnancies and the expansion of deseasses. If you tell the young girls and boys that having sex without being married is trouble noone cares but if you say they will go to hell they migh just listen.
Today are ways for protection but the church completly misses the point i think.
Whatever, i think that to make my whole believes round a book that is half true half fantasy written by man almost a million years after the first men began to walk the earth and based in histories that happened in a small zone is quite absurd (why didn't god show up in america or east-asia? why did men spread it instead of do it himself?)

Or in any church that I have been to. True christians certainly aren't ashamed of their bodies, as you say they are a gift that we are very thankful for. But there is a big difference between being ashamed of your body and dressing in a 'suggestive' manner- the latter would obviously be discouraged, as there is no reason to tempt people when it can be avoided.

'in those days sex out the marriage where cause of unwanted pregnancies and the expansion of deseasses' - This is certainly still the case, sexually transmitted diseases are becoming more and more common even though we do now have methods of protection against them, and the rising number of A******ns shows that unwanted pregnancies are becoming a greater issue than they ever have been before.

Christians believe the bible to be entirely true- it is the word of God, his revelation to us of himself. The location that most of the events took place in was at the time the most important place on earth- all the world superpowers were concentrated in this area. Men were used to spread the bible because God wants us to serve him. We can't do that if there is nothing to do.

simply by saying it's in the bible. The fact that it's written in a book doesn't make it right. I can say here "all Christians are gay", that doesn't make it true, it's no proof, yet I wrote it!

I'm not a Christian. I'm agnostic. I have no problem with gays, gay marriage, whatever. But I was raised in an extremely Christian family, and it does say in the bible that gays are perveted and god hates them. Of course I don't believe that, but it does say that. If you are in a Western religion (i.e., judaism christianity or islam) and are somewhat of a fundamentalist, you believe everything in your holy book (torah/talmud, bible/book of mormon, koran) is gold.

if you read on, after that part in the bible, maybe around 400 pages later, in this little thing called the new testament, maybe you've heard of it, anyway, this dude named jesus, like he said that you can be forgiven of anything. maybe you should check that part out. (ps. music girl, i was saying that for smatoff's beneift, i was just replying under your message, i just meant that i can relate to you, i was born in a very conservative family, but a very good family, sometimes i am an agnostic, but sometimes i have faith.) but not like these people do, i am not hateful with it. it says alot of things in the bible, and alot of it contradicts itself, and plus, it was translated into english a long long time ago, and translated into latin from greek a long long long time ago, and translated from aramaic/hebrew to greek a long long long long time ago, i mean, abraham was in a historical timeline, like a thousand years BEFORE the pyramids were built. i mean, it is possible that alof of things were either changed on accident, or even worse, on purpose, so anyone who says "well the bible says so" those people are quoting a book that was just printed 500 years ago, and had been written on manuscript maybe 1000 years before that, and just passed on by wor of mouth for maybe another 1000 years. so basically, i use it as a guide, but not literally, plus the early catholics twisted everything around so much, it is impossible to know really what happened. if you are interested in this topic read "Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code : A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine" by Bart D. Ehrman, and also, "Misquoting Jesus : The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" by the same guy, he is the chair of religious studies at UNC-Chapel Hill, and one of the foremost authorities on this subject, he has written many books about this, and he is not too preachy, or too textbookish, he puts things in a way that is not for morons, but you don't have to have a doctorate in early church history to understand him. anyway, it is very interesting stuff. and it isn't dan brown's bullshit, it actually is researched, not just googled like his DaVinci Code, which though interesting and page-turning, is academic lite. peace.

1 Corinthians and Romans are in the new testament... leviticus is in the old. I included the Leviticus reference to show that teaching on homosexuality has been the same throughout the history of the bible.
You are right that you CAN be forgiven of anything, but that is different from saying you WILL be forgiven of anything. The new testament clearly states that the only way to be forgiven is to believe in Christ and put your trust in him to forgive and save you.

It is true that the catholics have changed things, which is why I don't believe the same things as them. As for the huge timescale thing, that is why we have to look at the original texts so that we know no distortion (accidental or deliberate) has taken place. If you look at the church historically, the catholics started out believing the same thing as evangelical churches do today. The fact that we know this means we must have access to the original biblical texts before they were 'twisted around so much'.

As for the contradictions, I'd be interested in any you can point out to me.

Well done for pointing out how much rubbish Dan Brown wrote. Hard to believe he actually researched it at all!

very early on in the bible, first couple of chapters, it mentions that cain was marked so that all of the "people" would know him as long as he walked the earth. it implies that there were many many many people. i don't have a bible in my apt, but i have about 200 at my parents house. they know the bible front to back. my point about the llamas was, exactly how did animals from all corners of the earth make the way to south-central asia? know what i mean? and since the flood was world-wide, how come the people who were in australia, india, and north and south america weren't destroyed, or mention anything about it in their artwork? so on a historical timeline, the flood was, and this is educated guesses coming from historians, not myself, that it was around 5000 bc. these native americans have physical evidence of being on these two continents for around 25,000 years. and the peoples of australia even longer. so if the earth is not as old as most scientists agree it is, most biblical theologans say it is around 8000 years old. but if it was that recent, then surely some of these native americans, and native australians, would have some kind of story about how they rowed their boats across oceans to find new lands, just a few milinia ago. but they don't, and physical evidence shows they have been there, much longer than most bibilcal people would allow. and since the flood "destroyed" the whole world, how did these people survive? its just fairy tales to help people do what they are supposed to do. nothing more. as far as christianity being the only religion that preaches that we can't reach god, and god has to help us all the way, big deal. i have gone to church for almost 15 years that i can remember, baptised when i was 9, gone to sunday school every sunday, was in church every time the doors were opened, and i never, never understood why jesus dying has anything to do with "making our sins go away", nobody in my church, not preachers, or deacons, or anybody, has been able to answer me to where it actually makes sense. it just sounds like a bunch of hocus pocus thrown on a bunch of simple country people in europe, and they all bought it, in order to maintain stabilty. and it carried over to the US. i don't think it is a terrible idea, it has helped somewhat to keep people in line. not everyone has played by the rules, and usually, the rules were biblical references manipulated towards their advantage. take the slaves. people thought that they were of the cursed tribe of Ham, so that means that they can make these darker people work for free. bullshit, all of it. but it is a good idea. i know you won't agree with me, and that is the beauty of it. i don't think you are stupid, or ignorant, quite the contrary, you have made some good aguments, but the problem is man, i grew up in church all my life, and i have heard all of these things before. i didn't swallow them then, and i don't swallow them now. its a conundrum.

not that there already were. At this time, people had much longer lifespans than they did later on, and I think they are supposed to have had many children. The fact that Cain left to escape what he had done implies to me that the mark was a defence against people finding him later on, perhaps a vengeful sibling?

It has been noted with interest by archaeologists and anthropologists that most ancient peoples had stories of a disaster that could be compared to the great flood story. As to the timing of it, on purely biblical evidence we cannot date these events acurately so if other evidence points to it happening longer ago than some people say, there is no reason to believe the christian veiw is incompatible with that. According to the bible, the only humans to survive the flood were Noah's family, and everyone on the planet is descended from them. God gave the people after the flood specific instructions to move out and populate the whole earth, so we would expect there to be people flung far and wide over the earth, the flood does not prohibit that.

Equally with the llamas, the biblical veiw would be that they spread out (and got to peru) after the flood. The whole point of the flood was that it was a new start- the civilisation was irredeemably evil, and God would not tolerate it. So all the animals, and Noah's family, had to make a new start when they left the ark.

Jesus dying does not exactly 'make our sins go away', but it does mean the price we would have to pay for them has already been paid. It is like a judge passing a sentence on you, saying that the punishment is a fine of such a large amount that you have no hope of paying it, and then writing you a check for that amount. What you did wrong hasn't changed, but the punishment has been carried out without you suffering. So from God's perspective, he acts as if they have 'gone away' because they have already been dealt with.

The slavery reference is interesting, I didn't realise they justified it like that. It just goes to show how dangerous a little knowledge can be. If they had understood the bible properly, they would not have been able to justify it like that.

I grew up in church all my life, and it didn't make sense to me either until a couple of years ago- I would urge you to keep an open mind, it's weird how God can affect you if he wants to and you let him.

i guess my main argument with church over the years has basically been their dating system. i mean chronology not romantically. lol. but if everybody did spread out like it said they did after the flood, then it would have to take thousands upon thousands of years. because like it or not, evolution did play a role in developing the human race as we know it. even if we didn't evolve from apes, that is not my point here today. i mean, you take the peoples of china, mongolia, siberia, they have a disctinctly look as opposed to eureopeans. same as the africans, they obviously have different features. we learned in anthropology class that this was possibly due to living in such a hostile environment for so long. the dryer climate resulted in different physical appearances. this had to take thousands upon thousands of years. it didn't happen in a few millinia, i am talking like maybe 20,000 years. same with the dravidians (the ancient people in india) and the abboriginees in australia. same concept. also, the peoples of east asia had vastly different diets than westerners did. this led to their own distinct features. i just always got ticked with church folk who thought the world to be no older than 8,000 years. i got news for them, it ain't so, that doesn't mean a greater being didn't have a hand in creating it, it just means it is older than they think it is. my brother-in-law and i had an interesting conversation over a few beers one night, the subject turned to evolution. now he is a veteranarian, and has a BS in biology, so obviously he has been exposed to darwanism. he is also a very devout, and true christian. i on the other hand, am more of a skeptic about everything, including evolution. his argument was that he thought that god was powerful enough to just snap his fingers and create everything the way we see it today. i said, well, that could be, but i think it makes for a much wiser god to create just a little bit, and allow things to continue to change until the perfect form comes along. for a god to be able to forsee how his creations could evolve over time, into their present form, makes, in my opinion, a much more great god. this is all speculative of course, because nobody can every guess what is going on in god's "head". god's practical jokes confound our wisest of wise. my faith has strengthened in the last few months, no thanks to my church, most of this i just thought about enough to contend with. their reasons and assumations are not enough for me. they may satisfy the common person, but they only broaden the gap of my reach with god. i hate church for this reason. it is like high school, it didn't challenge me enough, or what i was served, i didn't like the way it tasted. not out of selfish reasons, it just didn't digest fully. shoud i be interned in hell for this? lets hope not.

But that is very different to macroevolution, if you don't know the difference between the two micro occurs within species and is provable, whereas macro creates new species and is unproven.
We can't really be sure how long it would have taken for the different traits you mention to appear, it may not have been as long as you think or it may have been longer. Being sceptical of things is justified- I consider myself a very sceptical person, I won't accept anything my church tells me unless I can see it in the bible.

The two possible ways you mention of God creating the world as we see it now are both valid, the bible is not a science textbook it is a book about God. Science is the study of how it was done, the bible gives us the reasons for it being done. The reasons for my own disbelief in evolution are entirely scientific, I did not read the bible and decide science was wrong. The two should be used together to understand the world.

Perhaps you should try having a look at some other churches? They are not all the same, though any which teach christianity properly should have broadly similar teaching. You do have to be careful though about not liking what you are told- in some cases you could be right, but it is very easy to start searching for a set of beliefs that suit you because they justify your own ideas and choices, rather than being willing to be challenged by the truth into changing.

Is simply a rebuttal of the statement that God says gay acts are a sin.

donno which chapter/verse, but it's in there..
if you donno what sodomy is look it up..
peace

is bloody stupid

to prove your arguments.

A homosexual act... so whats the relevence?

It isn't...

is it gay

i mean a sin

A sin is anything you do that goes against what God wants you to do. Being homosexual is not a sin, acting on it is. God does not say (at least, not to my knowledge) that being attracted to someone of the same sex is a sin, he does say that acting on it is wrong. If you want a bible reference, try Leviticus 18:22 ('Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman')

and smell the 21st century! The bible is nothing but a book of old fables... To take it seriously in this day and age is ludicrous! According to the bible (ugh!) , the earth is only 2000 years old! Some zealots believe dinosaur fossils ( millions of years old) were PLANTED there to disprove the word of "god"! Time to evolve, moron!

Actually if you know the bible well enough you will find that being gay is not a sin, it is a temptation. Giving in to that temptation is a sin, but being tempted in the first place is not. Therefore simply being attracted to someone of the same sex is not a sin, as you have no control over it- it is well known that your feelings can lead you astray, and as long as you resist them you are not sinning.

temptations like having a good sexual life is food for frustration and is the best for control people. Happy people are harder to attract that repressed people and the different religions of all ages always used that.

Let me ask you:

Could you, if you wanted to, CHOOSE to find another man (i assume you're a man) attractive. I know I certainly couldn't. I had my first crush on a girl when I was 5, and I never looked back.

I believe its the same for Gay people. They are born that way, for one reason or another.

If you beleive in God, how can you say being gay is a sin? He created gay people, was he really so injust that he created people who were born to sin or be suffer without the human companianship they desire? Sounds like no god I could believe in.

You're a dinasaur. In 20 years time you will find yourself in a minority, its happening already.

Its uncertain whether people are born gay or become gay, but ultimately it doesn't matter as those desires do not have to be acted on. Christians choose not to have sex until they are married not because they don't want to, but because they think it's wrong.
Just because someone wants to have a relationship with someone of the same sex does not mean they have to. Therefore God is not forcing people to sin, he is giving them a chance to do the right thing.
The bible states that we will suffer on this world, whether it is because of a lack of human companionship or for some other reason should not make a difference. Besides, most companionship that people seek is in an effort to fill the hole that should be filled by companionship with God.
Humans do not have to be in a sexual relationship to get through life. What they need is a relationship with God.
Incidentally, faithful follwers of God may find themselves being in the minority, but this should only encourage them to speak up more for what they believe, so others can be reached.
Please don't think I agree with everything this lady said or does, I don't. I do believe however that the only way to combat it is by promoting a proper understanding of the bible.

I always agree with your posts. Keep 'em coming... PLEASE! Give me hope that we (humanity) are not sinking into a right- wing, bible- thumping hole... Peace onto you and all your loved ones...

correct interpretation is vital to correct application, but the bible is a complex book... you cannot take one verse out of context and use it to support what you say, as that is mis-interpreting it.
Would you be interested in knowing that God first instigated the death penalty? He saw it as a valid method of law enforcement and punishment. Telling the Israelites not to kill referred to the murder of other people from their nation. By this point in the bible God has already said that he plans to use the Israelite nation to judge other nations, and he does this by sending the Israelites to the promised land and allowing them to conquer it, almost wiping out the corrupt nations that were already there. So you see there are different things going on at the same time which cannot be interpreted in exactly the same way. The only way to understand the bible fully is to read all of it.

im an american (though not christian, athiest) and that is totally true. im pretty sure the bible is just telling you to be nice to people, u know, peace. but a lot of the christians are are not following there beliefs, weird. oh, and just pointing out, u spelled america wrong :-) lol

i F**king agree with u there mate religion has been the chores of ALMOST every singel war in history

when we kill every one? lol

Actually, the original Commandments, written in Aramaic, (I think) reads "thou shall not murder", when the Bible was translated into English in the King James version that and several other words were replaced because the English language is not as expressive as the original text.

The death penalty is judicial murder so it is still against the word of God if that is what people like Bush claim to believe in.

despite all those inteligent people translating the bible its only YOU who could come up with the word murder instead of kill....

To be honest, I'm not religious anyway so it makes no difference to my stance against the death penalty, but it sounds like someone, ONCE AGAIN, is twisting words to suit their own needs.

If you open a hebrew Tora (first five chapters of the bible) which is the first one to be written, you will see that it says "לא תרצח" which means though shall not murder, so...I'm sorry if you felt all wise up till now but relying on "i never heard that" as proof of somthing's inexistance is ignorant.

On the words of mortal men which have been written and rewritten and translated, instead of using your brain, and reason to decide what is right and wrong is even more ignorant.

Altough I am opposed to killing (unless someone really deserves it). I just corrected him.

something and not showing proof, prove to all of us tat the tora really says that. then i will listen.

goes around killing 20 people and your family's next. what would you do? i doubt God has a problem with defending your family from a murderer, or defending your country's citizen from a murderer.

Religion divides us.

totally agree....lol crack up

she's not just a fanatic, she's a lunatic

If she was she'd understand the importance of and be all for the war and soldiers. She's neither left nor right wing, she's just a sick demented religious fanatic who is more in tune with the devil than God or reality. Kind of like the far leftwing radical trash, lol.

She may not be right wing but she's still a religious fundementalist lunatic of the type the right wing supports. Like the people who picket A******n clinics and murder the people who work in them. With Bush's support, these people have a disproportionate influence on US domestic policy.

the President doesn't have as much influence over the country as you claim.