Gay conspiracy to destroy Christianity

[Jaggy Bunnet]

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Catholic-bishop--hits-out.3872740.jp

"ONE of Scotland's most senior Catholics has launched an attack on the "gay lobby" in Scotland, claiming there is a "huge and well-orchestrated conspiracy" against Christian values."

"In this New Year's honours list, I saw actor Ian McKellen being honoured for his work on behalf of homosexuals, when a century ago Oscar Wilde was locked up and put in jail."

"Bishop Devine continued: "It was bound to result in state-sponsored morality at war with Christian values. We must resist being corrupted by secularism."

What a charming man.

If "Christian values" means wanting to lock people up for the crime of being homosexual, then can anyone tell me where I can sign up to the conspiracy?

[Darat]

"It is ever-present at the service each year for the Holocaust memorial, as if to create for themselves the image of a group of people under persecution. We neglect the gay movement at our peril."

History isn't one of his strongest subjects I take it?

[wahrheit]

"
History isn't one of his strongest subjects I take it?

Reading the article I seriously considered that this guy might be mentally deficient, no kidding. It's just too much, over the top. The quotes of him in the article are extremely dumb.

The bishop said he would "not tolerate" the "behaviour" of a child struggling to come to terms with his or her homosexuality.

A Catholic bishop said this, oh my.

Personally, I do have quite a simply explanation for gay bashing: These people are jealous.

[Foster Zygote]

"It is ever-present at the service each year for the Holocaust memorial, as if to create for themselves the image of a group of people under persecution. We neglect the gay movement at our peril."

History isn't one of his strongest subjects I take it?

Oh come on. It's not like homosexuals were among those whom the Nazis marked for extermination. Oh wait...

[Careyp74]

Although this just one man speaking his mind, he has the same belief as many, that the church should have control over everything. I don't understand how gays and lesbians continue to fight for a spot in the christian community, when they are shunned away. The real fight is to take away any power the church has left, and if the gays and lesbians join the secularists in this movement, much more can be accomplished.

[Terry]

Although this just one man speaking his mind, he has the same belief as many, that the church should have control over everything. I don't understand how gays and lesbians continue to fight for a spot in the christian community, when they are shunned away. The real fight is to take away any power the church has left, and if the gays and lesbians join the secularists in this movement, much more can be accomplished.

Only some gay and lesbian people "continue to fight for a place in the christian community". Many others are secular. Also, I don't think that if one says "The Catholic church is ********** up on most gay and lesbian issues", that it necessarily implies that one approves of their stand on everything (or indeed anything) else.

[JoeEllison]

What gets to me about these sort of statements is the underlying assumption that a religious leader has the right to dictate to people outside of their specific church. I'm not gay, but I certainly live an "unapproved lifestyle"... and I don't much approve of the Catholic Church. I'm sure Bishop Nitwit isn't interested in hearing my view of his lifestyle and silly little superstition, so why does he think anyone else wants to hear from him?

[Nogbad]

His speech was reported in the Herald and I was mildly gobsmacked to say the least. I think he will find that the biggest threats to Christianity are ill advised and ill informed rants by out of touch Bishops.

The notion that there is some sort of gay secularist conspiracy is barking mad.

[This Guy]

Well, speaking as a stright guy, if it will help in the war between the gays and the christians, I'll get all prissy and stuff!

(just don't touch me!!! ;))

[Lisa Simpson]

Although this just one man speaking his mind, he has the same belief as many, that the church should have control over everything. I don't understand how gays and lesbians continue to fight for a spot in the christian community, when they are shunned away. The real fight is to take away any power the church has left, and if the gays and lesbians join the secularists in this movement, much more can be accomplished.

Gays are not shunned in every Christian denomination. My mom's church (United Church of Christ, Congregational) is an 'open and affirming' church and welcomes everyone.

[sophia8]

Well, speaking as a stright guy, if it will help in the war between the gays and the christians, I'll get all prissy and stuff!

(just don't touch me!!! ;))Speaking as a straight woman: You get prissy and I'll get the dykey haircut and the atitude. (And we can touch each other, ok?)

[Safe-Keeper]

Although this just one man speaking his mind, he has the same belief as many, that the church should have control over everything. I don't understand how gays and lesbians continue to fight for a spot in the Christian communityOn the one hand, see my sig. On the other hand, they believe in God as much as the next guy and thus I guess it's natural for them to want to be with the church. These are perhaps people who are grown up with the church and need it, for then to have figured out that they're homosexual.

You can think of it as a long-standing KKK member who suddenly figures out he's one of them darned America-destroying Negroes:D.

[Careyp74]

Only some gay and lesbian people "continue to fight for a place in the christian community". Many others are secular.

That was my problem of not saying "ANY gays and lesbians..." when I was thinking it.

Also, I don't think that if one says "The Catholic church is ********** up on most gay and lesbian issues", that it necessarily implies that one approves of their stand on everything (or indeed anything) else.

I don't understand what you are saying here, or what point you are arguing against.

[DoubtingStephen]

claiming there is a "huge and well-orchestrated conspiracy" against Christian values.

Perhaps this boogeyman he so fears is really just a reaction to the actual resistance of homosexuals to the homophobic hatemongering behavior of the Church, perhaps with a dab of projection?

1) Church promotes anti-gay stance as a Christian Value
2) Fagnits resist promotion of homophobic laws and social attitudes by the Church.
3) Since the Church considers homophobia to be an article of faith, and a "Christian value" (Catholic-flavored Family Values) the opposition to legislated homophobia raised by their victims is interpreted by the Church as an anti-Christian stance.

In fact it is the Catholic Church that is orchestrating a "huge and well-orchestrated conspiracy" against queers.

But to the extent that homophobia is in actual practice a tenet of Christianity, I'm perfectly comfortable with being labeled as against Christian values.

[skeptical]

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Catholic-bishop--hits-out.3872740.jp

"ONE of Scotland's most senior Catholics has launched an attack on the "gay lobby" in Scotland, claiming there is a "huge and well-orchestrated conspiracy" against Christian values."

"In this New Year's honours list, I saw actor Ian McKellen being honoured for his work on behalf of homosexuals, when a century ago Oscar Wilde was locked up and put in jail."

"Bishop Devine continued: "It was bound to result in state-sponsored morality at war with Christian values. We must resist being corrupted by secularism."

What a charming man.

If "Christian values" means wanting to lock people up for the crime of being homosexual, then can anyone tell me where I can sign up to the conspiracy?

Hey, this is a fun game, I'd like to play too:

"This year in America, a Black man may become President, when 150 years ago he would have been a slave obeying his master, as the Bible clearly teaches"

"This year in Scotland, a woman committed adultery and not even a single stone was throne as the Bible clearly commands"

And my personal favorite: "Just the other day I saw a man wearing mixed garments AND eating Lobster, in complete violation of the Bibles sacred injunctions"

I always knew that The Gap and Red Lobster were involved in a secular cabal to overthrow good wholesome Christian values.

[Careyp74]

Gays are not shunned in every Christian denomination. My mom's church (United Church of Christ, Congregational) is an 'open and affirming' church and welcomes everyone.

Great, we lost more leverage.

[Safe-Keeper]

Gays are not shunned in every Christian denomination. I think we all know this, buddy. I've got a lot of great and moderate Christian friends, several of which are bisexual. I'm talking about the churches who don't approve of homosexuality.

In fact it is the Catholic Church that is orchestrating a "huge and well-orchestrated conspiracy" against queers.But in the eyes of fundamentalists, when your enemy defends himself, he does so not to hold onto his rights as a human being, but to destroy you, your community, and your society.

"This year in America, a Black man may become President, when 150 years ago he would have been a slave obeying his master, as the Bible clearly teaches"Obama is clearly waging a campaign to take out Christianity and destroy American society as we know it today.

[DoubtingStephen]

But in the eyes of fundamentalists, when your enemy defends himself, he does so not to hold onto his rights as a human being, but to destroy you, your community, and your society.

Well of course the society destroying is only an unintentional byproduct of gay civil rights. Homosexuals deeply regret that their struggle for equal rights is certain to doom the human race to unimaginable torment and certain destruction. Hopefully nobody is too upset about it.

[This Guy]

Speaking as a straight woman: You get prissy and I'll get the dykey haircut and the atitude. (And we can touch each other, ok?)

I'm ready!


;)


I hope my "prissy" remark is taken in the humorous way I intended it. I mean no offense to anyone! My goal was that all (but the christians;)) would get a chuckle out of it.

[ponderingturtle]

Well, speaking as a stright guy, if it will help in the war between the gays and the christians, I'll get all prissy and stuff!

(just don't touch me!!! ;))

Well if the war is decided by who has the fanciest gowns and shoes the catholic church has a real advantage there.

[Ocelot]

For something to be a conspiracy people must work togather and it must be kept secret.

Yes there is Gay opposition of Christianity. Gays don't want to be stoned to death, don't want to be ostracised. Many christians believe that they should.

It was the christians who picked the fight, there's nothing secret about it and homosexuals don't need to collude in order to have very similar responses to that attitude.

If people are of the view that christainaity growing up and accepting that homosexuality is a natural part of human society is the same thing as christianity being destroyed then hard cheese to them.

[Marquis de Carabas]

You mean there's not a vast homosexual conspiracy against Christianity? That's sort of disappointing. Lazy queers.

[Tricky]

In spite of the fact that I've been out of the church for more than fourty years, I have to be a little bit proud of my Episcopal heritage. They ordained a gay biship five years ago. It was a brave thing to do. Almost as brave as when they backed abortion rights.

Not all churches are the same.

[ceo_esq]

"This year in Scotland, a woman committed adultery and not even a single stone was throne as the Bible clearly commands"

I doubt they could find anyone to cast the first stone.


And my personal favorite: "Just the other day I saw a man wearing mixed garments AND eating Lobster, in complete violation of the Bibles sacred injunctions"

Do those things involve Christian values?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I doubt they could find anyone to cast the first stone.

They could try here:

http://www.royalcaledoniancurlingclub.org/

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Not all churches are the same.

Nor all catholics, to be fair.

[Careyp74]

Do those things involve Christian values?

Wearing two different materials together, like nylon and cotton, or eating scavengers like lobsters.

These are Jewish beliefs from the Pentatouche, not picked up by christians, but still from the bible.

[skeptical]

Do those things involve Christian values?

They are in the same parts of the OT as condemnations against homosexuals, so one is as much CV as the other in my book.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Gay conspiracy to destroy Christianity

Really? You go girls!

[Nihilus]

Yep. Wacko Scottish Bishop.

[Primus]

Given that through history the Catholic church has been a safe haven for closet homosexuals who would otherwise be persecuted it is indeed an odd stance.
I really don't get their hangups in the bedroom department. If non-procreative sex is evil surely anyone who has sex after the menopause burns in hell!

[dglas]

Well, speaking as a stright guy, if it will help in the war between the gays and the christians, I'll get all prissy and stuff!

(just don't touch me!!! )

Speaking as a straight woman: You get prissy and I'll get the dykey haircut and the atitude. (And we can touch each other, ok?)


I'm ready!

I hope my "prissy" remark is taken in the humorous way I intended it. I mean no offense to anyone! My goal was that all (but the christians) would get a chuckle out of it.



Romance is in the air.

Someone may yet get lucky enough to...
Win Powerball!!!

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Well, speaking as a stright guy, if it will help in the war between the gays and the christians, I'll get all prissy and stuff!

(just don't touch me!!! ;))

Oops. I first read that as "prissy or stiff". Sorry. :o

[Memo to Gord -- wear your glasses when reading the Intertubes.]

[Tumblehome]

In spite of the fact that I've been out of the church for more than fourty years, I have to be a little bit proud of my Episcopal heritage. They ordained a gay biship five years ago. It was a brave thing to do. Almost as brave as when they backed abortion rights.

Not all churches are the same.


Good for the Episcopalians from a social/humanitarian perspective, but I assume they use the same bible that condemns the homosexuality of their gay bishop.

[pgwenthold]

On the one hand, see my sig. On the other hand, they believe in God as much as the next guy and thus I guess it's natural for them to want to be with the church. These are perhaps people who are grown up with the church and need it, for then to have figured out that they're homosexual.


Your sig is based on a flaw, however. Christianity is not inherently anti-homosexuality. The same cannot be said about the KKK, which, no matter how you spin it, is anti-black (just as true for the "preservation of the white race" nonsense).

A more appropriate comparison would be black membership in the Augusta Golf and Country Club, which was, for a very long time, highly discriminatory against black people. However, just because the membership of the Augusta Golf and Country club was historically very racist does not mean that the club itself must be, and indeed, it finally did start letting in black members. Same for Christianity, which, regardless of the actions of many of its members, does not require anti-homosexuality (the Episcopalians being the exemplar).

Thus, homosexuals feel they can be Christians in the same way that black people feel they can be members of the Augusta Golf and Country Club. They satisfy the actual requirements to join.

That doesn't work for the KKK, which by definition, is about racial discrimination and being white is a requirement to be part of the organization.

[pgwenthold]

Good for the Episcopalians from a social/humanitarian perspective, but I assume they use the same bible that condemns the homosexuality of their gay bishop.

But they clearly are not bound by it, so suggesting that "the bible says it so that means they must follow it" is a strawman.

All religions pick and chose the parts they want to follow, but good for the Episcopalians for recognizing these parts are among those they don't.

There is no fundamental difference between that and the Catholics, for example, chosing to ignore the "No Graven Images" commandment, and any attempt to dismiss them boils down to a No-True-Scotsman argument.

[Complexity]

Gays against catholics?

Count me in.

[shadron]

Gays are not shunned in every Christian denomination. My mom's church (United Church of Christ, Congregational) is an 'open and affirming' church and welcomes everyone.

Aw, nuts, they aren't even shunned by all Catholics - most Catholics, like most Moslems and Confucianists, just want to get along. Like rape, it's more a demonstration of power than of direction, for all that it is in such appallingly bad taste. In the RCC the liberals who held the reins with John XXIII are still fighting a rear guard action against the conservatives, who, like lions roaring, they're marking their reclaimed territory. Bishops used to be the cocks of the walk and still have the mindset they can change the course of countries with their sermons.

[shadron]

In spite of the fact that I've been out of the church for more than fourty years, I have to be a little bit proud of my Episcopal heritage. They ordained a gay biship five years ago. It was a brave thing to do. Almost as brave as when they backed abortion rights.

Not all churches are the same.

Yeah, and even now the Episcopalians are splitting down the seems, at least over here in America. Congregations are joining up with the South American bishop who is so scandalized by all the loose morals, and the episcopates they left are trying to recover the keys to their churches.

[PBTree]

If so many of these paedophilic RCC priests/bishops (and probably above) have been caught with children, who from my observation appear to be nearly always male children. Would that not by definition make these so-called holy people homosexual paedophiles?

Maybe this chap should think about cleaning the scum out of his own back-yard before he starts in on decent people (regardless of their sexual bent) who don't have a pênchant for children.

[Tumblehome]

But they clearly are not bound by it, so suggesting that "the bible says it so that means they must follow it" is a strawman.

All religions pick and chose the parts they want to follow, but good for the Episcopalians for recognizing these parts are among those they don't.

There is no fundamental difference between that and the Catholics, for example, chosing to ignore the "No Graven Images" commandment, and any attempt to dismiss them boils down to a No-True-Scotsman argument.


Why aren't they bound by it? I've never understood the picking and choosing of the parts of the bible that you want and discarding the rest. It strikes me as dishonest somehow, the same as altering or adding to the text. If you can do that with God's word, then God's word must not mean much to begin with.

[Complexity]

I misspoke in an earlier post when I wrote of gays against catholics.

One must, of course, be opposed to catholics.

I forgot to include so many other varieties of christian woo. I'm opposed to them, too, because of their intolerance to gays and so many others.

Intellectually, of course, I'm opposed to all flavors of christianity and other superstitions.

[ceo_esq]

They could try here:

http://www.royalcaledoniancurlingclub.org/

:D



These are Jewish beliefs from the Pentatouche, not picked up by christians, but still from the bible.

They are in the same parts of the OT as condemnations against homosexuals, so one is as much CV [Christian values] as the other in my book.

I see what you're saying, but to call, for example, the Jewish dietary laws and so forth "Christian values" (to the extent "values" is even a good description), despite the fact that they haven't really been part of the religion, requires such a heavily qualified definition of "Christian values" that it hardly seems worth applying the term.


If non-procreative sex is evil surely anyone who has sex after the menopause burns in hell!

That may be a clue that the assertion "non-procreative sex is evil" - though offering the advantage of being easy to remember - is probably not an adequate or accurate summation of what the Catholic belief is in that regard.


A more appropriate comparison would be black membership in the Augusta Golf and Country Club, which was, for a very long time, highly discriminatory against black people. However, just because the membership of the Augusta Golf and Country club was historically very racist does not mean that the club itself must be, and indeed, it finally did start letting in black members. Same for Christianity, which, regardless of the actions of many of its members, does not require anti-homosexuality (the Episcopalians being the exemplar).

Thus, homosexuals feel they can be Christians in the same way that black people feel they can be members of the Augusta Golf and Country Club. They satisfy the actual requirements to join.

That is a somewhat better example, but Augusta and other clubs actually turned away many would-be members because they were black. On the other hand, I kind of doubt that (for example) the Catholic Church ever had even an unwritten policy of refusing people because they were homosexual (or because they were anything in particular, frankly). And now, of course, there are significant pastoral efforts devoted to encouraging them to join and stay.


There is no fundamental difference between that and the Catholics, for example, chosing to ignore the "No Graven Images" commandment, and any attempt to dismiss them boils down to a No-True-Scotsman argument.

I think there is a fundamental difference with the "No Graven Images" commandment, and that is that there seems to be a fairly strong biblical basis for understanding it the way the Catholics appear to (that is, as an injunction not to make graven images as objects of worship). After all, even the Ark of the Covenant had angels prominently carved on it. Moses made a bronze snake, but the crap only hit the fan many years later when some people started worshiping the thing.


In the RCC the liberals who held the reins with John XXIII are still fighting a rear guard action against the conservatives, who, like lions roaring, they're marking their reclaimed territory.

I'm not sure labels like "liberal" and "conservative" work very well in the context of Catholicism. At any rate, I assume you're trying to draw a distinction between John XXIII and the current pope, but I suspect it would be somewhat difficult to point to clear points of disagreement between them on matters of Catholic teaching.


Bishops used to be the cocks of the walk and still have the mindset they can change the course of countries with their sermons.

I'm not certain they all have that mindset, but it's probably safe to say that most of the not-inconsiderable number of RC bishops who actually succeed in changing the course of countries do have that mindset.


If so many of these paedophilic RCC priests/bishops (and probably above) have been caught with children, who from my observation appear to be nearly always male children. Would that not by definition make these so-called holy people homosexual paedophiles?

It shouldn't really need pointing out, but you're talking about an exceedingly uncommon phenomenon at its peak, and one that appears to have waned sharply starting about the time that JPII took office. If you look only at the cases of victims under 18, it's true that most of them have been male teenagers at the time the abuse began (the number under age 10 is miniscule, and in the United States the average age of a minor victim at the commencement of abuse is now generally 14 and rising). It's definitely an issue of homosexual abuse, but the few abusers are far more frequently homosexual ephebophiles or in some cases simply gay men rather than paedophiles strictly speaking.

[Ocelot]

Why aren't they bound by it? I've never understood the picking and choosing of the parts of the bible that you want and discarding the rest. It strikes me as dishonest somehow, the same as altering or adding to the text. If you can do that with God's word, then God's word must not mean much to begin with.

The biblical answer is that the early Jewish Christians recieved guidence from the holy spirit that thye may preach to gentiles and upon which Jewish customs it was then necesasary for the converted Gentiles to acknowledge. The book of Acts details it all but here is the most pertinant part.

Acts 15:28-29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:28-29;&version=9;)


28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.


So circumcission, abstaining from lobster and wearing only clothes of a single fabric are not mandatory for Gentiles, but imbibing blood and fornication still verboten or no holy spirit for you.

Yes it's all still a bunch of ancient myths and legends, possibly never happened but it is consistant for bible believers to follow certain rules but not certain others.

[ponderingturtle]

Why aren't they bound by it? I've never understood the picking and choosing of the parts of the bible that you want and discarding the rest. It strikes me as dishonest somehow, the same as altering or adding to the text. If you can do that with God's word, then God's word must not mean much to begin with.

Well for one not everyone believes that the bible is gods word, even if they would class themselves as christian.

And then all the selling your daughters into slavery being OK seems pretty off putting to many modern people.

[Tumblehome]

The biblical answer is that the early Jewish Christians recieved guidence from the holy spirit that thye may preach to gentiles and upon which Jewish customs it was then necesasary for the converted Gentiles to acknowledge. The book of Acts details it all but here is the most pertinant part.

Acts 15:28-29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:28-29;&version=9;)

So circumcission, abstaining from lobster and wearing only clothes of a single fabric are not mandatory for Gentiles, but imbibing blood and fornication still verboten or no holy spirit for you.

Yes it's all still a bunch of ancient myths and legends, possibly never happened but it is consistant for bible believers to follow certain rules but not certain others.


Thanks for that, though it only reinforces my point. Even the earliest Christians flaunted God's authority by manipulating his word for their own purposes. And of course, Christianity as a whole is a blatant manipulation of God's word in the Old Testament.

If there actually was a Judeo/Christian god, it would be no surprise that he's so angry and vengeful. :)

[Tumblehome]

Well for one not everyone believes that the bible is gods word, even if they would class themselves as christian.

And then all the selling your daughters into slavery being OK seems pretty off putting to many modern people.


1) If a Christian doesn't believe the bible is God's word, where does he get his inspiration for believing in the Christian God? Where's the justification for God's authority?

2) If a Christian believes the bible is God's word, how does he justify changing or ignoring parts of it? Again, playing fast and loose with God's word pretty much destroys any justification for God's authority.

When you're that blind to logic, it's no wonder some Christians think they can impose their religion on science.

[pgwenthold]

1) If a Christian doesn't believe the bible is God's word, where does he get his inspiration for believing in the Christian God? Where's the justification for God's authority?

They make it up. That's what ALL religions do, so why fret over one or the other?

All they need is someone to hop on board and follow along.