ONE IN FOUR MALES ARE FAGGOTS IN FRISCO

ummmmm you could tone down the word "faggot"
but the stats you posted are sad and scarey

One in four "Christians" are assholes.

Only when evil people start having some decent moral behavior

Go ahead. Start having some decent, moral behaviour.

One in four "Christians" are assholes.

Now what's that to do with the above?

Marvin, the percentages of "homosexuals" in SF is interesting. But I am sorry to say, almost none of them, nor my brother, is a "Faggot". Dharma will be happy to explain to you that faggots are bundles of sticks and hardly qualify as human.

Now what's that to do with the above?

I was referring to Marvin.

Wow. Nothing has changed after all these years.

Dharma will be happy to explain to you that faggots are bundles of sticks and hardly qualify as human.

She might also explain that in England they can be delicious meatballs served in a rich gravy and usually accompanied by soggy 'boiled' potatoes and over-cooked vegetables.

One in four "Christians" are assholes. Now what's that to do with the above?

You may not be aware that Marvin posts here as a 'born-again christian'. Some people think of him as a lunatic, I think that he's actually just a 'persona' like Sir Peter.

It's no secret that most christian denominations strongly disapprove of homosexuality, but they do not all resort to hate speech to express this. Look at KFC here as an example of a born-again christian who is uncompromisng on this issue, and yet is never anything other than principled and respectful in the way he expresses his beliefs.

And if it's only "one in four Christians", they're doing considerably better than mankind in general!

but the stats you posted are sad and scarey

Certainly such a high rate of HIV, if true, is both sad and scary. If, however you think such a high number of gay men living in SF is sad and scary, you have to remember that people of all kinds of minorities tend to congregate in places where they will feel safe. Safe from what? Well, you could look at your own conscience for the answer to that.

Dharma will be happy to explain to you that faggots are bundles of sticks and hardly qualify as human.

I understand that Marvin would agree.

You may not be aware that Marvin posts here as a 'born-again christian'.

All right. That explains it. Thanks.

(There should be a sign.)

It's no secret that most christian denominations strongly disapprove of homosexuality,

I have always wondered why. Are there no more urgent problems for Christians to solve? What does homosexuality do that makes it so bad? Most of the other stuff Christians despise seems to be objectively bad: murder, adultery, abortion, greed etc.. But homosexuality hurts no-one and is, as is heterosexuality, simply about love.

Perhaps it is one of these things that Christians (like Jews) dislike because the ancient Greeks did it a lot. But the Greeks were not evil; they were just uninformed.

I am a religious person. I go to shul every week, often twice (if there is a Saturday morning service). I believe in G-d, I follow what I consider G-d's laws (to the extent that I can follow the logic), and I believe that I am supposed to do so.

But I don't know if the same laws apply to other people and I don't care. Everybody can become happy in whatever way they like, if they are not harming others, for all I care. There is nothing objectively wrong with bringing more love to this world, including homosexual love.

I thought Christianity was about bringing more love to this world. Isn't it ironic that homosexuals manage to do what some Christians fail to do by their hatred for homosexuals?

but they do not all resort to hate speech to express this. Look at KFC here as an example of a born-again christian who is uncompromising on this issue, and yet is never anything other than principled and respectful in the way he expresses his beliefs.

That is true.

Safe from what? Well, you could look at your own conscience for the answer to that.

That is an excellent reply indeed.

And I doubt many homosexuals will be brought to Christianity if Christianity's representatives so fail to represent Christianity in a good way!

1 in 1 marvin cooley is recessive.

Time for someone to go, imho. This is a bit beyond the pale, and there have been warnings before, if I recall.

I have always wondered why. Are there no more urgent problems for Christians to solve?

While I do understand why christians condemn homosexuality (while disagreeing with that stance myself), like you I am extremely puzzled why so many Christians - from fundamentalist Protestants to the Vatican - seem to see this as the defining moral crusade of our era. For me, with - as you say - so many other important moral issues to think about, I find it truly bizarre. (And the bizarre nature of the obsession is to me at least a clue that it is probably wrong).

As to why Christianity condemns homosexual behaviour, it would be best for a Christian to answer this question, but I'll offer the following from my amateur theological studies :

There seem to be two strands to Christian thinking here, one is biblical injunction and the other comes form natural theology:

Almost all biblical references to homosexuality are found in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. Leviticus 18:22 is usually translated, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" and Levticus 20:13 "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

So, it was clearly a big "no - no" for the tribes of Israel punishable by death. In modern times only the muslim world is quite that harsh. Other verses in Deuteronomy and Kings make a link with (homosexual) temple prostitutes, thus suggesting that the problem was one of idolatry, rather than sexual heterodoxy. Strangely christians cling to the OT/HB condemnation of homosexual behaviour while being fairly lax about the OT/HB's equally strong condemnation of eating shellfish

In the New Testament Saint Paul writes: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." [Romans 1: 26-27]. So, no grounds for ambiguity there! In 1 Corinthians and the Letter to Timothy, Paul also includes what appear to be references to homosexuals in lists of those who will not inherit the kingdom.

(Interestingly, the only silent voice in this whole debate is that of the Rabbi from Nazareth).

For the biblical fundamentalist, all of this is quite enough, - no more needs to be said - but the more sophisticated christian churches (Catholic, Episcopalian, Orthodox) interpret these verses in the light of natural theology. This is basically the belief that God has a plan for humanity that involves us all as members of traditional families and the only proper use of human sexuality is procreation. Unless Jews and Muslims, some Christians have tied themselves up in theological knots wondering if sex, purely for pleasure, even between man and wife might not be sinful in some way. I personally detect a gnostic strand there somewhere.

Objections to traditional christian beliefs on this issue:
1) Many of the OT/HB injunctions on the matter, may have more to do with Israelite notions of ritual purity and customs of hospitality than sex. So, the verses in Leviticus could have been about avoiding sexual practices associated with worship of idols, and the story of Sodom could have been about abuse of hospitality.

2) The idea that sex is only being 'properly' used when the partners are at least open to the possibility of procreation, would tend to put any sexual activity by (heterosexual) infertile couples in the same realm of 'sinfulness' as homosexual activity. Would a married couple who, say, made love several thousand times during a long (and probably happy ) marriage be expected to have several thousand children?

3) Traditional christian condemnation of homosexuality was always posited on the idea that it was carried out by 'basically heterosexual' individuals giving way to perverse lust. Now that we know that there is such a thing as a homosexual orientation, most churches have had to change their theology in the matter. The mainstream denominations now call for love and forebearance to those 'afflicted' with the condition and suitable and sympathetic pastoral care. For the fundamantalist however the issue remains simple: the homosexual merely needs to ask Jesus into his heart and Jesus will make him straight.

There is another objection to homosexuality that derives from the christian tradition and is characteristic of the problem that (some) traditional conservatives have with the issue. This is the belief that, whereas bringing up a family makes one a responsible citizen with a vested interest in the future of society (through children, grandchildren), the male homosexual in particular is able to lead a hedonistic, selfish life without faithful love and family commitment and the lifestyle is in that sense 'unnatural'. This is an argument that is not without merit but with one delicious irony: assuming that homosexuality will not go away, the best solution to this 'problem' would be to tie homosexuals into the same set of social obligations as everyone else by permitting gay marriage. Strangely enough, this is something that traditional conservatives currently have a problem with, but my interpretation of the inevitable logic of the argument is that gay marriage will eventually come about, not through the campaigning of the left, but from the conservative side, once the penny finally drops.

Apologies if this is over-long, but I thought your interesting question deserved a thoughtful answer.

Just on the christian theme, and yes I count myself as one, fisrtly to be a christin is to be christ like and follow his teaching, you sir have missed this point by a long way, as for born again, mabye you should try a third time, because you really missed the whole idea of what being a christian really is, too many of these people hide behind the so called "scriptures and the literal meaning of the written word, without trying to learn fromthe life and simple message given to us by the person, known to us as Jesus Christ". Forget the whole son of God thing for a minute and just look at the message of this man, and you will find that whether you wish to believe in God and this should be a personal thing, not shoved down our throats by these Johnny come laterly extremists, better known as Born Again. You would find a mand that had a very simple philosphy of how we should treat our fellow man or woman, if you wish to forget this and hide behind religion so you can make these very obvious hate filled remarks about people whose lifestyle you seem to find so distasteful, then do it on your own and leave god out of this, after all he created all of us in his own image, and he alone has the right to decide whether these lifestyle choices are wrong.
As for HIV/AIDS, a mojority of sufferes of this horrible illness are hetrosexual, just check the stats.
I find it a shame that JC can't be here to comment, I dare say he would treat these comments with the same disdaine as the rest have us already have.

I though I might troll trough some of your other threads, you really need to get a life mate, Just because someone other than JC said, does not effectively means this was the interpretation of what the meassage is, get a life, you give being a christian a bad name. As for all the fire and brimstone stuff, this needs to be read in the context of when this was written you moron, the language of today is not that of biblical times, nor will the interpretation be that, if one was to remove about 90% of what is in the scriptures and the rest was written in plain english you might learn that the message of Jesus Christ, was a very simple one, if you get that then maybe you may understand that the rest of the shit that does spewith fromith thine mouth, is exactly that. The world has enough problems with the Islamic extremists skewing the message of Jesus and Mohamed, with out morans using christanity to do this.
I find there is a clear distinction between what is term religion and what is termed to be a chriatian, one is to read a book and other writing and lessons, the other is to understand and live that, you sir are no more a christian than I am the man on the moon.

New data shows San Francisco has the highest percentage of fags among major cities in the world

WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THIS NEW DATA?

Frisco is definitely a magnet for the deviate faggot population of the world

ONLY A DEVIATE WOULD REFER TO THE CITY AS 'FRISCO'.

expect even larger and more deadlier diseases to ravage mankind.

DOES YOUR NEW DATA INCLUDE THE PERCENTAGE OF BIRDS INFECTED WITH AVIAN FLU NOW FLYING OVER FRISCO?

(Interestingly, the only silent voice in this whole debate is that of the Rabbi from Nazareth).

not that his opinion woulda made much difference. he wasn't at all silent--nor unclear--regarding divorce and that's pretty much willfully ignored as a matter of convenience.

not that his opinion woulda made much difference. he wasn't at all silent--nor unclear--regarding divorce and that's pretty much willfully ignored as a matter of convenience.

Good point, although the Republic of Ireland managed to hold out until 1997 (!) before finally allowing divorce. Previously divorce was banned by the Irish constitution and this was only overturned by a national referendum to ratify the Fifteenth Amendment, confirmed by a supreme court ruling.

that rabbi from nazareth, who was never a rabbi, always told his followers to respect the laws of the stae, marriage at this point in time was not a church tradition, it purely the state that made this a rule it was much later that the church got involved, at this particular point in time the church bestowed a blessing on the couple, the state married them, just for the record I don't recall the Alleged Rabbi ever refering to divorce.
Another point before any one else wants to blame the church for is the whole sex thing, if my memory serves me correctly, it was St Paul, or Saul as he was previously known who introduced the more drocanian attitude towards sex and its many forms of practice, or relationship.
People love to use the church as an excuse to condeme others , sadly people in many cases love to blame the church as well, not that the church has ever helped themselves in this case.
Having said this the church is made up of those who are members of it, quite often the interpretations that these people wish to put on the words written in the bible, are about as far as posible from the truth as could be possible, if we were to follow the teachings of the bible we would probably not be treating people such as homosexuals the way we do, instead of using the bible as an excuse to exact our hatred and intolerence on these people.

If the big G is the reason for HIV and for that matter Hurrican Katrina, how come Cyclone Larry hit a largely Italian Catholic Community in Northern Australia, he was just getting back at them for what happened to his son while Israel was under occupation of the Romans , Maybe?

that rabbi from nazareth, who was never a rabbi

Yes, an interesting question: was Jesus a Christian or a Jew?

marriage at this point in time was not a church tradition.

Of course, there being no church at this point in time.

I don't recall the Alleged Rabbi ever refering to divorce.

Matthew 19: 3-9
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,'
5 and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

[There is also Matthew 5: 31-32; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:19]

In catholic theology marriage is a sacrament performed by the bride and groom, of which the priest is merely the witness. Until relatively recently a church wedding was not required, and it was considered to be enough for the couple to make a verbal promise to each other ("verbum"). However, in late mediaeval times it got a bit confusing as to who was actually married and who wasn't, so church weddings gradually came to be the norm. In protestant countries after the Reformation the state also became involved in the 'marriage contract', making a public ceremony even more necessary.

that rabbi from nazareth, who was never a rabbi,

Oh I nearly forgot:

"What do you want me to do for you?" Jesus asked him.
The blind man said, "Rabbi, I want to see."
Mark, 10:51


Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, "What do you want?"
They said, "Rabbi" (which means "Teacher"), "where are you staying?"
John 1:38

If we must be completely correct in our terms, Jesus in the the term mentioned above was a Teacher, however at this time in the history of the Jewish Church he was not what would be considered to be a modern day Rabbi, as this term is now the term used for the Jewish equalivant of a priest, in Jesus's time they were referred to as High Priests, not that this really matters.

As for the statement there was no church, what was the Jewish Church, the first church of the Abrahamic faiths.

Church is the grouping of people of a faith, is this not a grouping.

In the times of Jesus the union of two people was governed only by Roman Law which was the law of the land, the Church of the day merely gave a blessing to these events.

When Jesus was questioned as to if this was broken would this be illegal, the context was in the light of two views, one being was the against the law of the state, and if the marriage had not been blessed by God, would it then be considered to be illegal, in the eyes of God. It should be noted Jesus always taught that we should adhere to and respect the laws of the state, he never preached insurrection merely spoke of what were God's Laws, and teachings. Having said all the above I do not see that quoting parts of scriptures really sheds any light on the above comments from MC. But it is always great to enter into debate, anyway.

I Do agree with BS though, this guy may need to be how you say censured, or blacklisted, comments such as these should be seen for what they are, nothing but verbal filth, certainly not the words of a true Christian, or any other right thinking person, no matter whether they are of a faith or not.

Chakgogka, going back up the page, I do enjoy the well thought out peices you write, and no they are not to long, I must admit all this is quite topical at this point with the plethora of docos re: the whole abrahamic traditions which all three faiths share, just a shame many within these faiths are hell bent on proving their right to be the chosen ones, instead of recoginising the fact that all thre have shared heritages, and are intrincically intertwined, not to mention the fact that all three share so many of the same teachings.

Keep writing love your work.

But it is always great to enter into debate, anyway.

Indeed, with the pleasant irony that it is me, the non-christian defending 'orthodoxy' against your own 'pick and mix' approach

I basically agree with where you are coming from, but am quibbling about words because I have a teacher's fondness for using words precisely; words have meanings and are the more powerful the more accurately they are used. For example:

If we must be completely correct in our terms, Jesus in the the term mentioned above was a Teacher, however at this time in the history of the Jewish Church he was not what would be considered to be a modern day Rabbi, as this term is now the term used for the Jewish equalivant of a priest, in Jesus's time they were referred to as High Priests,

is only part right. It is true that in the time of Jesus, the old Israelite religion, based on sacrifice performed in the Temple headed by the High Priest was still extant. However, there were other religious strands around at that time (including the Pharisees - who get an undeserved bad press in the New Testament - and the Essenes) who were part of a religious movement of renewal, based not in the temnple but in the synagogue, who, after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. continued the faith of the people of Israel by directing it, not towards worship in the (now destroyed) temple, but by emphasing a special calling of the people of Israel - "There is another way of gaining ritual atonement, even though the Temple is destroyed. We must now gain ritual atonement through deeds of loving-kindness". (Rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai). In this sense it is possible to argue that 'Judaism' - as opposed to the Temple-based animal sacrifice religion of the Israelites - is the youngest of the Abrahamic faiths.

Jesus of Nazareth was part of this religious ferment. The New Testament, which could not have been written by Jews, uniformly portrays the Pharisees as setting out to trap him with trick questions out of a spirit of malignity, but in fact it is equally possible that they were genuinely intrigued by him, and therefore wished to test his orthodoxy and wisdom. There were many 'rabbis' teaching at this time, including the Rabbi Hillel and the Rabbi Shammai and, until followers of Jesus made claims of his divinity that would alienate orthodox Jews, then the Rabbi Yehoshuah from Nazareth would have been another rabbi teaching at that time of great religious change.

comments such as these should be seen for what they are, nothing but verbal filth, certainly not the words of a true Christian

As someone who has taken dramatic umbrage at what I saw as verbal filth on JU, I would have to agree. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the original spiteful provocation has eventually led to a reasonably intelligent and respectful debate. There's a lot of hope to be drawn from that.

Is Marvin a citizen of 'Frisco'? I wrote a piece about San Francisco a while back in reference to how they treated visiting organizations they don't like. I think their local government is basically hateful filth, and I urge anyone with a dime of tourism dollars to find somewhere else to go.

That said, it doesn't bother me that people I dislike live there. I, frankly, wish everyone I didn't like lived there. As far as I am concerned Hamas can be the local government, PETA can make their lunches, and GLAAD can decorate. Many of us in fly-over America are nothing but gleeful that morons seem to clump in a few select places.

That said, Marvin is the kind of blogger I hate with a passion. He's not much different than Sir Peter Maxwell. He doesn't put any time or thought into his articles, he shows no talent or skill, he just makes blogs like "Charolette CHurch Naked" and garbage like this and rakes in the points for years.

If little whip's husband could be exiled for saying what little he said, this waste needs to go too. I can't imagine anyone else getting away with this kind of material, why should Marvin be allowed to?

If little whip's husband could be exiled for saying what little he said, this waste needs to go too. I can't imagine anyone else getting away with this kind of material, why should Marvin be allowed to?

Marvin hasn't insulted Brad.