Archive for August 17th, 2007

Nahoul the Terror Bee Teaches Animal, Uh… Kindness

August 17, 07

Well, it seems Nahoul the Hamas Bee has been busy since she took over for Farfour the Jihadi Mouse (who died at the hands of the infidel Jews a while back).

Taking a break from her usual teaching kindergarteners about violently subjugating the dhimmis, Nahoul was recently spotted ‘swinging cats by their tails’ and ‘throwing stones at lions’.

But everything’s all right. Those are probably Israeli cats and Zion-Lions, which makes it morally imperative that they be punished in the name of human rights and justice!

View the video I found out about at Sweetness & Light, with some screen shots below:

            HamasSPCA1

                            Clearly stated intention right here

            HamaSPCA2

           Cat-flail: weapon of choice for scourging Jewish prophets

            HamaSPCA3

           Oh, I’m so sorry poor kitty… It was all merely a mistake…

            HamaSPCA4

                                          FOOLED YA!!!!

Luckily, Nahoul’s head doesn’t seem to fit that wel on the acto… I mean, Nahoul must have a headache (the pingpong-sized brain bouncing around in that spacious skull). Otherwise, she’d have used both hands to wreak cat-astrophe on the poor kitties.

(I thought Muslims generally liked cats, and disliked dogs and pigs? What gives, insurgent bee?)

After practise time on the helpless kitties, it’s on to the big game.

            HamaSPCA5

                                   Take that, lions of Judah!

            HamaSPCA6

I’m a get-get-get you enraged, get you enraged while you stuck in da cage (to the tune of the Black Eyed Peas’ song My Humps)

And at the end of the sketch, the young hostess of the show wraps up by TELLING THE KIDDIES NOT TO DO THESE VERY THINGS. Uh-huh.

“Do as we say, not as we do.”

Seems that apart from ripping copyrights off Disney, Hamas is also ripping off the trademarked hypocrisy of nutty global warming holier-than-thouers.

Final Replies to Yuki’s Remarks

August 17, 07

As you may have been following, Yuki and I have been going back and forth on the subject of homosexuality and its acceptance/non-acceptance in Christianity. See my previous reply for the full listing up to our latest posts.

I was intending to let this subject slide with my last post, but Yuki has directed 20 questions personally at me and requested that I answer them. So I will oblige.

Note also that Yuki has repeatedly been calling me prejudiced, discriminating, a boy (condescendingly), among other things. Whereas, I have refrained from making any personal attacks, accusations or insults against either Yuki or homosexuals in general.

I get the impression that Yuki projects onto me ill feelings that were caused by PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ME – perhaps other Christians. This despite the fact that I have repeatedly stressed that I have nothing personally against homosexuality, I merely am convinced it is not Biblically endorsed.

So I think I will end my interaction with Yuki with this final parting post on the matter. The maturity of this argument has dropped several points, and I leave it to the reader to decide if it is my fault.

Yuki’s comments in bold italic.

———————————-

This boy never cease to amuse me. We could have just let the topic die off at 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12. But I guess that speaks of Christians these days.

1st Thessalonians 4:11-12 says this: “Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.”

My whole series of posts began because Yuki linked to and excerpted my post, not the other way around. The unwritten blogger’s code recognizes this as a direct challenge. Commenting on someone’s blog also counts.

———————————-

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/personal-clarifications-to-yukis-third-set-of-remarks/

In my last reply to Scott which everyone can read here, I felt we reached the half way point in which we can dialogue. But sadly, he transformed into somewhat the discriminative creature. I will therefore ask him questions here, for him to answer to, point by point. Answer yes or no, then state the justification. I hope he would be honest to himself and to God answering this:

Saying I was more discriminative with my last post seems strange to me, particularly as I feel that it was my most neutral, intentionally un-offensive post among all of them.I purposely refrained from responding to points raised, and dealt almost exclusively with remarks that involved/accused me personally.

Yet from the very start of Yuki’s post, you will see plenty of deragotory remarks brought up to make me seem unfair, irrational and unthinking.

———————————-

[Scott said:] “In the midst of crafting my post, I must have gotten the impression that we were using guys as an example, which didn’t mean we were excluding girls. My apologies for not being gender neutral and politically correct more often.” [End Scott's words]

1) Do you feel more comfortable with girls sleeping with girls more than guys sleeping with guys?

As a heterosexual male, I find girl-on-girl action more tiltillating. However, I find neither guy-guy nor girl-girl any more offensive/non-offensive in and of itself.

Why do I use that double term? What I mean to say is that personally, I do not find any homosexual acts repugnant per se, but at the same time I cannot reconcile them with the Biblical guidelines.

Once more I will state as my defense: I am not any more or less opposed to guys than to girls or vice versa.

———————————-

[Scott said:] “I merely was trying to explain my viewpoint that willing acceptance of homosexual behaviour IN ITSELF is a sin, whereas heterosexuality is God’s original plan. (Something disagreed with by yourself, of course.)” [End Scott's words]

2) Do you claim homosexuality as non existant orientation, and just a ‘lifestyle’ based chosen behaviour that consititutes immediate sin, as disagreed by these groups, which agrees by me:

No, I do not claim that. I am quite convinced that genetics play a part in predetermining the types of sexual attraction. However, I do not believe that it is 100% the root cause.

Even if it is decidedly proven that homosexual orientation is entirely inborn, that does not make us free of responsibility for our decisions and actions.

Zoophiles claim that their preference for bestiality is natural and unchangeable. Paedophiles too. People who have extra-strong sexual drives can blame the hormone levels. They can accept the fact and go on doing what comes ‘naturally’ to them, or they can decide it isn’t right and deny their urges.

Not to equate homosexuals to zoophiles or criminals (but I am sure you will accuse me of that anyway), but I use zoophiles for the following reason:

What do you, as an self-claimed enlightened LGT follower of Christ, think of having sex with animals?

Is it wrong, repugnant or unnatural? Why do feel so? Note that there is no mention against bestiality in the New Testament, and doubly so Jesus never mentioned it at all. Does this mean having sex with animals is a God given gift? And that anti-animal-sex activists are bigots?

———————————-

American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association?

Together all the above represents more than 477,000 mental and health professionals from school level to the professional level, all agreed that: homosexuality is a normal condition, homosexuality is not a mental condition, homosexuality is not a choice, homosexuality is not a disease and homosexuality cannot be ‘cured’. Ex-gays, such as RLM, will claim the APA are infiltrated by pro-gays. But what about ALL the bodies supporting the consesus? More than 477,000. Think about it.

www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/facts.pdf

The question:

3) Do you disagree with these 477,000 mental and health professionals’ stance?

I disagree with the claimed ‘consensus’ of the IPCC and climate scientists that humans cause global warming. I disagree with the ‘vast majority of real scientists’ who claim evolution is proven as a fact.

So no matter how overwhelming the numbers or credentials, that alone will never make me decide that something is or is not a fact. Only the experimental proof and logical conclusions will do that.

I am not as educated in the scientific credentials and experiment methodology of homosexual orientation as I am in the other debates mentioned, so I will leave it at this: If their studies satisfy my standard of proof, I will accept them. If not, I will reject them.

In this modern day and age, just as you can claim that every study and survey that shows homosexuality is negative/reversible/mental is influenced and prejudiced by fundamentalists, I can make the counter claim that every study and survey that shows homosexuality is positive/unchangeable/inborn is affected by pro-LGT bias.

Call me an unscientific fool if you wish, but you can’t call me a sucker for any side.

———————————-

4) Even if science proves homosexuality is a God given orientation, you would still say no because God says so, even though He never said it clearly?

Okay, assuming the following without saying that they are true: Science proves homosexuality is inborn, and God does not oppose it clearly… No, I would not oppose it. Simply because God did not state it clearly and undeniably.

But in the current reality, God has stated His dislike of it clearly (to my understanding, which is not the same as yours – see how much more I have to type when trying to be politically correct and avoid more of your ad hominem attacks?). So I reiterate my position that I am not attacking homosexuality per se, but disputing that the Bible does not condone it.

So let’s say that it IS inborn. Is it God’s specific will, or is it a result of the fall of humanity? Genetic diseases, birth defects, allergies, all of these are inborn and thus not caused by the surroundings. But did God intend for these things in His original plan? Did He intend for ‘procreative’ acts that cannot multiply and fill the earth?

Put it this way: If God had made humanity purely and exclusively homosexual, that would be one way to wipe the earth clean of mankind from the very start. Do you disagree with the biology of that statement?

———————————-

[Scott said:] “I must be really blur, I don’t realize myself where I contradicted me or made Jesus seem to be contradicting Himself. And I meant gender-bias as in treating women as second-class citizens, btw, not as in sexual orientation.” [End Scott's words]

5) Do you claim that you know what is gender identity vs sexual orientation?

Yes, I claim that. But in that above sentence, I am stating what I meant to state: That in my original remarks, I should have used the phrase ‘treating women as lesser than men’.

———————————-

6) Do you think that transsexuals are equivalent to homosexuals, eg. an extreme form of homosexuality?

I do not. In my understanding, transsexuals have a longing to be of the opposite gender. Homosexuals have a sexual attraction to the same gender. Those these may overlap in some cases, they are not equivalent.One can be born male, undergo an operation to become physically female, and be sexually attracted only to females. (Or vice versa, so that you cannot accuse me of picking on only guys or girls again.)This is just to test my understanding, not as an accusation of ignorance, right?

———————————-

[Scott said:] “So how do I resolve this issue? I submit to the Bible’s words, which I can’t interpret into a form that agrees with my above viewpoint. Perhaps God means us to try and reconcile ALL kinds of problems in a marriage, no matter how serious. Except sexual infidelity, which is joining the flesh with that of another.

But bottom line, I submit my own will to God’s as I understand it. And I reiterate: I do not feel homosexuality is wrong from a humanistic point of view. If two consenting adults are happy, why object? But I believe that the Bible tells us it is not desireable. (And from a natural viewpoint, it seems to be a self-denying reproduction strategy.)” [End Scott's words]

7) You think that even in what God says about marriage divorce in the Bible, we are to reconcile it. But what you think God says about being homosexual, can never be reconciled?

No. To state it clearly, my own personal opinion of both divorce and homosexuality are NOT THE SAME AS GOD’S. And when this conflict arises, I choose to submit my own feelings in deference to God’s wisdom.

So in direct answer to your question: For both cases of divorce and homosexuality, they are sins in God’s eyes no matter what I may personally think or feel about it.

———————————-

[Scott said:] “However, the fact that male-male sexual relationships were part of pagan rituals doesn’t make it seem any more acceptable to me – on the contrary, it seems even more like something to avoid! Just IMHO.

And I wouldn’t define it as purely prostitution… Undoubtedly many relationships would have been based on mutual attraction. Greece and Rome were renowned for their pederasty, with many Graeco-Roman deities and legends having had boy lovers, including Zeus and Hercules.” [End Scott's words]

8) You believe male to male sexual relationships in pagan rituals is equivalent to male to male sexual love IYHO?

No, I do not think they are equivalent.

However, that practices such as free sex, prostitution (of both males and females), child sacrifice, food offered to idols (not God, but images of god), and so on are attributes of pagan worship and not Jewish temple worship make me question the sanctity of the acts themselves.

———————————-

[Scott said:] “I have to reiterate, I did not begin this back-and-forth discussion because I felt that my rigths were under attack, but because I felt that the Christian faith’s stand on what is right and wrong by God’s reckoning was being undermined. More on that at the conclusion.

I respect that LGTs feel their lifestyle is wonderful, and respectfully disagree that Christ condones it. I’m not sure about the hurting God by discussing part.” [End Scott's words]

9) Do you admit you initiated the first attack the LGT community, when you openly fired on the gay pastor who wants to open a church for LGTs to worship on the 10th of August?

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/gay-pastor-wants-to-start-church-in-kl/ with these imposing sentences:

[Scott said] ‘The bottom line: You can be gay, but you can’t be Christian and gay.
Or go ahead and remain gay. Open a new religious-congregation building – just don’t call it a church.

Lead the worshippers in prayer – just don’t call yourself a pastor.

And teach your version of religion – just don’t call it Christian’ [End Scott's words]

If you consider that as the first salvo, I admit I was the one who fired it off.

However, I reiterate my stand: The Christian faith was being undermined by a pastor who came along and basically said “All the other churches are misguided, prejudiced and teaching the wrong things” by saying that God accepts homosexual behaviour and that his homosexuality-accepting church is a true Christian congregation.

Do you disagree that this is not the reality of what results, even if said pastor did not intend it as an attack?

And when has it been wrong to state my opinions on a matter, especially one which involves my most defining and important beliefs? It is my stated opinion that accepting homosexuality is contrary to the Christian way.

Bottom line is, I have always felt that in making my post, I was defending my beliefs. Just as you feel that you are defending your own in your posts. I claim that the first salvo was launched by the pastor in question, not me.

———————————-

10) Do you agree that in all the 4 gospels and Revelations, Christ said nothing about homosexuality; but mentioned a lot of things in regards to marriage and divorce?

Yes, I agree. But that is a red herring (distraction point) and a straw man (inaccurate portrayal of my points to make them seem weaker).

Jesus never mentioned abortion, drugs, animal sex, genetic manipulation, or even whether we can get drunk. Are these thus permissible to do, based on what He did not say? None of them are undebatably wrong from a liberal or human ethics stand.

Jesus followed the Old Testament Mosaic laws to the full, being a full-blooded Jew as it may be. When there were wrongly-interpreted aspects of the Law being practised by humans, He corrected it (such as healing on the Sabbath or obeying the spirit of the law, not just the letter).

So if you look at what Jesus DIDN’T say or do… He never overturned the precept that homosexuality is forbidden. Contrast this with marriage and divorce: He overturned the notion that divorce was okay if people wanted it, by saying that only sexual infidelity should be a valid reason.

———————————-

[Scott said:] “I admit that the prevailing view among Christians and Asians surrounding me is that homosexuality is unGodly. And I admit that this view would have been passed on to me. But my current beliefs are entirely my own, my research and logicking all to my own satisfaction.

If my convictions happen to match what was told to me in childhood, put it down to coincidence, because there are plenty other views that do not match.” [End Scott's words]

11) Do you agree that Asian Christians tend to be paranoid and conservative than their Caucassion counterparts?

Yes, if we are talking about the previous and half the current generation. The latest batch (me included within) are increasingly Western influenced.

Again, this would be a red herring, straw man and also equating the general with the specific if used to undermine the validity of my points. Just because some Asian Christians (the general) are paranoid and conservative does not mean that I (the specific) am so.

———————————-

12) You do not know that Buddhist and Hindu do not reject homosexuals and transsexuals, yes?

I know that not all reject, not all accept – just like any other group. But I’ll give that their teachings and scriptures do not prohibit homosexuality. Guan Yin in fact is said to have had a complete gender transformation.

This can turn out to be another red herring, since it doesn’t matter what other religions believe when discussing whether Christianity condones a practise. They practise idol worship or belief in reincarnation too, and Christians don’t.

———————————-

13) You do not know that 32% percent of Malaysian are Buddhists, and only 2% of Malaysians are Christians, yes? (The State and New Religious Movements in Malaysia by Raymond L. M. Lee)?

14) You do not think that being one of the 2% Christian makes you the primary moral guardian over all the 32% of Buddhists, yes?

I did know the figure was roughly around that, and do not think Christians are responsible or entitled to dictate the doctrines of other belief systems.

I do not see what these questions have to do with what Christianity teaches at all, or my stand based on Christianity arguing against those who claim to be Christian.

———————————-

15) Do you really believe a homosexual cannot be a Christian and will end up in hell?

No, I do not believe that. But I must disclaim that I am not entirely certain about who will be accepted or rejected by God.

Will Roman Catholics who practise many rites not found in the Bible? Unitarians who think that there is no Trinity, just a Unity? Those who do not know or believe that Jesus is divine, merely the Messiah? Myself even, if I judge fellow believers for reasons I think are justified? I simply cannot say for certain.

All I can say is, I believe that homosexuality is not God’s perfect will. And that I understand that many believe it is not a sin against God at all (such as yourself), so has no negative effect on salvation.

———————————-

[Scott said:] “I don’t really follow. Clarification? I actually only brought in the Mormons as a casual example. I could have just as easily used any other example, meaning that I didn’t mean to imply anything specifically to do with the Latter Day Saints.” [End Scott's words]

16) So you have more problems with Metropolitan Community Church as a LGT affirming church, more so than Metropolitan Community Church being Mormon affiliated?

I did not even intend to bring Mormons into this discussion, my apologies again.Your use of the word ‘so’ implies that my remarks show I am more opposed to LGT than to Mormonism. This is untrue as far as I see it.

But in proper answer to your question: I have different reasons to argue against both of the above.

———————————-

[Scott said:] “I suppose the reason I even ever posted about the Star newspaper report about the homosexuality-accepting church is because I felt that MY system of belief was under attack, i.e. mainstream Christianity with all its doctrines, including the teaching that homosexuality is not right by God.

It felt to me that my declared faith was being hijacked. That people with differing beliefs – irreconciliable alternate doctrine – had just come along and told the whole country, “Hey! WE are the REAL Christians and this is what Christianity really teaches!”” [End Scott's words]

17) So you believe barely 6 arguably faint verses about homosexuality in the Bible, mostly in the old times of the Old Testament, would represent an entire shift of the Gospel Of Christ Jesus, and enough to hijack salvatoin, and even an entire faith,?

Not enough to hijack salvation, not enough to hijack the faith in one fell swoop. But enough to start or continue the process of undermining and gaining a claim on the title ‘Christian’. It’s a matter of copyright infringement, if you can put it that way.

How does it reflect on all the churches which say homosexuality is wrong? It makes them seem to be confused, unclear, unsure, incorrect about their own stated faith.

Do you deny that people (believers and nonbelievers alike) will now be able to accuse: “Oh, your version of Christianity is not the true one! Real Christianity accepts LGTs!”

How long before churches which do not accept homosexuality are banned as ‘heretical’? Not while the ‘fundies’ are alive and kicking, I’ll wager.

———————————-

[Scott said:] “And feeling thus feeling ‘under attack’, I went on the ‘defense’ and made known my strong emotions in that first post.” [End Scott's words]

18) You would not feel anything when Buddhists pray to Guan Yin and the smoke goes to your house, but you are feeling uncomfortable with the idea of what two men do in bed and feel that is an attack to your beliefs?

At risk of the Internal Security Act coming to my doorstep, let me say this: Sometimes I can get annoyed with some practises, be they religious, cultrual or personal habit. But none of them claim to be a representative of my faith, so I do not feel that they are undermining my belief system – merely getting on my nerves.

If someone came along bowing down to idols of (insert deity here) and said he was a Christian, and in fact the ‘real’ Christianity as opposed to mainstream churches, then I would certainly feel that is an attack on my beliefs.

You employ a lot of straw man arguments, don’t you? Trying to make it seem like I’m opposed to all LGTs, even after I said MULTIPLE TIMES I only argue that it is nonBiblical? I never moved my discussion out of Christianity.

You, Yuki, seem to be again trying to atatck my personal character rather than my points. You must be getting very emotionally worked up about this issue, and I can understand why, but this does not help build a proper discussion.

———————————-

[Scott said:] “And that’s my clarification. I hope you can empathize with how I felt, and probably how many other mainstreamers in Malaysia feel, even if you disagree with the reasonableness of the cause of my feelings.” [End Scott's words]

19) If you emphatize of the feelings of LGTs first, then there is not need for even written attacks, yes? 

The point is that whatever empathy I have for LGTs or my own feelings or anyone’s, I put God’s stated feelings first. I made known my opinion on this on my own blog, and you quoted and linked to it.

———————————-

[Scott said:] “I suppose a comparison would be like NAMBLA (which promotes underage sex with boys) showing up and claiming that “All tolerant and accepting LGTs support our practise because we’re the most enlightened of all sexual preference groups! Only the bigots cannot accept us, and they’re hypocrites who have forgotten how they themselves were prejudiced against by the heterosexuals!”

In fact, NAMBLA did try to associate themselves into the larger LGT community, and were mostly given the cold shoulder.” [End Scott's words]

20) Are you equating boys who have sex for fun while still in their puberty, with men who are in their 40s and in love with each other, then have sex?

No, I am not. NAMBLA was trying hard to do that in order to gain acceptance and legitimacy, though.

But I maintain that it is a comparable situation. NAMBLA tried to get acceptance for paedophilia by sticking on to homosexuality, which had better acceptance. The LGT community mostly viewed them as doing wrong and felt offended at NAMBLA’s unilateral association with them.

You can compare this to Christians, who mostly feel homosexuality is wrong, and feel offended when homosexuality unilaterally associates itself with Christianity.

———————————-

[Scott said:] “In conclusion, I believe we understand each other on this matter: We have differing viewpoints, and are each convinced of our own correctness. I guess we shall leave it at that. And if we never come to agree on this matter, I hope to meet one day in Heaven and have it all sorted out then.” [End Scott's words] 

21) God DID say in heaven there is no male or female, yes?

Yes, but here on earth we were meant to be male and female (as the example of Adam and Eve, BEFORE sin, shows). In heaven, we will likely be genderless – there will be better things than mere sex to enjoy.

———————————-

[Scott said:] “I am actually not very much into debating sexual orientations. I’m much more practised at debating evolution, global warming and the historical basis of Christianity and its Scirptures.” [End Scott's words]

22) Then do you agree we should stop debating about this, and you would stop commenting anything anymore about sexual orientation and gender identity, since it is my line of field and not yours, and you have other things to dialogue with with others?

Disagree. Anyone who has a different view from mine can ask me to similarly shut up by invoking ‘authority’ over a given topic. I am entitled to my opinion, particularly if it is my own blog I am writing at.

It is also my field, as long as it crosses into the territory of Christian beliefs and practices. Simply put, if it had been a news story on homosexuality-accepting Buddhism, I wouldn’t have even posted the link.

———————————-

Last three is general questions:

23) Do you read the New Testament more than the Old Testament and agree that God in the New Testament is very much different than God in the Old Testament?

I read both, and believe that He is the same God behaving with the same personality. The circumstances on earth dictated different specific responses at different times, however.

I don’t know your stand on this issue, but I anticipate that it is a set-up to attack my beliefs.

———————————-

24) Like in the Old Testament days, God commands people to kill. Mothers are to kill disobeying children, people are to stone people to death, but God did say ‘thou shalt not murder’; so if God asks you to kill, you would not do it, yes?

God said that we should no commit murder. Therefore, we cannot decide to kill people.

That authority rests with God alone, who is the creator and owner of all life. He made it, He has the right to take it back.

The Israelites were commanded by God to lawfully execute (not murder) serious sinners and entire races, such as the baby-sacrificing Amalekites.

But we are not Jews, the Amalekites are long extinct, and God doesn’t seem to be giving us any more clear, specifi commands to execute anyone. Hence, I would not kill unless God overwhelmingly convinced me to, and it would have to not contradict His word.

For how modern Judaism practitioners deal with the issues of death punishment today, see an amusing and informative explanation at http://www.win.net/ratsnest/archive-articles-4/fog0000000021.html

———————————-

25) You hereby state this: You have the right to go to church, serve in the ministry, while praising and worship God. You also reserve the right to deny homosexuals the right to go to church, serve in the ministry, while praising and worshiping God. Yes?

On the contrary, I state no such thing. The very opposite: I believe that homosexual persons may go to church, serve, praise, worship, be Christian. I however oppose that homosexuality iself is correct and acceptable before God.

I reserve the right to argue that Christianity and the Bible do not condone homosexuality, but as is very clear from statements made by chruch groups, none of use will deny homosexuals the freedom-of-worship right to set up a church hat accepts homosexuality. We oppose it on spiritual and doctrinal grounds.

———————————-

26) You hereby state this: You have no right to deny Buddhists the right to go to temples, perform their rituals, and worshiping Buddha; but even if you have the right you would not use it, even though their teachings, even by your Christian principles, is totally against God. Yes?

I affirm that I have no right to do so. They, after all, do not claim to follow Christian ways.

As seen in the answer to 25, I neither deny homosexuals the right to worship in church. However, I reserve my right to argue that homosexuality itself is contradictory to the Christian faith by virtue of what the Bible says.

———————————-

27) You hereby state this: Any positive mention of civil rights for homosexuals would infringe your comfort zone, and you feel that, while maintaining your civil rights, it is your right to deny homosexuals their civil rights. Yes?

Again, I must restate that I merely argue the Biblical viewpoint on homosexuality. And again, I must restate that I am not opposed to homosexual civil rights, including civil unions, from a humanistic point of view.

So, no, my comfort zone is not affected by something as light as the positive mention of civil rights.

You really do think I am a stereotypical fundamentalist bigot, don’t you? The kind who would join the KKK and lynch people of colour, even though I myself am Asian?

I personally feel I am very objective and take into account the viewpoint of others. Every time I argue on this topic, I argue from the point of view of the Bible as I understand it. I never claim that my ineterpretation is the sole, uncontestable truth.

———————————-

28) You hereby state this: The Church Of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) and Jehovah’s Witness have churches, semiars and meetings in Malaysia. As you know, their religion is against Christianity’s full principles. But the you, along with NECF, CCM and other Christian associations barely raise a sigh. But you all feel that when homosexual pastor wants to open a church in Malaysia, which has no affect to your life, and only against Christianity by culture, you feel have the right to react to it by condemning him. Yes?

The majority of mainstream Christians do not accept LDS and JW as true Christianity. Even they themselves seldom refer to themselves as Christian, but as Mormon or JW, is this true? Some Protestants do not even consider Roman Catholics to be Christian, and vice versa.

I feel I have the right to voice my opinion, which is that a homosexuality-accepting pastor is against Christianity by theological doctrine and not just culture.

About other I cannot say, but I admit that it is likely that many of them feel more strongly about homosexuality than LDS or JW.

And again, this is a red herring diversion: Shift the focus onto other topics, ask us to go demolish them first then move on to your beliefs.

———————————-

29) You hereby state this: You believe you have the right to tell people who do nothing to disturb your life, how they should live?

No, I cannot tell anyone how they should live, even last-legs drug addicts. I can only give my personal opinion, which is exactly what I have been doing all this while!

Tell me where I have stated that the homosexuality-accepting church should be closed down by order of law or by force, like someone who wrote in to The Star recently has? All I have done is argue my opinion that homosexuality is not right by God.

You keep misrepresenting me and my beliefs and actions. I had thought you were well informed, level headed and unbiased. Your continued attitude makes me rethink that conclusion. Perhaps it is due to your feeling strongly about this topic.

———————————-

30) You hereby state this loud and clear, before God and me: When you see two men holding hands (min) or having sex (max); you feel offended, disgusted and uncomfortable first, long before you think of God, or what God has to say, or pray for them. YES?

I admit it, yes, in the same way I would feel anger at inconsiderate drivers long before I think of praying that they will be nicer people.

But to put a limit on it, I don’t feel personal ‘disgust’ (a very strong word), more of the conviction that it is wrong by God.

Hooooooooow many times must I reiterate, I DO NOT FEEL HOMOSEXUALITY IS HUMANLY WRONG, just that the Bible says it is wrong and that I follow what I believe the Bible says. I will repeat the next line several times so you see it if you just scan my posts for ammunition.

Stop thinking I dislike homosexuality in and of itself. I oppose it on theological grounds.

Stop thinking I dislike homosexuality in and of itself. I oppose it on theological grounds.

Stop thinking I dislike homosexuality in and of itself. I oppose it on theological grounds.

Stop thinking I dislike homosexuality in and of itself. I oppose it on theological grounds.

That should ne noticeable even as you are page-downing thru my blog.

———————————-

[Scott said:] “All in all, it’s been an informative discussion. I’ve appreciated getting to know how you think and why you think it, and I hold no ill will or poor perception of you.” [End Scott's words]

Again, please answer all the 25 questions, yes or no, then state your justification. However you wish to answer these questions, I do not think it is worthy time to discuss further with you. I believe by answering the questions itself, it will show everyone your current state of mind. And any further discussions would only be going around in circles, in the case of faith in God says so (plus ex-gay manipulated science which you think is otherwise) vs the reality and truth (the full current general medical opinion: http://www.progressiveu.org/132044-what-most-doctors-say-about-homosexuality-a-collection-of-policy-statements-by-the-major-professional-associations .

Even Rober Spitzer, says Christians are manipulating his work: http://www.sfbaytimes.com/index.php?sec=article&article_id=5924

“Unfortunately Focus on the Family has once again reported findings of my study out of context to support their fight against gay rights,” said Dr. Spitzer.”

I hold not ill will or poor perception of you too. But I do believe your battles are not with LGTs. Please believe me; you are just not in this field even scientifically to talk about it. All you can do is prejudice and say God says so and so, that homosexuals are not Christians, when God says barely anything. It is better to stay mum about it.

I think this misinformation campaign will suit you. They are very disturbing and I must admit I am not fit to discuss anything with them. It is that exasparating. Perhaps, you can put your thoughts on it, They have a forum there too: http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/ .

Agreed, this set of discussions is over. My opinion of you has seriously deteriorated with this post, and I do not wish to continue any longer or put up with repeated personal atatcks, misrepresentation, and COMPLETE MISSING MY POINT.

I may not be scientifically accredited to discuss this issue, but I never claimed to be. From the very start, I merely argued the Biblical, Christian point of view on it. And I have seriosu doubts about the cult of Science these days – who tests the testers?

And your last sentence with the link to http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/ is all three of your repeated logical fallacies in one: You divert the discussion from homosexuality to amputation (red herring), you put up an extreme interpretation of Christianity that is easy to criticize and imply that all Christianity is equally bigoted (straw man), and you imply that I have a tendency for disturbance and rely on misinformation (ad hominem attack).

The site quoted is obviously a polemic against Christianity, basically ridiculing the notion of God being loving and just – because He won’t instantly and miraculously restore the limbs of amputees. Therefore, He either doesn’t exist or is mean and spiteful.

In short, you imply that I am equivalent to mockers who intentionally quote Scripture out of context to suit their own purposes – only I of course do it against homosexuality.

What, am I supposed to surrender just because someone else uses certain interpretations with regard to a completely different point of discussion? Do I have to justify his arguments asm well, before I am allowed to make my own?

I dare say that during this discussion, it is me who has been more level headed, objective and willing to see the other point of view (yours). You have rejected that I have any valid points from the outset. For one example, I recognize that anti-homosexual studies may be biased, but you do not entertain the notion that pro-homosexual studies may also be biased.

In short, I expected more of you based on your earlier posts, which had plenty of information and logical arguments.

So, have I shown myself to be a mindless, brainwashed, smear-tactic bigot by my honest answers yet?

I have tried very hard, now and all the posts before, to me rational, objective, polite and mature. But you still saw fit to paint me with the same huge smear brush I thought would have been reserved for flamers and hate-mailers.

———————————-

[Scott said:] “God bless… Seriously and honestly!” [End Scott's words]

God bless… Seriously and honestly to you too. Ditto.

It is still God bless, no matter how vehemently we may disagree. At least that is one thing we have in common, and also that we each want the truth to be revealed – though we have different opinions of what is that truth really is.

————————–

SCOTT’S NOTE: While I maintain my personal convictions – based on Scripture – regarding this issue, I apologize for any hurt or offense I may have caused with my remarks.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 115 other followers

%d bloggers like this: