Translate

Showing posts with label homophobia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homophobia. Show all posts

Sunday, 12 October 2014

What exactly does Susie Leafe want from the Bishop of Buckingham who actively supports gay marriage? Can you tell?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04l03fb From 35:45





Frank Field says he sees the C of E as a creature of the state and expects the C of E to do its bidding. Suzy Leafe looks slightly pained.



The Bishop of Buckingham on the Ins and Outs and Same-Sex Marriage

"I wonder why we are so uniquely hung up about sexuality." 

He seems be entirely unaware of the significance of the institution importance of marriage at all, and it seems no one in the land is capable of pointing this out to him.  He also seems so historically ignorant that he is unaware that the Church used to take it quite seriously.
http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/compraym.html Is the Church of England staffed almost entirely by men feeble in intellect and moral courage? Perhaps they are all just liberals? Suzy Leafe seems quite unable to get it together to give them a piece of her mind or explain why she has a problem with gay marriage.

If she is not up to the job, why don't the male council members do it for her?  There are so many of them at http://reform.org.uk/about/council-members Why did they send a woman to do a man's job? Is it cos they don't trust themselves to say what they mean or cos they don't think they are pretty enough?
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, 3 June 2014

Does the Archbishop of Canterbury think the state religion of Britain is PC Libtardism?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/04/african-christians-church-of-england-gay-marriage-justin-welby

African Christians will be killed if C of E accepts gay marriage, says Justin Welby


Archbishop says he has seen mass grave of Christians killed by neighbours who said they feared being 'made to become gay'

 Friday 4 April 2014

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/12/homophobia-not-tolerated-schools-church-england

Homophobia must not be tolerated in schools, Church of England says

Archbishop of Canterbury says church schools must not turn 'a convenient blind eye to institutional homophobia'

 Monday 12 May 2014
Is it possible that the Archbishop of Canterbury in May has forgotten what he said in April?

Is it possible that the Archbishop of Canterbury does not know that the nicer white people are to their gay people the nastier black people will be to their gay people?

Is it possible that the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't care really about African Christians being murdered for adhering to the faith that is perceived to be the faith of white people known to want to promote gay marriage worldwide?  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/25/gay-marriage_n_3651435.html

Is the Archbishop of Canterbury really not aware that the both the Bible and the Koran are "homophobic"?

Does the Archbishop of Canterbury really think that Christianity is PC Libtardism and that it is his job to promote PC Libardism?

Does the Archbishop of Canterbury believe that people who think of themselves as Christians are too stupid and illiterate to read the Bible and discover for themselves that the Bible and the Koran are definitely "homophobic"?

Can there be any doubt at all that the Archbishop of Canterbury is a creature of the PC Libtard state? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10828762/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-Justin-Welby-says-gay-marriage-is-great.html

Is the way the Church of England has liberalised itself the way forward for the Catholic Church?

Is Christianity fit for the purpose of maintaining the morals of its adherents when its corrupt clergy is now but a mouthpiece for the matriarchal governments of the degenerate West?

Can there be any doubt that the Church is more interested in putting as many filthy rotten stinking bums on its rotten pews so it can say its numbers are increasing than in fulfilling its purpose of maintaining moral standards through preaching the morality of the Bible?

Can you see the efficacy of the Koran which relies on its principles to be translated into law, and the corruptible and corrupt Christian clergy who will say black is white as long as they continue to derive an income from the Church they claim to serve but whose teachings they actually subvert?

What do you think the Catholic Church is doing when the Pope says he is cool with gay marriage and SSMs?

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/09/06/single-mother-says-her-heart-is-filled-with-joy-after-call-from-pope-francis/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2577366/Pope-Francis-stop-condemning-sex-civil-partnerships-hints-leading-cardinal-step-Catholic-gay-marriage.html

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-the-Pope-convert-to-Islam/141277252691901

Is the Muslim-Christian Forum an instrument of PC Libtardism?

http://www.christianmuslimforum.org/

Print



Julian Bond - Director
Julian Bond has been Director of the Christian Muslim Forum since its launch in 2006. 
Before joining the Forum Julian studied Theology and Education at the Universities of Wales and Gloucestershire. After a very brief spell as a Prep School teacher he joined HM Revenue & Customs, with positions in audit, information systems and management consultancy.  However, a Civil Service career was excitingly and unexpectedly interrupted by a two year secondment to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Initiative in Christian-Muslim Relations in 2002. Many years of Civil Service training and experience came into their own as he planned and organised conversations and reflections with Christians and Muslims around the country. He was co-author of the inspiring report of these‘Listening Exercises’ which proposed, in July 2004, that the Archbishop support the creation of a national Christian Muslim Forum.


Julian is passionate about improving relations between Christians and Muslims in the UK and beyond. ‘Our religions do not encourage us to be negative about each other. I am excited by the track record and future potential of the Christian Muslim Forum in creating opportunities to meet, understand and find new ways of living and working together, inspired by a vision of radical friendship.’


Julian Bond is more a Liberal Democrat than a Christian. Such a person would regard the right to have extramarital sex between consenting adults as more important than any moral precept that Abrahamic faiths might promote, ie marriage, which must necessarily and logically mean the prohibition of extramarital sex. http://bogpaper.com/the-liberal-party-a-haven-for-sexual-perverts/



He has already blocked me on Facebook and Twitter and behaves as if the right of consenting adults to have extramarital sex has been won for all time and that there is nothing further be said on the matter.  He also deleted a rather interesting exchange we had on the subject.

Claire Khaw Why would you object to following God's laws, if you do indeed believe in God?

Julian Bond Yes, I believe the Nicene Creed, what is your opinion of it. You previously mentioned God, not God's laws ( whatever they may be). What is the relevance of God's laws (maybe especially for an atheist) in this discussion and in England and Wales, especially when laws were given to Moses for a different people group?

Claire Khaw Both Muhammad and I have agreed that all the Abrahamic faiths have the same moral precepts and these precepts it is your intention to ignore and marginalise, it seems.

Tom Short Claire sorry to interrupt but God is not a governmental controlled product or anything in the likes of that. Yes most of the societal laws that exist are developed from religious laws because they have a good benchmark but in no law does it state that you have to believe in God to obey the law. The laws of man are just that the laws of man. In the monotheistic religions they have all stated that we are created in Gods image and Jesus stated to put love for others above laws.

Julian is one of the nicest Christians I know and if he chooses to take up Jesus' teachings above those of Law and Biblical law then he is proving to be one of the best Christians there are.

Tom Short Also Claire how can you be an atheist when you are proposing fusion of government and religion?

Julian Bond Claire, apart from standing against homophobia and appreciating the Archbishop's pastoral approach I don't think I have marginalised any 'law'.

The Christian Muslim Forum has not taken any position on anything to do with homosexuality.

Claire Khaw You don't have to believe in God to agree that the commandments Thou shalt not kill/commit adultery/steal/bear false witness make perfect sense.

To say you are not homophobic is taking a position on homosexuality. To say that you are is also taking a position on homosexuality. I suppose you could forbid the discussion of this subject, but that would be counter-productive and futile.

Julian Bond Claire, this discussion is on my own page, it is not a Christian Muslim Forum discussion. You're right though, as I said, I have my own personal opinion.

Claire Khaw The Bible and the Koran are clearly "homophobic" so it would appear that you are saying it is more important for you to be a Liberal Democrat than a Christian.

Perhaps subscribing to the Nicene creed allows any so-called believer to take any position that is obviously contrary to Bible while allowing him to plead his belief in the Trinity as his admission ticket to heaven, as long as he expresses remorse for his sins.

Tom Short And whilst I agree with that Claire those laws already exist but others like stoning someone to death for being raped for example is not one that should come into play. We are human and as such we should make laws that benefit all of man not just those who fear homosexuals with the rights to marry might then start to go for the straight people. Because that is rational. In a world that proclaims equal rights in all places but those countries that are not developed enough to have governing systems like we do I say that it should be equal all the time and all round.

Not a problem Julian you know what I am like by now.

Julian Bond Not sure why you're interested in political allegiance, why you think there might be only one 'true' Christian position ir what relevance it has to an atheist. I don't know what you mean by 'protection', I'm not aware of any.

Claire Khaw Only those who subscribe to Trinitarianism are Christian, and only Christians go to heaven. That is the whole point of this doctrine.

Everything else - good works, brave deeds etc - count for nothing.
          Julian Bond That's the protection? You seem to have more interest in it than I do!

Tom Short Jesus said to put love for all above the bibles laws. The whole reason of being a Christian is to follow Jesus's example not the Church. And the The Noble Qur'an has Jesus in it also so they too have the 'protection' to choose love. Muhammad never killed people instead tried to guide them if possible.

Claire Khaw You just have to say you are sorry for saying God is cool with being gay, and  Trinitarianism is a totalitarian doctrine. It is time Christians realised this. It was also the raison d'etre of the Inquisition.The Koran clearly and uncompromisingly denies the Trinity while affirming the Virgin Birth, which is interesting.  I am aware that Christians in the West never think of the Trinity, because they are not encouraged to do so. It is after all the Achilles heel of Christianity. If they think too much about it they would start doubting its "truth" and ask questions that if answered honestly and logically would end them up no longer being Christian once they can no longer say with any sincerity that they truly believe Christ is God Himself.

It is this doctrine that facilitates so much Christian hypocrisy and cant.

It is quite clear that being a Liberal Democrat is more important to you than being the kind of Christian that faithfully follows the will of God as stated in the Bible, and the Bible is in fact undeniably "homophobic".

You will of course insist that it is possible to be a gay marriage promoting Liberal Democrat *and* a Christian, because no one has dared to point out that this is in fact logically impossible, just like it is impossible for it to be both raining and not raining at the same time.

Tom Short Do you know how many sects there are in Islam and in Christianity? Each and every single one has a different doctrine to follow and each and every one follows what they believe to be right. The Orthodox church of the East has just as many sects as the trinitarian, Evangelical, Protestant and Catholics. The only one that would agree with what you are saying are the Puritans.



And yes the Qur'an does state that Jesus is another prophet not the son of God and yes it does affirm the Virgin birth but during the days of Jesus's birth and the times of Muhammed being a virgin was the terms for someone who was not married. I think it is safe to say that we have gone beyond the days of Constantine, the Puritans and the current lot of Extreme Muslims who wish to kill the gays.

What you are talking about does not compute with the religions overall message. There is as much hypocrisy in both. I wouldn't make a habit out of slandering Christians who wish evolve with the times and accept that people can be gay as well as straight.

No what you are proposing is impossible. There are too many religions in this country for your way to work. Too many people who have children out of wedlock. Too many atheists.


And of course the bible is homophobic the ones who wrote it were Roman Christians under the rule of Constantine.
Claire Khaw  The existence of sects is irrelevant to the existence of scripture, which undeniably expresses views about LGBT people that would now be considered "homophobic" by the 21st century libtard.

Since you are free-loving pagan, I am wondering how and why you think you can speak with more authority than any of us. We already know how little you respect the institution of marriage and that believe that it should be your sacred right to have sex with anyone anywhere anytime.

I am quite sure what I say does not compute with people of your ilk, who cannot understand how and why anyone should wish to question your sacred right to have sex with anyone anytime anywhere, but this is unfortunately what the Bible and Koran says, whether you like it or not.

Perhaps when you become dictator you can throw all these books on the scrapheap and burn them, dancing naked round the bonfire in the manner that pagans of old used to do.
While you worship sexual freedom, sexual licence and sexual incontinence, there are those of us who see the purpose of regulating our sexual desires and moral restraint, if you don't mind.

Perhaps before too much longer PC Libtards will force us all to be gay, paedophiles, corporophiliacs, practitioners of incest and bestiality as well as necrophiliacs, fornicators and adulterers. And then there will be heaven on earth, as people like you would see it. What I am proposing is perfectly possible in theory, though I am sure most of the sexual degenerates in Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland would rather go to hell in a handcart than contemplate giving up their sacred right to have extramarital sex. Revolutions, however, have been known to happen.



I am afraid all these Interfaith types in the Christian Muslim Forum in fact wield no power because no one listens to them. They are chosen to run these little groups precisely because they are unobjectionable little twerps who cannot possibly offend anyone and will toe whatever line is required of them to seem moderate and inclusive.  They also agree to run these little groups because they already know that only people like them will want to join their pointless little groups.  If Anjem Choudary and his lot turned up to one of their little interfaith meetings they would probably call the cops.

Will he call the cops if I turn up to his lunchtime meeting on 10 June in Whitechapel?  http://www.christianmuslimforum.org/index.php/calendar/forum-events?task=view_event&event_id=214  We will have to see, won't we?
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 27 February 2013

What is the difference between someone saying "Homosexuals should be executed" and "Paedophiles should be executed"?

Or even restoring the death penalty?

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/sign-petition-restore-capital-punishment

None, I would suggest, since they are only proposing a change in the law.

Since they are expressing a political opinion, someone (such as a homosexual or a paedophile or a murderer of children or police officers) who holds the opposite view is bound to be offended.

So, while I profoundly disagree with the female student who declared that it would be right to execute homosexuals, I would defend her right to say it.


The Middle Eastern studies undergraduate who secretly filmed the discussion asked a member of the society whether, “in the Islamic society in which you strive for,” they would “feel comfortable, personally and morally, to kill a gay man".

The female student replied: "Absolutely," and described homosexuality as an "atrocity, because it goes against what God says".

The student was also asked if she, in her "ideal" Islamic state, would feel confident to kill a man if he "did something as com­pletely innocent as kiss another man outside the Students’ Union," to which she replied: "Yeah, abso­lutely ... "

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/25/manchester-student-society-kill-homosexuals-shuts_n_2764273.html

I would also point out to her that the Koran does not in any case says homosexuals should be executed, it only says punish them.  They could be fined, or be lashed 100 times just like those who are guilty of fornication or adultery, or God could ordain another way.

All the Abrahamic faiths are "homophobic" in any case.

Koran:

4:15.
If any of your women
Are guilty of lewdness,
Take the evidence of four
(Reliable) witnesses from amongst you
Against them; and if they testify,
Confine them to houses until
Death do claim them,
Or God ordain for them
Some (other) way. 


4:16.
If two men among you
Are guilty of lewdness,
Punish them both.
If they repent and amend,
Leave them alone; for God
Is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

Old Testament:


Leviticus 18 and 20
Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus, which form part of the Holiness code, contain the following verses:
22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. (Leviticus 18:22 NIV)
13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13 NIV)


New Testament:


Romans 1
“ 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.(Romans 1:26-27 NIV)



"Phobia" means an irrational hatred and fear of something.

Is it ever irrational to hate and fear those who promote homosexuality?


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, 30 May 2010

"Homophobic" means saying anything that might offend homosexuals?

Iain Daile said on Facebook today:

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/05/ben-bradshaw-hang-your-head-in-shame.html

Claire Khaw
Anyway, what is wrong with keeping one's options open? David Laws could be thinking: "I might be prepared to bat for a different side if I finally meet a member of the opposite sex whose company I feel reasonably confident of being able to enjoy long term."

I am afraid even now I entertain hopes of a certain Lord of the Labour Party in my unrequited love for him ...

Claire Khaw
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2010/05/david-laws-goes-mown-down-by-collective.html

Jill Garrow
Ben Bradshaw really needs to refrain from making bitchy comments about fellow gay men - it makes him look so nasty. I remember, not that long ago, he had a spat with Conservative gay MP Alan Duncan - and came off worst.

Claire Khaw
Gay men are vile to their own kind. Being gay, old, ugly and poor is much much worse than being straight, old, ugly and poor. I have seen the way they treat each other when they don't fancy each other.

Iain Dale
Ok, Claire Khaw. You have tried my patience once too often. You can take your BNP homophobic views elsewhere. You're not welcome here any longer.

Claire Khaw
Saying something that is offensive to a homosexual does not necessarily mean I am homophobic. Since I am expressing deep and intense regret at the sacking of David Laws as well as a deep and abiding admiration for Peter Mandelson, I don't quite see how what I am saying suggests that I hate homosexuals.

I would have thought what I have said displays a knowledge and experience of what being gay is like, which means that I actually have gay friends and know the kind of lives they live.


And then I was defriended.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...