Dumbledore's Gay

[kengs333]

Quite possibly so; mostly, I imagine, because the doctrines of Christianity rely heavily on the Bible; or, really, on interpretation thereof. Hence, I too often hear preachers piecing together verses from the Bible to teach us all a lesson. Strange how you find it works okay one way, but not the other.

No, you are quite wrong; it does not always work "okay one way". First of all, what anti-Christians usually do--since they have a limited knowledge of the Bible--they consult anti-Christian websites/sources that have already boiled things down for them by providing verses which if mixed and matched can, when taken out of context, be presented to suggest a whole lot of unseemly things, when nothing of the sort is really the case. But this is not the exclusive domain of the anti-Christian. Many preachers, minister, false prophets and the like, play the game, too--many people are led astray by this. These people are all over TV, but are also found in churches; especially those wacked out churches in the deep south in the Bible Belt. But that's not my experience; and in the end I always look to the NT as my guide, because that's what God intended with the Bible.

[kengs333]

By breathing then writing what you did. You made ridiculous negative generalizations about Jews. But then this comes from a guy who feels gay animals are the result of pollutants.

No, I did NOT make "ridiculous negative generalizations" about anything. What I stated was purely factual. Anyone who follows what's going on in the Middle East knows what the situation is, and it's nothing controversial to state that Israel's human rights violations are really unfortunate given the history of the Jewish people. Moreover, there were a lot of Jews in Russia in the early 1900s and many joined the Soviets and participated in the atrocities that they committed. That too is simply a fact. You know that the term "anti-semetic" has a particularly strong meaning, and to wield it in such a reckless manner is most unfortunate.

[bk59]

No, I did NOT make "ridiculous negative generalizations" about anything. What I stated was purely factual.

Hardly. You have made numerous generalizations about homosexuality. And have yet to show a single fact. You have made generalizations about pedophilia that are not true. You did compare the gay rights movement to Nazism. It's all there in your posts. I wonder how many people have to call you on this before you being to look a bit more critically at what you have posted here.

[g_bambino]

No, you are quite wrong; it does not always work "okay one way". First of all, what anti-Christians usually do--since they have a limited knowledge of the Bible--they consult anti-Christian websites/sources that have already boiled things down for them by providing verses which if mixed and matched can, when taken out of context, be presented to suggest a whole lot of unseemly things, when nothing of the sort is really the case. But this is not the exclusive domain of the anti-Christian. Many preachers, minister, false prophets and the like, play the game, too--many people are led astray by this. These people are all over TV, but are also found in churches; especially those wacked out churches in the deep south in the Bible Belt. But that's not my experience; and in the end I always look to the NT as my guide, because that's what God intended with the Bible.

Okay, I acknowledge then that you're not the Evangelical Christian type and appreciate that you can call them out for being what they are as much as the rest of us can. But you still kind of emphasise my point, though. Verses of the Bible can be taken out of context by anyone and arranged to make their point seem valid. I'll admit I'm no Bible scholar, but it seems to me that it's so easy for people, Christians and non-Christians alike, to do this because of a) so many translations of, and so many inherent contradictions in, the book. It means, to me, that nothing in the Bible can ever be taken literally, and it thus becomes simply a collection of stories out of which the overall moral points can be interpreted by the individual reading them.

You also did not respond to my points r.e. fixed vs. flexible morality. Care to comment?

Edited October 26, 2007 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

You know that the term "anti-semetic" has a particularly strong meaning, and to wield it in such a reckless manner is most unfortunate.

Same with "paedophile," though.

[jazzer]

No. That's why God sent Jesus.

So then Jesus would have approved of stoning unruly children, unfaithful wives, and on and on (see Leviticus and Deuteronomy). Don't think you can have it both ways. Either he came to fulfill the existing laws or he didn't. And if he did, where's the love and forgiveness, and love your enemy etc. If OT law meant morality, then there is a major disconnect re the NT.

[Higgly]

Aren't you glad its not you! AHahah I am sure Buffy is hiding.

What. Now you want to get me involved in this ridiculous bun-fight? Get a life Rue.

[Rue]

Keng you have expressed the following comments;

1- gays are brainwashing people

2-the male gay community celebrates pedophilia

3-pedophiles are homo-sexuals when they engage in sex with a child of the same sex

4-gays engage in the same tactics as Nazis

5-gays and Jews are victimizers because in the case of gays they engage in a social conspiracy to make people think being gay is acceptable and in the case of Jews, because some of them may have joined the Soviet Communist party and because you consider certain Israeli policies to be human rights violations

6-homo-sexuality in animals is disputed

7-homo-sexuality in animals is not widespead

8-homo-sexuality in animals is caused by pollutants

9-homo-sexuals are immoral

10-what is wrong with society is that homo-sexuals (and non homo-sexuals) won't repress their true selves and sexual feelings.

You have not provided one fact to base any of these 10 comments.

What you continue to do is repeat your subjective opinions including the above comments to defend these subjective opinions.

Edited October 27, 2007 by Rue

[sharkman]

So anyway, hopefully the author will also clear up the issue of whether Dumbledore has a wide stance in bathroom stalls and if he's a toe tapper. Just as silly and patronizing as outing a fictional character in a children's book years after the fact.

Edited October 28, 2007 by sharkman

[noahbody]

So anyway, hopefully the author will also clear up the issue of whether Dumbledore has a wide stance in bathroom stallls and if he's a toe tapper. Just as silly and patronizing as outing a fictional character in a children's book years after the fact.

I'm wondering about the centaurs in the forest. Just how were they created? My guess: bestiality.

[kengs333]

Same with "paedophile," though.

No, making a factual statement about pedophelia and making a personal attack in which one calls someone else a "anti-semite" for mentioning Israel's poor human rights record are two totally different things.

[kengs333]

So then Jesus would have approved of stoning unruly children, unfaithful wives, and on and on (see Leviticus and Deuteronomy). Don't think you can have it both ways. Either he came to fulfill the existing laws or he didn't. And if he did, where's the love and forgiveness, and love your enemy etc. If OT law meant morality, then there is a major disconnect re the NT.

This has already been discussed elsewhere in this thread. It really just makes you look like a fool when you draw these kinds of connections between the book of Leviticus and Jesus, while disregarding all that was written in between, all that is written in the Gospels.

[kengs333]

1- gays are brainwashing people

Gay rights movement.

2-the male gay community celebrates pedophilia

Man-boy love is a celebrated aspect of male homosexuality.

3-pedophiles are homo-sexuals when they engage in sex with a child of the same sex

What are people who have sex with people of the same sex?

4-gays engage in the same tactics as Nazis

The spread and acceptance of the two movements have similarities.

5-gays and Jews are victimizers because in the case of gays they engage in a social conspiracy to make people think being gay is acceptable and in the case of Jews, because some of them may have joined the Soviet Communist party and because you consider certain Israeli policies to be human rights violations

Why can't they be "victimizers".

6-homo-sexuality in animals is disputed

That's correct. Animals aren't homos.

7-homo-sexuality in animals is not widespead

Something can't be "not widespread" that doesn't exist.

8-homo-sexuality in animals is caused by pollutants

Same sex attraction in animals is proven scientifically to be caused by pollutants.

9-homo-sexuals are immoral

Homosexuality is immoral.

10-what is wrong with society is that homo-sexuals (and non homo-sexuals) won't repress their true selves and sexual feelings.

Immorality is detrimental to society.

What you continue to do is repeat your subjective opinions including the above comments to defend these subjective opinions.

And "gay rights activists" don't? Most of my opinions, however, are not subjective; they are objective and based on fact.

[g_bambino]

No, making a factual statement about pedophelia and making a personal attack in which one calls someone else a "anti-semite" for mentioning Israel's poor human rights record are two totally different things.

Is it "factual"? It would appear to me that you're merely drawing personal conclusions in the same manner the poster who accused you of being an anti-semite might have done.

[jazzer]

This has already been discussed elsewhere in this thread. It really just makes you look like a fool when you draw these kinds of connections between the book of Leviticus and Jesus, while disregarding all that was written in between, all that is written in the Gospels.

I asked you a specific question and once again you defer and ignore. But more to the point, dear kengs, the astute biblical scholar, is right and anyone with a differing opinion or a valid challenge is a fool. More language of the ignorant. And as to the original topic, you say homosexuality is immoral. Since you are a so-called expert on the NT, you have miserably failed to find one scripture where Jesus specifically denounces homosexuality.

Edited October 28, 2007 by jazzer

[jazzer]

Let's see some examples of "the number of horrible things"... I'm fairly certain what you have in mind, but let's see it anyway.

The NT is pretty clear on how freeing people from "evil and sin" should come about; it never involves force or violence.

Tell that to George W.

[OhCanadienne]

kengs333, could you cite your source - and a link if possible - regarding this:

Same sex attraction in animals is proven scientifically to be caused by pollutants.

Thanks in advance for the info!

[g_bambino]

I asked you a specific question and once again you defer and ignore.

Yes, join the club of ignored seculars; I too haven't recieved an answer to my numerous questions in response to Keng's assertions.

I suppose, though, it's understandable that someone would be afraid of deeply analyzing the guiding principals of how they actually view the entire world around them. For devout Christians the scriptures are often a safe place to turn and hide from the evils of logic.

[Shakeyhands]

Gay rights movement.

Man-boy love is a celebrated aspect of male homosexuality.

What are people who have sex with people of the same sex?

The spread and acceptance of the two movements have similarities.

Why can't they be "victimizers".

That's correct. Animals aren't homos.

Something can't be "not widespread" that doesn't exist.

Same sex attraction in animals is proven scientifically to be caused by pollutants.

Homosexuality is immoral.

Immorality is detrimental to society.

And "gay rights activists" don't? Most of my opinions, however, are not subjective; they are objective and based on fact.

OOOOOOH... I get it now, well you were much more convincing restating all the things you couldn't back up before this time... It all makes sense now.

[Rue]

No, making a factual statement about pedophelia and making a personal attack in which one calls someone else a "anti-semite" for mentioning Israel's poor human rights record are two totally different things.

1. You have provided no factual statements about pedophilia at all. What you have continued to do is state subjective feelings or opinions and then claim they are factual. Where are your facts for them Keng?

2. Personal attack? You come on this forum and claim gays engage in the same tactics as Nazis and male gays celebrate pedophilia and you dare complain about personal attacks? That is a good one.

3. I referred to you as an anti-semite and as a homophobe NOT because you stated that in your opinion Israel has a poor human rights record. That was not the reason you were called an anti-semite or homophobe by me. You now hide behind the statement of Israel having a bad human rights record to try make yourself a victim? HAH! I called you an anti-semite because of your exercise of assuming that because you question Israeli policies, you can then assign negative culpability to Jews for it. That Sir is typical anti-semitism-using your criticism of Israel to attach negative characteristics to all Jews and that is what you did just as you try suggest because some Society communists were of Jewish origin you can assign that to all Jews and make the sweeping generalization that all Jews are victimizers because of that. That Sir makes you a raving anti-semite.

It also Sir is the same exercise you engage in against gays. You state subjective opinions that make negative assumptions of all gays and then you keep repeating your negative assumptions as to all gays are based on facts but present one.

Don't play victim with me. Either defend your subjective opinions with factual basis or admit you have none and are just expressing your own personal hatred for yourself which you think you see in gays.

More to the point before you lecture any Jew or gay on being a victimizer look at your own words and take responsibility for them and what they mean.

The fact you would smeer gays with deliberately hateful words then come on this post and act the victim is of no suprise to me.

[Rue]

Is it "factual"? It would appear to me that you're merely drawing personal conclusions in the same manner the poster who accused you of being an anti-semite might have done.

And mine were blatant, i.e., deliberate and open to prove that point.

[Rue]

Keng in you defence of stating that gays are involved in a social conspiracy to brain-wash people you responded with the above comment:

"Gay rights movement."

How does that prove your contention? Are you lazy or simply someone who states subjective opinions but has no clue how he arrives at them? Which one is it Keng. According to your reasoning, ANYONE who forms an organize to express a political idea engages in brain-washing.

Is that what you are saying or do you think you can simply suggest because gays have a movement that defends their interests it must brainwash people. What kind of idiotic statement is that. Has it brainwashed you and your kind? Well? Think when you smeer Keng. Do you even know where the concept of brainwashing comes from and why there is in fact no such a concept and that its used by people like you because they do not understand the psychological phenomena associated with coercion and trauma? Have you a clue what causes trauma and what coercion is?

In response to your comment that male gays celebrate pedophilia you of course provided no proof and then ask the following question;

"What are people who have sex with people of the same sex?"

Tell us Keng. How does having sex with someone of the same sex mean its pedophilia. You did not respond and make any attempt to challenge the psychological and medical statements I made to you as to what pedophilia is. Why? why do you ignore the DSM V Psychiatric Manual? Why you simply repeat the above comment and avoid debating?

Keng what is it you can not understand about the following comment-when a pedophile has sex with a child, it doesn't make him a hetero-sexual when its a child of the opposite sex and it does not make him a homo-sexual if its a child of the same sex. Sex with children is neither homo or hetero-sexuality. If you want to pretend this is not the case, or ignore this and persist with the nonsense that sex with a child is to be defined with the same terms as sex with adults, then I am telling you, not only are you wrong, but you are a coward for refusing to admit you are single out gays as pedophiles but do not do the same with hetero-sexuals. Using your reasoning, not mine, all hetero-sexual males celebrate pedophilia because certain pedophiles have sex with children of the opposite sex. Or are you saying it only applies to gays? Well speak up Keng or stop hiding behind subjective opinions or do us all a favour and admit you have no idea how to defend what you are saying other than repeating your subjective opinions.

"The spread and acceptance of the two movements have similarities."

No Keng simply repeating the above subjective opinion with no factual reference and no explanation as to how they are similiar is dishonest and cowardly-are you even capable of showing what is similiar? Do you know anything about what you think you are talking about? Come on Keng spit it out, show us where its similiar.

"Why can't they be "victimizers".

Who is THEY Keng. Tell me. How do you arrive at your conclusion you can take all gays and simply lump them in one category called "they" and then refer to them ALL as victimizers? Do you think that is rational thought? DO you mean to tell us you know every single gay and what goes on in all their minds and its the same and more importantly they all go around victimizing hetero-sexuals because they were born gay? Are you nuts?

"That's correct. Animals aren't homos."

Prove it or shut up already. No it is not correct. It is absolutely incorrect and so incorrect it makes you sound like some madman who stands there stamping his feet and insisting he won't get sick if he runs around outside in minus 30 degree weather without clothes on.

Tell us gang how is your subjective opinion that animals aren't gay a fact? Come on show us the documentation. You have been asked 4 times and all you have done is keep repeating your subjective opinion. Why? I again ask is that because you simply do not know how to? If that is the case admit that otherwise Sir I say to you to your face, you are absurd for making such statements because you know they have zero factual basis.

"Something can't be "not widespread" that doesn't exist."

Keng now you engage in a pathetic exercise. You refuse to provide facts to base your opinion that there is no homo-sexuality in the animal kingdom, now you repeat the opinion and say because you repeated your subjective opinion that makes it true. Again I ask you are you nuts? DO you think you can establish fact by stating a subjective opinion then stating-well its true because you said so?

How do you know it does not exist? Put up or shut up.

"Same sex attraction in animals is proven scientifically to be caused by pollutants."

So provide the source for the above. You said its proven scientifically. You were asked to show the scientific evidence many times. Are we to conclude Sir you haven't because; a-you simply made it up; b-think if you repeat something unsubstantiated people will simply get tired of you and assume its true, c-have cognitive impairment that prevents you from understanding the difference between your opinions and what a fact is; d-are deliberately dishonest with people and simply like to bait them. which one is it?

"Homosexuality is immoral."

But so are you so what is the point? The fact that you think it is immoral means what? Next you will tell us you are God. You have already told us you speak for him.

"Immorality is detrimental to society."

People who say other people are immoral and make moral judgements on them are detrimental to society as well-your point?

"And "gay rights activists" don't?"

Don't what Keng? Once again you create this stereotype of "gay right activist" but don't explain what it consists of, then suggest all of them engage in immorality. You are quick to create groups, then assignment them common negative characteristics. Why? Did you ever stop and think why you do that and what that means?

"Most of my opinions, however, are not subjective; they are objective and based on fact."

So where are the facts Keng? Where? Show any of us ONE fact, one.

You know what Keng you are one sad case. You can't even provide one fact to base your subjective opinions, not one.

[g_bambino]

And mine were blatant, i.e., deliberate and open to prove that point.

Yes, you constructed a better argument to support your opinion. However, I guess, to be technical, Keng can't be proven to undoubtedly be anti-semetic until he explicitly states that he hates Jews.

[kengs333]

3. I referred to you as an anti-semite and as a homophobe NOT because you stated that in your opinion Israel has a poor human rights record. That was not the reason you were called an anti-semite or homophobe by me. You now hide behind the statement of Israel having a bad human rights record to try make yourself a victim? HAH! I called you an anti-semite because of your exercise of assuming that because you question Israeli policies, you can then assign negative culpability to Jews for it. That Sir is typical anti-semitism-using your criticism of Israel to attach negative characteristics to all Jews and that is what you did just as you try suggest because some Society communists were of Jewish origin you can assign that to all Jews and make the sweeping generalization that all Jews are victimizers because of that. That Sir makes you a raving anti-semite.

No, I made these points to illustrate the fact that people who experience suffering and persecution can themselves become persecuters and victimizers. Israel is a state that was founded by Jews, many of who survived the holocaust; yet the best way in which they can accomplish this is through terrorism (Irgun, etc), war, and displacing and forcing millions of people into refugee camps. Of course any criticism of Jews or Israel get's automatic "anti-semite" accusation--that's always the way it is. But I talk about Israel no different than I do about the USA and Americans, China and Chinese, or any other country/people that I have issues with--regardless of race or religion (yes, even "Christians"). Would it have made you happy had I chosen some other country? How about the Netherlands who all those years had to suffer under Nazi occupation (except the 60,000 who enlisted in the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS) and once freed--by the Canadians no less--went off and started a war in southeast Asia that resulted in c. 250,000 deaths, I believe. Is that better??? Or is this me just being "typical anti-dutchite-using"...???

[Moxie]

So is Dumbledore still gay or has he been "Born Again"?

The far right have to accept that homosexuality is normal or at the very least acceptable to a majority in current society. They are entitled to be equals in the eyes of the law, anything less is "Discrimination". The far left and far right are so much alike in their intolerance of other views contrary to theirs they'll never agree on anything. I guess they'll have to agree to disagree.