Christians mock gays at shocking Easter service
Thousands of Christians gathered for an outdoor Easter Sunday service in San Francisco to publicly mock gays and humiliate gay heroes.
The flagrant attack, which included skits, obscenities and impersonations satirizing gays and gay stereotypes, sent shockwaves of outrage and disgust throughout the region and across the nation.
This report features photo and video documentation of the free public Easter service, which was attended by a majority of Christians in the city, who laughed at and insulted gays and the homosexual community.
Thousands of Christians make fun of gay stereotypes by dressing up as gays in Mission Dolores Park as they watch an anti-gay religious service and performance.
One of the Christian performers paraded around nude on stage, in an attempt to make gays look bad.
Another Christian satirized gay behavior by standing on his head and displaying his anus to the crowd.
This 12-minute (NSFW) video shows highlights of the shocking Easter service:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW6NM586-mE
Furthermore – - -
booooooooooooop!
THIS HAS BEEN A TEST OF THE
EMERGENCY DOUBLE-STANDARD SYSTEM
If this had been an actual case of Christians mocking gays, you would have heard about it in the mainstream media.
As you’ve undoubtedly noticed by now, everything in the report above is the exact opposite of true. Yes, there really was a huge public event in San Francisco on Easter Sunday involving Christians, gays, mockery and humiliation. But it was gays mocking Christians and it involved thousands of people laughing at the Christian “hero,” Jesus.
The event in question is known as the “Hunky Jesus” competition, a semi-serious annual male beauty contest seeking to crown the “hunkiest” — i.e. most sexually appealing — gay (preferably half-nude) Jesus lookalike in San Francisco. Actually, Hunky Jesus is only part of the story; it’s the culmination of a day-long Easter Sunday festival in the city’s Mission Dolores Park. The massive public party/picnic is the closest thing San Francisco has to a municipal Easter celebration, and features several events including an Easter egg hunt for kids, burlesque shows, a campy Easter bonnet contest, musical groups and so on, with Hunky Jesus as the headlining final performance.
As you will soon see in the report below, Hunky Jesus is intentionally as blasphemous as possible, an over-the-top religious-themed sexual beauty contest steeped in mockery of Christians and Christian beliefs.
Now, you might think, considering how I started this report, that I’m opposed to the Hunky Jesus contest and everything it stands for. But you couldn’t be more wrong.
I actually like Hunky Jesus; I’m not a Christian, nor am I religious in the slightest, so the “blasphemy” doesn’t bother me one bit.
No, what bothers me is the double standard. In San Francisco (and places like San Francisco, including most newsrooms and TV studios), it’s perfectly acceptable to mock Christians. But to turn the tables and mock gays in a similar way is considered totally beyond the pale; a hate crime; bullying; bigotry and oppression of the worst kind.
If the story as I originally titled it was true (“Christians mock gays at shocking Easter service“), it would indeed have been national news. But when the reverse happens — silence. And what this tells me is that our society is currently enduring a condition of mass rank hypocrisy.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Since the gay community has carte blanche to mock Christians (as proven here), then the reverse should also be true — Christians should be free if they so choose to publicly mock gays or the stereotypical gay lifestyle. Why not? Neither side may like the mockery, but fair is fair.
To be consistent, we should either allow even-handed free speech for (and against) everyone — or ban all critical speech whatsoever. And that second option is the road to totalitarianism (not to mention being unconstituional), so Option 1 it must be: free speech for all.
As you will see in the photos and videos below, the gay community is very, very good at dishing it out. But can they take it? The moment anyone attempts the slightest mockery or put-down of stereotypical “gayness,” an entire class of professional victimologists and whiners and lawyers go apoplectic; no criticism or mockery is allowed!
This double-standard (and similar double-standards — take your pick) is destroying our national soul. I demand equal rights for all — the right to mock the target of your choice. The gay community wants to mock Christianity? Fine. Go for it. But then you necessarily must be prepared to take it on the chin uncomplainingly when it’s time to turn the tables and you are on the receiving end of the mockery.
Sound fair? Sounds fair to me. Now let’s have some apolitical fun at the Hunky Jesus contest!
My guess is that these people will rot in Hell, but that isn’t up to me.
If it isn’t up to you, then why announce your “guess”?
In the video, the announcers gleefully proclaim, “We’re all going to hell, people — but look at the wonderful community we’re going to share it with!” to which the crowd cheered.
The purpose of the concept of “hell” is to scare people into moral compliance. But if they already know about hell, and don’t believe it even exists, and if it does, imagine that they’ll have a good time there, then “hell” has ceased serving its intended purpose.
If you are religious and want to bring people over to your ways of thinking, it would be best to do so with a POSITIVE message, not a threat of punishment.
Zombie,
Gotta disagree that that’s the purpose of hell. It might be what *atheists* think the purpose of hell is, but for Christians, the purpose of hell is for justice. In other words, it’s like jail. The purpose of jail is not to scare people into not committing crimes–although if it has that as a secondary effect, so much the better–it’s to establish justice for the victims of the crime.
Not to be a bother…but I have always had a difficult time understanding the concept of heaven and hell. What I mean is that you describe hell as being a form of punishment. That I get. However, eternal punishment seems rather excessive for crimes committed on a human time scale. I mean, doesn’t it seem excessive, no matter what you have done, to be punished eternally?
And sort along the same lines, either in heaven or hell…punishment or pleasure…would it not get old after a few hundred thousands years? Our concept of reality is based upon a short time scale so would image that living eternally would turn into an unmitigated, boring, torturous existence.
I guess unless a deity would change me into something that could comprehend and exist rationally for eternity…but then if he/she/it/them is/are going to do that then it makes even less sense to judge a someone if they are going to go through a metaphysical change anyway.
Am I the only person that has struggled with this?
Here. I went and found a couple of articles on heaven and hell for you to take a look at. They;re written by Peter Kreeft, philosophy professor at Brown college.
http://peterkreeft.com/topics/heaven.htm
http://peterkreeft.com/topics/hell.htm
Not only have I struggled with that, I’ve got more:
Imagine you’re a good person and you go to heaven. But someone you love goes to hell. Or never mind — maybe no one you know personally goes to hell, but you’re sitting there in heaven knowing there are people in hell suffering eternal and excruciating torment. Could you actually be 100% happy with such knowledge? I couldn’t. Heaven could never be perfect for me.
Let’s go to the obvious case: Hitler. I don’t know that a million years of torture would rehabilitate Hitler; in fact, I don’t know that it would rehabilitate anyone. Further, I don’t know that pure suffering of a guilty person has any redemptive or useful moral value. If Hitler doesn’t become empathetic as a result of his suffering and realize that what he suffers is what he subjected others to, then what’s the point? And if he does gain empathy but he’s stuck in hell and all accounts have been settled, what’s the point of his enlightenment?
And yes, I’ve also struggled with the notion of eternal bliss. It seems to me it would require an occasional memory wipe so I could continue to find joy and delight in my existence. Either that or I’d have to attain some dramatically higher level of understanding, in which case I would no longer be myself. (The dramatically higher level of understanding would also further trouble me over the eternal and excruciating suffering of the damned.)
I don’t imagine that God experiences linear time (ie. God doesn’t know the future…past, present and future are all “now” to God). I also imagine that everyone in such an “afterlife” would also experience time the same way, so no, it wouldn’t get old. All pleasure/pain would exist for one great big eternal “now.”
Remember too that the afterlife punishment isn’t for the human aspect of the crime, it’s for the sin of rejecting God. And since your sin against God is, from his perspective, eternal (because of how he experiences time), a fitting punishment should be as well.
As for knowing that some people you know/love went to hell while you went to heaven, if the whole Christian heaven/hell thing is true at all, it won’t bother you. The supreme justice of the punishment will be so clear to you that you would have to agree with the judgment. That may offend your human sensibilities today, but it could be argued that that is only because you are applying faulty mortal human logic to something you cannot comprehend at this point. In other words, “when you get there it’ll make perfect sense.”
To go farther, it’ll make so much sense that your happiness would be diminished to see divine justice broken and your loved one not be punished.
Diablo,
I think there are two problems with your critique of hell (neither of which, I hasten to add, do I fault you for, since it matches the cultural understanding of hell and I figure you’re probably not a theologian, so you’d only be able to go by culture here).
The problems are this: First, the idea that the punishment will be akin to torture. Secondly, the notion that someone in hell would *only* be punished for what he did while alive on Earth. After all, it is certainly possible for someone to continue to be evil even while in hell.
I think one of the things you said emphasizes that we need not think of Dante’s Inferno when considering hell. After all, you said: “…would it not get old after a few hundred thousands years? Our concept of reality is based upon a short time scale so would image that living eternally would turn into an unmitigated, boring, torturous existence.” In that regard, you seem to be saying that existence itself is torture, and under that premise, punishment could simply be existence without relief for the unmitigated boredom.
I do think it’s possible to find contentment, though. My belief is that since we’re made in the image of God, and we were designed to be with Him, then when we are there, we are at peace. So heaven would never become an “unmitigated, boring, torturous existence” since we would actually be exactly where we were designed to be. But, any existence where we are *not* there, would eventually end up “torturous” as you say. That’s why life as we live it now can become tedious, since we don’t have that relationship with God here, and it’s why the concept of active torture in hell is unnecessary.
arhooley is correct — anybody in heaven ought to be troubled by the continuing suffering of the damned in hell.
if hell is to have any meaning in a universe created and ruled by loving and just God, it must temporary and transitional, in short, there must be some way to escape from it through repentance or some other means. If there are no means to escape from hell, the God who created it and maintains it must be an unjust and hateful power.
You assume that time exists for God and those who have passed away. God is Eternal, so eternal punishment is God’s punishment. It doesn’t follow that it lasts forever in the sense that we understand time. How could it? Our time is paradoxical; it must have a beginning and and end, yet it can’t have either. I reckon eternal punishment is qualitative rather than quantitative.
From the Mormon perspective, that punishment is self-inflicted. To see it our way, imagine you lived 100 million years as a spirit before you came to Earth, constantly in the presence of God, and were aware of countless other worlds and the people on them. Finally it’s your turn to take the test and you’re sent to Planet Varsity, namely Earth. After confidently telling God how you’d be back soon and only a tiny smidgeon less than perfect, you spend your life in the worst way, learning nothing of use, harming others constantly, and wasting every second you were given. Then you go back to face God, and you have all your memories of the countless millennia before your Earth life restored to you to contrast with your mortal existence.
The last place you’d want to be is standing in front of God with scarlet robes. So you won’t have to once judgement is passed, and you’ll be nothing but relieved to be away from His presence. The memories of your promise and potential compared with your failure is all the Hell that is necessary.
Most other Christians don’t believe in the preexistence and some believe that ‘like a lake of fire and brimstone’ means literally a lake of fire and brimstone. Trying to wade through the 3000+ Christian denominations can be very trying and confusing, so the best thing is to learn as much as possible and then to go to the Source, and see what He says.
Here’s a better way to understand the point of hell. I once read that the original New Testament references were actually referring to a place where garbage was dumped outside of Jerusalem. Hell is just the garbage. The Bible uses a lot of agricultural metaphors, so let’s look at it that way, too.
If you go out and look at your apple tree to select apples to make a pie, what do you do? You find the best apples the tree has, you pick them, and you put them in your dish on the kitchen table where you will make the pie later. The ultimate goal here is to be an apple in the apple pie. But as you, the baker, pick through the apples that you brought in, you see some may be starting to rot or have worms in them or soft spots, and you can’t use them for your final purpose, so what do you do with them? You throw them in the trash. Is it mean or unfair to throw the bad ones in the trash? Do you want a pie made with bad apples? What is the criteria you are using to select between the good apples and the bad apples for the pie? Does it change at any time?
So, while many of the usual discussions about the purpose of hell, which do include things like trying to encourage people to do right or to exact justice, are true, there is also an existential side. It is simply how you turn out in the end. You are either suitable or unsuitable for the ultimate purpose of God, and your destination, determined by your own choices, is due to that suitability, not some measure of time or whatever. I’m sure the rotten apples are pretty bored in the trash too.
First of all, Diablo: Cool name.
Far more importantly, though, most people – you included – have a very poor and faulty understanding of Heaven and Hell. I highly recommend you study The Articles of Faith. I think you can find them at LDS.org, or maybe mormon.org. Please be careful with your typing, because several times I wasn’t, and I wound up getting some website about painting or something. I was thoroughly confused until I realized I had been typing in a “dot-com” rather than a “dot-org.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is so totally NOT a business. It’s a Church, and its teachings are founded upon the teachings of Christ’s Church while He was on the earth. I have attended a lot of various Churches, and the Mormon Church is the only one at which the Holy Ghost can be felt. I was so very disappointed in all of the other Churches that I converted to the LDS Church. Sabbath worship without the guidance of the Holy Ghost is pointless, and essentially worthless.
Peter, how exactly is being resurrected from unknowing death (see Ecclesiastes 9) so that you can be cast into a lake of fire forever and ever, with no possibility of escape or parole, for either disobeying or not believing in a particular deity, “like jail” or “about justice”?
@ Joey D,
We don’t get to decide what God’s justice looks or feels like. Just be grateful you’ll have Jesus Christ there to be your mediator between your judge and God the Father. He’s the best Big Brother a person could ever have. Considering that he sweat blood for you, to pay the price for your sins, you owe him a hecka debt of gratitude. So why wouldn’t you worship Him?
Note: I said He paid FOR your sins. YOU need to pay BECAUSE OF your sins. There’s a BIG difference. Boy, did we ever get the nice end of that deal!
As we are taught in Catholic theology that hell is more a state of being than a place, and this state is the pain of being separated from God-wherever the real estate is in the afterlife is one of those things I hope I don’t find out.
This is a choice, or free will, given to us by a God we are taught created humanity to know and love him. If God is love, then knowing God, believing in a creator and the promise of Eternal life with him, prompts the believer into seeking him- out of love. It changes the way you look at others, as you truly want this for those you love and try to understand that God loves all others too, even when we don’t think they deserve it and don’t find them easy to love.
Our imperfect ability to love here on this earth is called sin. It separates us from God, wounds our human dignity and tarnishes our ability to truly love ourselves and others.
Religion gives a moral code of what is sinful-and Christians and Jews believe these commandments are from God. Most importantly they are given because a loving God would know how we creatures need to live, well, because God is God and we are not. Love without truth is not love.
So, most of us tend to do what is right out of the imperfect idea of not wanting to be punished, but when we do it out of love for God and our brothers and sisters we get a little closer to the truth. And heaven after all is being in loving union with a creator we can barely even explain.
What I saw in that video and those pictures is so angry…self loathing even, that any claim that this is making anyone happy is unthinkable to me. That level of debasing behavior shows a complete lack of any self respect or respect for the dignity of the persons there. In other words a total lack of love…and that is hell.
Except for the point of your calling us creatures (we are children of God, who have conscience, and therefore are not subject to the way of the creature – except for sociopaths, of course), I must say, AMEN and AMEN!
Nothing wrong with speculation.
And what makes you think that every Christian wants to convert others to their way of thinking?
I find this whole exhibition obscene, regardless of it’s intended mockery.
And my guess is we’ll never see a gay Muhammad impersonation festival during Ramadan or any other day out of fear the people you’d offend may punch your ticket to hell earlier than you’d like.
So very, very true.
Ya mean like they do with islam?
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Zombie, Great article. I greatly appreciate your work.
And I think you are both idiot jerk offs that should be fed to this crowd who will have to pay for the perverting of those little kids that were forced to
be there.
Harris Tweed has it right.
Perhaps, that is why there was only eight folks in Noah’s ARK. Everyone thought Noah was crazy, and that G-d did not exist.
It is like that now too.
Dear Leatherneck,
That’s a nickname for a serviceman in the Army or Marines or something; right? If so, I’d love to talk to you sometime. Not just to thank you for your years of protecting and defending the Promised Land (which everyone should do), but also to get into deep discussions on all sorts of topics. I really appreciate how intelligent and mature military men are.
In case you don’t give me the opportunity to converse with you later, thank you so much for all you’ve done and all you do for me and America in general, and God bless you!
It’s not so much the purpose of Hell but the reality. Christians aren’t suppose to want anyone to go there even homosexuals in San Francisco.
As far as the mocking, they can mock me tell their hearts’ content. It doesn’t bother me. That they are mocking God — which I see as denying their need for Him, and rejecting His protection and guidance down the narrow path — does bother me but only because I fear God will grant what they want, which is an existence without Him ever, which would be the reality of Hell; a place that I see as where all are equal in power; each believes himself (or herself) to be the most important thing in existence; and there is no appeal, ever, against injustice.
As far as Christians mocking these people, why would a Christian want to mock them? Christians are supposed to love them.
Your right the is no Burning Hell,it is a fear tactic for sure, but death comes from sin, the “wages” of sin is death..What is death? “Termination of Existence Forever” Don’t fool yourself, you & I will stand before GOD, its a fearful thing to face the Almighty, in sin. But Jesus offers forgiveness of sins and wrong doing by his blood. Choose life, which only comes through God’s offer in his son Christ Jesus, its up to us, Me? I want life now and forever..in Paradise, right here on a clean Earth.. Revelations: 21: 1 – 4. Just Think about it, what do you have to lose.
What you also miss is that hell and heaven are choices, the natural consequences of our actions here on earth. Those who choose to live without God get their wish.
Jesus taught a lot about hell and eternal punishment. He also talked about those who follow after their father the devil.
The whole event reminded me of the de-evolution of man found in Romans 1:18-32. God is already punishing these individuals by giving them over to their own evil desires. The prodigal son suffered because the father gave him everything he wanted and then let him suffer the consequences. Once he hit rock bottom, he repented and came home. Hopefully that will be the fate of those at the event.
Going to hell is not what you think it is, Going to Wasteington Debit Capital is really going to HELL.
Hell is an unincorporated community in Putnam Township of Livingston County in the U.S. state of Michigan. The community is near the border with Washtenaw County, about 15 miles (24 km) northwest of Ann Arbor. Hell is situated 3 miles (4.8 km) southwest of Pinckney via Patterson Lake Road. The community is served by the Pinckney post office with ZIP Code 48169.
Jesus said “love god, love your neighbor as yourself”. Mocking and humiliating others is the opposite of what he told you to do.
Heb.5.9 says that Jesus saves those who obey Him. ICor.16.22 says that those who fail to love him are damned. Jn.14.15 says that those who love Him will obey Him.
The bozos pictured neither love nor obey Him.
They are wise to remain nude, as they will eternally encounter extremely warm weather.
Don’t expect to see a “hunky prophet” competition next year BTW.
NoNoNOO, next year I wanna see a Muhammad look alike contest, a display of the latest burkas…a few rocks to throw you know a good ole Muslim hoe down..
Come on you pseudo “Christians” that attended this crappy display of humanity, have some real fun, play with some real fire.
Yeesh. That looks like something put of John Huston’s “The Bible.”
A clever person – a cruel, clever person – could distribute flyers and post announcements on the internet to help promote this event next year.
But that cruel, clever person will either add a category or simply announce there will be a “Hunky Prophet Mohammed(PBUH)” contest.
It will be interesting to see who shows up grinning, then.
Gay conservative Andrew Sullivan challenged them on this issue and they responded only with a no answer you can see here:
http://sfist.com/2011/04/28/sisters_of_perpetual_indulgence_res.php
I had absolutely no idea that this event existed. I find it to be one of the most horrible things I have ever seen or read about. I have always wondered how bad people could be so God would be so displeased as to cause a world-wide flood, now I have a better understanding. This is outside in broad daylight! The article mentioned that there were events for children. I wonder if any of those children are at the contest pictured? The next time gay people get angry at accusations of inappropriateness or are stereotyped – they need to look inward. This group, at least, brings it on themselves.
If I dragged my little boys down to the local swingers club to witness public sex acts and behaviors such as in these photos they’d be taken away by the state, never to see me again and I’d be locked up immediately.
But if I take them to a “gay” public sex exhibition, where men publically masturbate other men, then that’s “enlightened” and trendy.
Not only a double standard regarding speech, but a double standard regarding criminal behaviour!
Finally, those poor, poor kids. Imagine having such debased “parents” as to wantonly expose such innocence to stomach churning, tawdry, public adult sexual acts and the state not doing a thing about it (and in all likelihood endorsing it)…
That’s the offensive thing here.
Zombie,
For the record I am an evangelical pastor, and while I find the pictures disturbing, crude and blasphemous, I’d rather people be free to express themselves like this versus being repressed, though I’d think that basic obscenity/decency laws would apply in this circumstance. Not all speech is protected speech. Then again, I live in the Midwest and not San Francisco, so what do I know?
But in response to your basic thesis regarding the double standard, I think you’re absolutely right that were Christians even to think of doing something this offensive, they’d be skewered as hate-mongers, and rightfully so. With that said, however, I’d hope no professing Christian would ever think of publicly expressing this kind of contempt toward any particular group. That’s actually part of the problem evangelicals have created for themselves: we’re more frequently defined by what we oppose than what we stand for, and we most likely have no one to blame for that than ourselves.
But what I think I find even more frustrating is the response that so many Christians have to these sorts of activities, that they’re shocked that people would denigrate them and their beliefs in this manner. Jesus made it very clear that if the world hated him, it would hate those who follow him. And the world hated him enough to crucify him, so why are Christians surprised when we’re mocked or ridiculed? I don’t like what these people are doing, but I ultimately believe God will be their judge, and I am instead called to pray for those who persecute fellow followers of Christ and to love my enemy. Maybe if more Christians focused on actually implementing Jesus’ words we’d have a lot more credibility with people.
I agree. Praying for those who participate in this sad affair is the best course of action; and its a Biblical practice to pray for those who persecute you.
And I’m comforted that while Christians may be offended, God is quite capable of delivering justice to those who mock Him.
In the United States, the speech you hate most, is the speech must seek to protect most.
The hypocrisy that Zombie shows us, in this article, deserves the scorn.
@octavian
“…God is quite capable of delivering justice to those who mock Him.”
Ahh, yes. Like a petulant child, with a magnifying glass, some ants, and a bright sunny day. Bah!
I don’t really approve of the ‘public square’ being used for nude/naked events. But how distasteful is your idea of a pain-delivering, spiteful, smiting god?
Those of us who strive to be good people in a world full of evil ones are rather comforted by the idea of such a God.
It’s only “spiteful” if you aren’t on the receiving end of some particularly appalling behavior. Some people richly deserve the hell they have created for themselves, and it would be quite wrong and evil for them to never be punished for the suffering they have willfully caused. So it’s really a matter of perspective, isn’t it? If you see God as spiteful because he’s willing to be fair and just, does that mean you identify with the wrong people? Even we put murderers behind bars. Shouldn’t God be as civilized?
Danno,
I consider myself an Evangelical, and I believe that is pretty well said. The only problem I have with Zombie scolding the first poster from above is that first Zombie should scold Christ if he/she doesn’t like the message of hell.
Because Christ warned far more of hell than he talked of heaven. That’s just a biblical fact that for some reason seems to rattle the unbeliever’s cage.
Or maybe if Christians emulated militant Islamist sand Nazi terrorists, people would fear them.
Zombie isn’t saying this should be banned — but that it would have made enormous waves if Christians mocked gays instead of the other way around.
But there is a simpler explanation why there is no outrage: “gays making fools of themselves in San Francisco” is about as newsworthy as “sun rises in east”.
P.S.
Who first said that the best thing about freedom of speech is that it makes it easier to spot the idiots?
But, “pastor”, your basic doctrine is that they are irrevocably saved the very instant they trust; that they need do nothing to be saved, Now you want them to love, repent, confess, obey? Why should they, if they are already irreversibly heavenbound?
Jesus saves those who obey Him, Heb.5.9. Tap dance around that one, if you will.
That’s not at all necessarily what Evangelicals believe. That’s the doctrine called “Easy Believism”, and most reflected Evangelical theologians reject it. Especially outside the U.S.
Maybe you need to look up Ephesians 2:8-9. Our salvation is based upon what Christ has done for us not the “good” works we base on our own understanding of what is righteous. For if it was decided based on merit or accomplishments why did Christ go to the cross? And if you really believe that works will get you to heaven please tell me just how many works would pay for “Hunky Jesus’” Blasphemy? Paul had it right in Romans 11:6. Amazing Grace is exactly what it is “undeserved mercy”.
I don´t see any hate towards Christians in this event. OK, Christians are being laughed at, or even mocked … but hate: no.
The most serious problem of homosexuals who advertise it, is that they are mentally ill. They campaign that they are normal, which they are not, and, since they usually do not have families to support, they have more time and money to campaign politically. (They intimidated a group of psychiatrists a number of years ago by busting up a meeting, in order to force the psychiatrists to remove homosexuality as a mental illness – as Galileo said when forced to recant his view that the earth moves around the sun, “but it still moves,” so homosexuality is a mental illness in spite of thugs who forced psychiatrists to say otherwise.)
So this mockery of Christianity is by mentally ill people.
I just love how people get on these forums and become armchair psychologist/psychiatrists and label being gay or lesbian. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder or a mental illness. I would love to know where you received your facts, studies, and information from? As the parent of a gay child, I am absolutely offended and disgraced by the thousands of people who are uneducated and ill informed on the GLBT community. Did you straight choose to be straight? NO you were born that way, just as the gay/lesbian community is as well. God knew exactly what he was doing when he created diversity amongst the people of the world. God did not say ok you live on this planet so long as you are straight. GOD CREATED EVERYONE EQUAL END OF STORY!!!!!
Puhleeze! All sexual acts, whether homosexual or heterosexual are by choice. No one is forced to have sex unless rape has occurred. No one is “born” straight or gay that is just more of the military gay movement’s crap sandwich. Heterosexuality is normal and therefore the biological normal avenue of maturity. Homosexuality is not normal people! Stop being afraid to express your true beliefs. Now, as far as how God thinks about this subject:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
Romans 1:26-27 – “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
Quit trying to speak for God….he already had folks do that for him. All you have to do is read what they recorded.
Here is a quote that is very profound and appropriate for the subject at hand:
I would rather be hated for who i am than loved for who I’m not, for God made me the way I am, and God doesn’t make mistakes
Whether or not G-d makes mistakes, you must concede that humans do. One of the mistakes that humans constantly make is to mistake their desires for moral mandates. One may have homosexual desires, but that does not create a mandate to act on them—any more than one’s desire to screw the attractive widow next door under the very eyes of one’s wife is a moral mandate to do so. Indeed, morality is the imposition of will upon desire.
Homosexual behavior is as old as humanity—as are rape, consanguine sexual relations, pedophilia, bestiality, and a host of other behaviors. Indeed, orgiastic homosexual behavior was a feature of worship in many long-vanished idolatrous cults. That does not mean that one has a moral mandate to engage in it.
The invention of “homosexuality”—of homosexual desire and behavior as something distinct from heterosexual desire—is a modern pseudoscientific invention, barely 150 years old. This pseudoscientific fraud has supplanted the prior view that acting on homosexual desire is merely a sin—i.e., a moral lapse. The Torah (aka “the Old Testament”) does not condemn homosexual behavior because it is “unnatural,” but because it is immoral, just as it condemns a vastly greater number of heterosexual couplings on moral grounds.
There are very few, if any, homosexually-inclined individuals who cannot perform with the opposite sex; most choose not to do so by acting on a preference which they justify on wholly pseudoscientific grounds, bolstered by the social tolerance of a subculture which will ostracize them if they step out of line.
This is, of course, wholly beside the point of zombie’s excellent photoessay, which highlights the hypocrisy of free-speech double standards and the fundamental cowardice of faux-transgressive “gay community.”
While I’m in agreement that it’s wrong for Christians to go around acting like armchair psychologists judging others as maniacs, you should know that the Queer Philosophy movement and modern Psychology have more and more questioned the lines between hetero- and homosexuality. This is the normative way of speaking about sexuality today among gays, which is ironic, because it shows that sexuality is a very dynamic thing. You’ve probably heard of people referring to themselves as like 90% hetero, 10% gay? I think everyone is like that, and that the percentages change back and forth during life, based on a variety of variables.
That’s NOT to say that such a change is just about making a decision, but I’m saying that sexuality is not a rock solid concept.
All Old Testament; but still all valid? I guess the Old Testament is still the word of the Lord and must be followed.
Leviticus 11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Shrimp, clams, oysters, lobsters; eating these is sinful and wrong; and makes you unclean in the eyes of the Lord. This is the word of God people… and you can’t just pick and choose what God tells you. Don’t try to speak for God, right Musing Lew? We all know eating shellfish is evil.
Leviticus 11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
Bacon is a sin, and makes you unclean in the eyes of the Lord. Sorry, but that’s how God thinks about the subject… in the same book as Musing Lew is using for God’s thoughts on Homosexuality.
Leviticus 12:6-7 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
I guess my friends are bad Christians, they didn’t burn any animals after their daughters were born. I wonder why they didn’t, seeing as it is the word of God that they should.
Leviticus 19:27-28 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
Ever marred the corner of your beard? All people with tattoos are sinners?
But anyway, back to homosexuality, what should we do about this? I mean, what would God have us do, not what would you want us to do… ?
Leviticus 20:9-16 [9] For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
[10] And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
[11] And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
[12] And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
[13] If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
[14] And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
[15] And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
[16] And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
That’s a long list of people we have to put to death. All adulterers, homosexuals, anyone who has slept with a mother and daughter, or anyone who curses their parents must be killed. That seems extreme, but who am I to question God.
Or were you planning to pick and choose your way through the Old Testament, keeping some, dropping others, and “speak for God” yourself?
Naah, that would be hypocritical and silly. I’m sure you’re simply indicating that I should kill any gays, adulterers, or anyone I hear curse his parents; right?
Should I kill my friend who didn’t burn any animals when his daughter was born, or just shun him? It’s not really clear on the punishment required there…
You’re missing the point. Remember:
If something in the Old Testament serves your purpose, then it’s completely valid and can be cited as authoritative;
But if something in the Old Testament is inconvenient, then say that the Old Testament is “abrogated” by Jesus’ words, and can thus be ignored.
Works every time!
The OT was fulfilled by Jesus’ words, and, by His fiat, Lk.10.16; Mt.10.40, those of His apostles, the writers of the NT. Those who seek salvation under the OT sever their connection to Christ, Gal.5.4 and, since only He saves, Jn.14.6, they are lost. That is why no man living today can be saved by the OT; but must obey, Heb.5.9, the NT.
Perhaps even zombies can cognize such a simple explanation.
Actually, the difficulty is not cognition, but motivation. Those who love evil, Jn.3.19-20 do not want to understand scripture; they wish to evade it so they can continue in their sinful ways.
Look closely, Zombie. Those people in those pictures? They’re the ones who agree with you about Christianity. They’re YOUR spiritual family.
Good company you keep.
I am a devoted Christian but we go by the new testament now folks, not old. Jesus came to set forth the perfect example and live the perfect life. Therefore we are to try to be like Jesus
“I am absolutely offended and disgraced by the thousands of people who are uneducated and ill informed on the GLBT community.” lol
After witnessing the disgraceful ignorance and arrogance on full display in the tens of images and videos above, you DARE say something as obtuse and absurd as tHIS??? Lol. Perhaps you should know when not to speak, mr. “Parent of the Year”!
I understand your wish to provide fatherly defense, Joe, but you’re getting mad at the wrong people. I’m not particularly exercised by what a fellow likes to put where, and not really moved by the argument that there’s something abnormal, disgraceful, or wicked about bring gay. To the extent people believe it, though, the pageanteers in S.F. bear a lot more responsibility for that than anyone who’s posted here.
I mean, it’s the PAGEANT ATTENDEES who seem to assume that being gay is incompatible with Christianity, workaday morality, and public decorum. Not even the foamiest fundamentalists I know really believe that homosexuality is a package of evils that brings public weenie-wagging in its wake*. In that regard, they labour under fewer negative gay stereotypes than San Franciscans do!
Long story short, how about reserving your umbrage for the people who ACTUALLY appear to equate gayness with being “disordered”?
* ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Alliteration Spree!
Hey Jo, You need to warn your son that his ass is going to fall out if he doesn’t change his behavior.
As someone who suffers from similar conditions (falling under the fourth letter of the blanket label), I am amazed at your arrogance. You make a point of the “armchair psychologist,” defining homosexuality… then your next sentence is “Homosexuality is not a mental disorder or a mental illness.” Say what? So what we believe is our opinion, but what you believe (as fanned by a mixture of parental devotion and psychologists’ crowd-pleasing “studies” – which, by the way, I find completely invalid as proper medical or scientific evidence) is Bible truth?
As someone who suffers from transgender desires, I am telling you straight out: I WAS NOT BORN THIS WAY. The temptations I feel are just that – mental constructs, born of weak flesh wishing to be “different.”
This whole movement smacks of entitlement to me. “We want to be right.” “It’s not something we choose to do, it’s something we have to do.” Excuses, layered on excuses. Temptations do not a moral alibi make. A pyromaniac has no excuse before law or God for burning his neighbor’s house; maybe he had inclinations to set things on fire, but it was still his action that burned that house. Furthermore, the correct response to the pyromaniac cannot be to succor him, supporting his metal deficiency – no, he must be helped, using the best of modern medicine and science, to overcome this problem. But the LGBT activist will have none of this. Indeed, it is not enough that his actions be sanctified; a cure, and any search for a cure, must be considered morally wrong; anyone who speaks against him must be considered a bigot or a “homophobe,” even – especially – should they suffer the same feelings he does. For such a person – someone who has seen the same evidence, run the same course, felt the same things, but come to a different conclusion – is the most dangerous being in existence to a group that prides itself on being “the next civil rights victim.” If their case is not airtight (and I assure you, there are more than enough examples of people changing their orientations to ensure that it is not), then they have no case at all.
So yes, you may have a child suffering from this. Yes, parental devotion is a powerful motivator in any decision, but do not let it blind you! I have MYSELF as the victim; if anything I should be more blinded than you. But ask yourself this: If it were anything else, if it were a less puffed-up, pride-filled cause to which your child had fallen, would you support your child’s actions? Or try to help him (or her, I don’t know) overcome them? If he were a kleptomaniac, would you demand that we respect him and allow him to live the way he wanted, or demand (with equal vigor) that we cure him? Certainly, the latter case also makes the child a danger to society – but beyond that, are the cases truly different? Are they fundamentally unequal, these aberrations of the standard function of the human mind?
Tell me why, through logic or scientific endeavor, the curse of homosexuality should be given unequal treatment to any other mental condition. Tell me why, apart from fevered and unsupported claims of “it’s natural,” or “did YOU choose?” – claims that seek to blunt the blade of logic by means of a flawed appeal to emotion – homosexuality should be held up on its vaunted pedestal, immune to both discourse and deconstruction. Tell me why homosexuality should be the next race, the next gender. The latter are obvious physical differences, indisputably intrinsic to one’s nature from the moment of conception. Homosexuality is not.
God gave all of us different challenges to overcome. Homosexuality is a challenge just as heterosexuality is a challenge. How many straight people do you know who have never had sex outside of marriage, told a lie, taken something that didn’t belong to them, hurt their brother? Jesus died for us all because we all have weaknesses and fall constantly. Not just some of us.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t repent, ask forgiveness, and try to do better. It means He understands- if our heart is right, we accept him, and do our best he will forgive us, meet us where we are and take it from there.
While I don’t agree with the mockery, unfortunately I do know for a fact reading cross-cultural studies that mental health definitions are typically culture-bound. That means, it changes as the culture changes and differs from culture to culture. The scientific basis for a social science like the mental health professions are hard to clearly justify. A lot of it is very subjective, which is why they could be easily swayed to change definitions in the 70s.
This is all very sad but I am grateful that you posted it Zombie. There are children to pray for. Heck, the adults need prayer too.
There is a hell but “the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:10) and as long as there is breath in any human, it is not too late to receive the gift of eternal life, instead of painful eternal damnation. “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”.
This points up the essential problem with so much of the “gay community” (do they still call it that?) Exhibitions like this simply reinforce the stereotype that gays are essentially developmentally-challenged juvenile delinquents (regardless of their age) whose only purpose in life is to to be “outrageous.” Events such as this are worse than boring, they are puerile.
For these people Christianity simply presents another opportunity to play the old game of “shocking the bourgeoisie.” It is made especially easy by the fact that the people they “shock” can’t ever, ever fire back. In the rare case they do then the gay community will cry “hate crime” and enfold itself in the warm mantle of “victimhood.”
As Zombie says – “The moment anyone attempts the slightest mockery or put-down of stereotypical “gayness,” an entire class of professional victimologists and whiners and lawyers go apoplectic; no criticism or mockery is allowed!”
I am a 100% believer in free speech and full expression for everyone. Stuff like this makes me tired because I am pretty sure that every one of the attendees at this event would be glad to curtail MY speech and expression if they ever got the chance.
Seconded.
Exactly, my sentiments.
Thirded. Wow, you nailed it. Well said.
Very well-said.
I’d like to add that these sorts of exhibitions hurt the political cause for gay marriage. It’s not so puzzling that Proposition 8 passed in California, given the image many have of gay activists – thanks to San Francisco exhibitionists like these.
I’m not a Christian, but I’m offended by not only the complete and utter hypocrisy but the cowardly bullying exhibited here. I’m trying to think of another group besides Christians that could be mocked with such impugnity, and having a hard time coming up with one.
If these folks really want attention, they ought to have a Hunky Mohammed contest. Of course, that would never happen, because that is a protected class, and it would take real guts.
I am a Christian and find this offensive not to me but to my Lord. That being said, I appreciate that you realize this is not a help to the gay community being accepted. I do want to say, while this doesnt represent ALL gay people, the hypocrites don’t represent ALL christians. I believe ALL have sinned and fall short of God’s glory not just gays. I believe all sin is equal in that it is disobedience and disregard for HIS commandments. ALL can be forgiven and we all have different weaknesses.
Any sex outside of marriage is a sin, not just gay sex. Straight christians tend to overlook this fact. The only problem I have is the attitude of arrogance. The blasphemy. We should never gloat over or celebrate sin. That is the only unforgivable sin – the one we refuse to acknowledge and judging others as worse than us because WE think their sin is worse doesn’t change the fact that the blood of Christ is strong enough to cover ALL sin.
Well meaning christians who don’t explain this but instead judge and condemn could be responsible for a gay person thinking he can’t be saved and giving up. NOT TRUE. I believe you can be gay AND christian AND saved. These people may not go to heaven but it isn’t because they are gay, it’s because they are mocking Jesus Christ. And Hell is nothing more than ETERNAL separation from God. Isnt that what they want? Imagine this world without God or christians. That is what you will have if you don’t accept Him so for you, it may be heaven if everything you dislike disappears forever. And if you don’t believe in it then you have nothing to worry about, right?
Maybe the reason the only religious group that gets picked on are the christians is because SATAN knows the truth and he is only threatened by the one TRUE GOD.
(Just a thought-I know many other religions have been persecuted, it’s just that Christians seem to be hated worldwide since biblical times and now even in AMERICA as the end gets closer, even we have turned away from Him )
Another group of people which is equally susceptible to such mockery is surely politicians – a group of people who choose to be what they are and want to represent in the same way Christians choose(not entirely true for homosexuals, if (of course, only if) you can accept that homosexuality is not a choice.
I agree!
“Stuff like this makes me tired because I am pretty sure that every one of the attendees at this event would be glad to curtail MY speech and expression if they ever got the chance.”
I would not be certain any of the attendees at this event would object to any Christian being murdered for their beliefs.
It hurts me to see this. But then I remember the real evil that is happening in Iran, etc, even and especially to homosexuals. And in an event like this, where they are relishing mocking the One who loves them, they are afraid to mock the one who despises them and wishes to (and does) bring them death daily.
Christians or not, I hope these men become better people someday.
Does anyone remember when AIDS was GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency)? But that was considered stigmatizing and hateful.
It also didn’t account for the drug addicts.
All I can say is…
What a sad, shallow bunch of people.
THIS IS AWESOME.
This has the be the most awesome thing i have ever seen in my life it looks like a goddamn blast.
It is times like this i kind of wish i was gay so i could take part.
You don’t need to be gay to take part. Over half the crowd was straight families, and so forth. Even some of the contestants didn’t seem gay (like Ms. Dominatrix).
Well, in fact I doubt any of the participants were denied entry based on their sexual preference (let alone actually being asked about it).
While it undoubtedly helps, I strongly doubt you have to be gay to participate.
Personally, I think I’d probably find actually being there quite a bit less entertaining than Zombie’s photoessay.
You are correct in supposing that such is “goddamned”. Don’t worry about the Queer part. You would fit right in. Go for it!
You are so brave Zombie. I’d be throwing up a lot!
Gay’s are sickening and they will pay for their sinful way’s. I feel sorry for them.
How will they pay?
Sexual ecosystem = STD spread…sure, I can see that.
But as I mentioned above, threats of an uncomfortable afterlife don’t seem to be efficacious, these days!
“But as I mentioned above, threats of an uncomfortable afterlife don’t seem to be efficacious, these days!”
An someone replied it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t seem to be efficacious; it matters if it’s true.
Alright, how about the threat of God’s wrath in this world? It’s coming. More than half of the entire population will die from the Wrath.
I caught a bad case of The Wrath after hiking in the woods, but some calamine lotion cleared it right up. Never knew it could be fatal!
You and Allahpundit would make an adorable couple! Unless you are both straight men (pretty sure AP is), in which case, nevermind.
“Only in San Francisco”.
Wake me up when these gay men do skits satirizing the Ramadan and “Hunky Mohammed” makes a nude appearance.
I didn’t watch or view the pics. I live in Central Valley and have seen enough of this stuff locally and in SF to get the drift.
My parish presently has a first Saturday devotion to the BVM. This is primarily for reparation for the sins and blasphemies made toward the Mother of God. The next Saturday these folks will be added to my prayers.
Why the double standard?
Do you really need to ask?
When you insult Christians, Christ tells you to turn the other cheek.
When you insult Muslims, Mohammed tells you to cut the infidels heads off.
Who wants to spoil a good time worrying about being killed?
Which begs the question of why people would be Christian instead of Muslim.
Are beer and pork chops so good that it is worth turning the other cheek?
Ever tried any of the beer recipes from Christian monks?
You’re missing out!
People seem to think so.
Given that the folks who so find are the ones having and raising children who will follow them in working hard, supporting the country and giving to the charities that will care for those who despise them, and still do well for themselves and their future families….
Maybe we ought to cut them a break? Consider their point of view? Or at least treat it with the same respect we give our less conventional friends?
Zombie, your point is well-made.
I wonder what Saint Francis would think. Words can not do justice to what these photos divulge.
I believe I’m told the gay population is about 2% of the population, maybe 10% in SF? So if there are literally thousands of gays, that must be a VERY large percent of their community, not some just some small fringe.
Well, this is a nice parade of hatred and viciousness — and very bad taste. They’re only revealing the ugliness in their own souls.
I’d say the “Emergency Double-standard System is working precisely as it is intended; One -way!
You gotta be careful with this sort of display; The gays might just get excited and show you some genuinely crude activity.
These people are lucky it didn’t turn into a clusterf**k.
Is this really the best this people could come up with? The mocking Jesus game has been around since before the crucifixion. There is nothing shocking or even original to see here. Just about every day for the last two thousand years, individuals have been mocked, humiliated and brutally killed for following of Jesus Christ. American Christians have been largely sheltered from that reality. There is no point getting angry, Jesus & Paul made it really clear how Christians were to respond to these kinds of events.
If the shoe fits Zombie, wear it.
“Seeing the people, He (Jesus) felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd.” Matt. 9:36
I do not think New Testament fits the situation; we have to go way back, to Gen 19:24.
The time may be nigh for some just rewards.
Has the ACLU filed charges against these “straight Christians” yet? These poor oppressed gay citizens need to be protected from “offensive” behavior.
Tell you the truth, it all looks very stupid and lame.
I feel sorry for these Christians in the photo.
For some reason God seems to have given them very small penises.
Either that, or there was a cold wind blowing in San Francisco that day.
Have you ever been to San Francisco in April? Brrrrr!
Yeah, I’ve been there a time or two.
Don’t hang out there much anymore, though. There’s something about a town where people drop their trousers and take a dump right out in the middle of the street that just doesn’t work for me.
Saw somebody do that when I was walking back across the City after attending the Hardly Strictly Bluegrass Festival a few years back.
Classy town, San Francisco.
Good work Zombie—some time ago you had an article documenting obscene gay acts in public at the SF Folsom Street parade–which was sponsored in part by Miller Beer.
What disturbs me is that these events are in public with young children present.
If heterosexuals behaved that way in front of children they would be in prison for a long time and then on the sex offenders list for life–especially the Folsom Street behavior.
What adults do in private is their own business I suppose-but
Why does the SFPD permit such illegal behavior in public in front of children in the streets of SF?
Why do parents bring their children to watch such behavior?
I guess this is on topic.
After 25 years in law enforcement, I am often asked which group or groups of violators/criminals were the least cooperative and most likely to exhibit hostility and unruly behavior during an enforcement contact. Other than someone trying to put a bullet in my head, here is how I still answer the question:
1) intoxicated gay men and 2) intoxicated juveniles of either sex.
Intoxicated gay men were simply vicious, but not so much in a physical way. My goodness could they talk trash. Once they got rolling they wouldn’t stop. They always accused officers of picking on them just because they were gay. One even told me “The only reason you’re writing me this ticket is because I like to put my **** in his *****.”
So none of this surprises me. There must be some form of genetic mutation that presupposes some, not all, gay men to engage in lewd and obscene conduct and likewise interferes with their ability to STHU.
this makes us very sad and angry at the same time..but its bound to happen”as it was in the days of Noah,so shall the coming of the son of Man be”
So is the homosexual mockery of Christians the model for the UN-funded Palestinian educational program about Jews being related to pigs and apes, or is it vice-versa.
I’ll take the homos more seriously when they have the cajones to do a ‘Hunky Mohammed’ show…in Dearborn. Real tough guys there.
When they do a “Hunky Mohammed” day or something along those lines, then I’ll sit up and take notice.
However, these folks better think long and hard about how many liberties they are allowed in this fine country, and how much they want to make fun of people in a religion who are willing to “turn the other cheek”.
They wouldn’t be allowed to even THINK about having this sort of display in a Muslim country….
If I had the energy to waste, I’d feel sorry for them. It can’t be easy being that perverted.
Do they end all this fun with a game of “Find the Easter Eggs on Jesus?” Follow dirtydog1776 on twitter or I will bite you on the butt.
The word juxtaposition comes to mind as I read the comments and read the post. Regrettably You Tube withdrew the video.
Juxtaposition reveals to me a double mindedness, be it individually or societally. San Francisco is comfortable in its’ homosexual licentiousness due to its’ racially homogeneous population of white males of Western European heritage. Their Western European heritage undoubtedly includes a big dose of seething rage or a mild case of disgust towards the Roman Catholicism of their youth and that would include their Protestantism, and then must also include
Judaism, as would any faith oriented thinking that would “cramp your style”.
Black Americans and Latinos especially brown skinned Chulos and Homies who dabble in La Vida still move in the shadows, preferring the “down low”, not able to stand so publicly and openly as those depicted in the photos.
Odd that a “Queer City” like San Fran is so boring to my East coast customs. Why? the homogeneity that requires everyone to look, act, talk walk, eat ,drink and confess in the same cartoony whiney tone the same regrettable back story (damn, no puns) about how they arrived into a city that allowed them to show their A**!
The juxtaposition of gay Black and Brown men and even all heterosexual men who are Obama supporters (that is not a pun. Ignore and please read on.) To be in this caldron of homogenous indulgence to all things gay, gayer and gayest. How do you survive it without rolling your eyes out of your head? Maybe you just steep your head into the 49er football season and the Giants repeating as World Series Champions? Tell you the truth, I would.
OK,…C.S. Lewis reportedly said Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic or who He said He was, better odds than any lottery game. So there is a one in three chance of hearing, after death, either “Well done thou good and faithful servant…” or “Depart from me to eternal torment”. (By the way, the Church describe hell as the place/state where one is entirely cut off from God. It ain’t just hard labor. Imagine a very,very bad acid trip.) Now, of course, it is very scary to actually believe in what Christ said, and then to do something about it. Chesterton said, ” Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.”
So I will try this question. Are Stalin, or Mao, or Hitler in Heaven? No…? Then where are they? One, of course can make the bet on materialism, this is it, and that’s it. If you believe that, why are you not working hard to be the next Mao, or Hitler, or Stalin? They certainly had lots of power…for a while. “IHS”
That’s not how probability works. Having three possible outcomes does not mean that each outcome has a 1/3 chance of happening. For example, I could say, “either there is a steam locomotive in my living room, or there isn’t. Since there are two outcomes, each has a 50% chance of being true.” Of course, the actual probability of having a steam locomotive in one’s living room is infinitesimally small, proving that your argument is a real train wreck (har har!).
As to your last point, some people have morals that are not dictated by a fictional book. These people believe in doing what’s right for the sake of righteousness; they aren’t trying to score brownie points to get into an imaginary country club in the sky. If believing in gawd keeps you from killing hundreds of thousands at the helm of an oppressive dictatorship, then I’ll be able to sleep better at night. Just don’t assume that atheists are as egotistical and power-hungry as you are.
Before your eyes
On a warm and sunny Easter morn
A wannabee Jesus shows off his “horn”
In the gay ghetto
And his momma cries
—not Elvis Presley, and not “In the Ghetto”
Are they drunk? I guess if you are raised to do this, this is what you do? Are they happy making fun of people? Doesn’t seem to be, if young gays are killing themselves maybe they see this and don’t want to be like them. I know good decent people who are gay and respect all Americans who are the same. There is bad in everything, you have to figure out who you want to be no matter if you are gay or strait. It’s weird, I just read about the Muslims burning gays, no matter what I would fight for these Americans freedom but it’s still sad, their actions will one day have some kind of consequences, I just don’t want it to be both the Christians and the gays to suffer from one group that hates everyone.
jann, where do you get the idea that Christians hate homos? Christ teaches us not to hate others. To Christians, a sin is a sin. The problem we have here isn’t just that they are gay, but also their mockery. I don’t hate these people. I hate that they are mocking Jesus and Christians, and it makes me sad. I also have a problem with the public nature of their debauchery, and that children are present. Everyone should have a problem with that. Of course, there is also the hypocrisy issue. Obviously you have missed the entire point of this article.
On a slightly more serious note, I do agree with zombie that it should be possible for those opposed to displays of “gay excess”—or, for that matter, Islamist behavior, or what have you—should be able to engage in their own events without hindrance and without risking official consequence for doing so.
With that in mind, those pointing out the innate cowardice of those who would not dare to stage a similar event for “hunky Mohammed” are right on the money—though it should, of course, be mentioned in passing that the participants in this anti-Christian event are to a large extent working off their bitterness and anger at their own backgrounds, families, and upbringing, which is why the thought of “hunky Mohammed” does not occur to them.
Nonetheless, this photoessay points up how very right Terry Jones, however vulgar he may be, is to insist upon his right to protest Islamism in Dearborn. Jones is showing far more courage and transgressive fortitude than any of the participants in this event.
Absolutely true, and scary as hell to contemplate.
If only he didn’t have “DONATE!” button prominently displayed on his web-site, even in his inarticulate simplicity, he’d be weirdly perfect.
How is Terry Jones vulgar??
“Vulgar” means “common, or lacking in sophistication.” The “Vulgate” was a Bible translated into the vernacular so that it could be read by “common people.” Terry Jones is certainly a “common” person, lacking in sophistication; he is not sophisticated, does not bear flossy degrees, is in no way part of the well-barbered and -tailored smoothie crowd.
It shouldn’t anymore, but it still amazes me how the people who hate the Bible the most do the most to prove it right.
“24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
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.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”
Romans 1:24-32
If Terry Jones is responsible for the murders of those people at the U.N. compound because his burning of the Quran ten days earlier incited the murderers, would these people be responsible for a gay bashing murder ten days later if this event incited the murderer?
I’m gay, and think this is nauseating. Sure, gays have plenty of reason to despise Christianity. I went to Catholic schools, and I daily witnessed how students perceived as gay were relentlessly tortured. I also listened to the religious class lectures on the evils of homosexuality, and all sex outside of marriage, for that matter.
But, this childish wallowing in self-pity, revenge, and spite is beyond comprehension. Also, do these people actually know for a fact that Jesus and others they ridicule are not of a higher order?
Gross behavior is never justified. If Christians are cruel and arrogant, does that mean one can fight them with cruelty and arrogance?
And, yes, in my experience, many, many Christians are cruel and arrogant. Their official attitude, for instance, to animals makes my skin crawl, and their ludicrous justification that “Animals don’t have immortal souls” is absolutely horrifying. If they believe it, then their cruelty is even worse, because it means the animals lose so much more than they would otherwise in the process. Deliberately killing someone you believe will continue in some other form in another life is bad; deliberately killing someone you believe will cease to exist forever is monstrous.
I don’t like Christianity, Judaism, or Islam; I think they’re barbaric, and I freely say so. But, I would never dream of participating in a hateful spectacle such as portrayed here.
I dumped the gay world when I was 19 because I found it so trashy and vulgar. I may be gay, but I have standards. This freak show is beyond the pale.
I’m not sure who taught you this. About all the Bible says of animals is that we humans have dominion over them and that we humans are alone as made in God’s image. But I’m Christian, and I certainly believe my beloved pets will be right there with me in heaven. I wouldn’t be complete without them and the unconditional love they have provided me, no matter my own failings, is the closest thing I have ever received to perfect love this side of heaven.
I refuse to believe that God would provide me with such wonderful joy, and then not grant me the chance to make a joyous reunion.
You and I have a very different viewpoint of a loving God.
I don’t believe anything the Bible says. If you think God gave man dominion over animals because some primitive mythological tale written by primitive humans claims this, then you really need to read something else. This is the very same insane scripture that Jews, Christians, and Muslims have used from their beginnings to justify animal abuse and neglect.
The “temporal soul” teaching is central to all orthodox Christian sects, including Roman Catholicism. It derives from the Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle among them, and can be found in the religious teachings of virtually all major Christian denominations. That it’s idiotic is obvious, yet billions cling to it to make themselves feel superior to animals, and guiltless for killing, abusing, and neglecting them. It’s the same convenient argument used by pro-abortionists to excuse abortion (they claim embryos and fetuses at whatever stage they’re aborting them do not have immortal souls), and was used by slave traders two hundred years ago to justify the enslavement of Africans (they claimed Blacks didn’t have immortal souls).
When I was in the ninth grade at Catholic school, our sadistic biology teacher and coach took a live bat and dropped it into a gallon jar of formaldehyde. The animal thrashed in agony. I ran to the office to get the principal, who, instead of responding to my horror, smugly told me that “animals were put here by God for man’s use.” Case closed. Two years later our new principal, responding to another incident of animal cruelty, told me that killing an animal was no worse than cutting down a tree.
That was the end of my Catholicism. This issue, not the Church’s position on gays, is what convinced me that Christianity was an evil load of crap, and that little, if anything, the Church claimed to be true was, in fact, true. That was a long time ago, and nothing has changed. Countless Christians still regard animals as inferior, soulless entities, and themselves as God’s special country club members.
I feel the same way you do about my animals. The notion of heaven without them is incomprehensible. But the god of the Old and New Testament clearly does not love animals, or most people either. Whatever he is, he surely isn’t God with a capital “G,” and is certainly unworthy of worship.
Do not confuse your personal, padded life with what life was like even a century ago.
I speak as one who loves her pets more than I love the vast majority of the human race.
People were a lot less sentimental when the wolf truly was at the door, and animals, in the end, no matter how good and faithful and beautiful they were, counted for less than you and your children.
And your kids were likely to die before the age of five, come to think of it.
We are sentimental, not enlightened.
I do believe that we as people were put in dominion over the earth and other creatures. But to me that makes us more responsible to be good stewards, and the idiots who think it means do whatever you wish no matter how depraved because they’re “just animals” are far worse than if there was nothing after this life. And it imbues the idea that you sinned against the Almighty if you abuse a domestic animal, or if you torment a food animal beyond the need to quickly take its life for your nourishment. If I was totally secular, I could say “Who cares if you throw away your pet after you starve it to death; once it’s dead, it won’t remember its existence good or bad.” And I wouldn’t be concerned about the polluting of the Earth, since I’ll be long dead myself once the chickens from that come home to roost. And looking at how people and animals have been treated in atheistic regimes in the USSR, Germany, China, and Cambodia, I’d be as likely to shun atheism as you would to shun Catholicism because of a bat.
I’m not an atheist.
The bat’s life and well-being was as important to him as yours is to you and mine is to me. What he suffered was no less than you or I would suffer in the same circumstances.
I would never knowingly adopt any religion or ideology that selected certain groups or sentient beings to be inferior and others to be superior. The Universe is enormous, possibly with trillions of inhabited planets, and trillions upon trillions of sentient beings, and yet humans, or rather subsets of humans, have decided they are the highest of all and specially endowed with immortality, which they claim no other life form has. And they base this conclusion on mythology and ghost stories written by uneducated, dirty, nomadic crackpots a thousand or thousands of years ago: crackpots, moreover, who had no conception of the Universe, and thought stars were night lights rotating around Earth.
But, even that isn’t nutty enough. Christians and Muslim go on to claim that only they among humans have a chance at eternal paradise because they believe in a mythological savior, Jesus, or alleged prophet, Mohamed, and that all the other billions of humans are going to spend eternity in torment because God cursed everyone, but gave certain humans a get-out-of-hell card for believing in Jesus or Mohamed. What a god!!! A god who creates trillions of living beings so that most can suffer and then be erased, and ninety percent of the rest eternally tortured. And we’re supposed to pray to this thing? I’d rather pray to a loaf of bread.
Did you ever hear of Saint Francis of Assisi?
But the god of the Old and New Testament clearly does not love animals, or most people either.
You read the book wrong. The point isn’t to hate cruel people. The point is to love people even when they are cruel.
The mystery isn’t the existence of evil, but the existence of good. If you read the Bible correctly you will know that good exists and that God is good because of commands in the Old Testament to not harm others (and btw animal cruelty is condemned ), and His numerous acts of forgiveness to the undeserving; and because of the teachings and sacrifice of Jesus in the New Testament.
The St. Francis MYTH says nothing about Christianity. St. Francis was a fan of St. Dominic, founder of the Papal Inquisition, and a man who regularly tortured animals in front of his fellow monks for entertainment. One of his favorite pastimes was plucking live birds.
The bible does not condemn cruelty to animals anywhere. It is filled with stories about gruesome animal sacrifices to Yahweh, who demands them. The Jesus story is based on the scapegoat principle: you sin, you dump you sins on some innocent other, then kill him and your sins are magically washed away. Jews routinely dumped their sins on live goats, then sacrificed them. Jesus was supposedly the ultimate scapegoat, ending the need (NEED?) for animal sacrifices. And let us not forget that most hideous of all biblical claims: “There is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood.” How many thousands upon thousands of innocent animals were slaughtered or even burned to death to appease the wrath of the biblical god?
I love this bit from you: “If you read the Bible correctly…” Correctly? As if YOU know what the original writers meant? Nobody knows. It’s written in poetic prose that can turned this way or that depending on the transliteration and subsequent translation. Every preacher on Earth claims to know the CORRECT way to read it. That’s why we have thousands of Christian denominations, all interpreting it differently.
The Catholic Church created the bible. Christianity predates the scriptures; it does not derive from them.
“Florida”, no one — anywhere — really gives a rip about your childhood traumas.
Spoken like a true Christian.
I never mentioned any childhood traumas, only experiences of Christian cruelty to animals.
@Florida:”I’m not an atheist.”
Why is it that atheists, when cornered after getting their logic back-asswards, nearly always respond with: “Spoken like a true Christian.”?
People do worse with their free time, but they don’t usually flaunt it in public. This was rather ugly in that way.
Personally, I really don’t care what these people do or say. However, like many have pointed out here: if these people had any balls, they’d have a Hunky Mohammad day. In Dearbornistan.
being fair is definitely not being free
I don’t remember anyone mocking the IRA during the “troubles”…
It is easy to condemn those people but remember that many can change and come to know a different life and be truly happy. Prayers for them. Jesus died for them also. But it is sad to behold.
The gay community indulges in this because they are genuinely intrigued and delighted by the idea of a virgin birth seeing as they are dedicated to proxy modes of reproduction where a dildo is seen as a penis and little has resulted from using an anus as a surrogate for a vagina.
If Terry Jones showed a video of this event on youtube and then burned it, Al-Queda might actually find dead people and attempt to resuscitate them. One can only guess there are not many muslims in SF as they would probably be there with signs although since it is Christians being taken out the muslims might attack each other over whether they should be offended or cheer on the proceedings.
Gay people all over America will shortly be fine tuning their “Passion Play” to have a Mohammed version as their new neighbors who are growing in numbers are not fond of public demonstrations of gayness. The quickest way to commit suicide in the middle east is to simply put a sign on your door that says “I am gay” and wait a few minutes.
Once gays in America realize that Christians are completely on board with them relative to muslims one can only imagine that all sorts of hijinx will ensue when muslims insist on no gay pride parades in their cities and gays react by having one in Dearborn in front of a mosque. It’s only a matter of time before gays realize who their true enemy is and start begging Christians in America to protect them.
Gay people are the first ones who should be running to Dearborn and supporting Jones since the bar has now been set that says offending violent people is more important than free speech. If Jones were shrewd, he’d be allying himself with gay groups if he could. At first they’d probably reject them but all Jones has to do is, instead of burning a Koran, dress up like like Liza Minelli in “Cabaret” and walk through some muslim neighborhoods and if Jones survives, then his cell phone will be ringing like crazy from gay groups who see that their future ability to express themselves publicly has probably hit a high water mark and will steadily decline.
Good luck gay people! A new sharif is in town and isn’t taking any prisoners. Rep. Keith Ellison is supporting gay rights now because there is only one of him. I guarantee you that when there is a Congressional Muslim Caucus that gay rights will not be at the top of their agenda.
It’s only a matter of time before there is some public clash in America between muslims and gays that brings the hypocrisy of both sides into the open and then you’ll see some real first amendment fireworks. That judge in Dearborn was a fool for saying Jones couldn’t protest. It’s none of the gov’t's business to say such things. The protesters in Tahrir Square weren’t asking for any city permits and neither am I. The unfortunate liberals who sided with the muslims in protest in the street had their directions entirely crossed and should have been marching on city hall because next they come for you. Idiots.
Gotta love the irony of them silencing the person who actually did something provocative: ridiculing both Christianity AND Islam. Can’t have that! The Muslims will get us!!!
I guess you could call this event the homosexual Passion Play—sort of an Uber-Am-I-Gay Festival.
Snap!
Pun of the week.
One of life’s little ironies: The word “Lisp” cannot be pronounced properly by someone with a lisp.
– in the span of a week, you keep topping yourself. Then again, considering the filth of S.F. that I wade through daily on my way to work, you should never lack for subjects. Keep going! When you stop, I will stop reading PJM.
Pity this was satire.
Before seeing the disclaimer, I was left wondering:
“Why is it newsworthy that gays be ridiculed and mocked? What other behavior toward gays would you think is appropriate??”
Ok you got me. When I read the first part I was going to rage hard at Christian community and San Fran.
10/10 you should troll again.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.
Wow, a group of cowards still getting off on making fun of the least likely to retaliate. Isn’t this covered under “cyber-bullying” or any of the other umpteen billion attempts to destroy the First Amendment that they, no doubt, vote for through their representatives (San Francisco after all.)
Thanks Zombie, although frankly Ms. Dominatrix << sexy mocha passerby.
“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Since the gay community has carte blanche to mock Christians (as proven here), then the reverse should also be true — Christians should be free if they so choose to publicly mock gays or the stereotypical gay lifestyle.”
Who says you can’t?
Those guys in the City are totally gay.
Also, they have itty, bitty penises, and they obviously don’t care who knows it. Of course, if I was in the getting screwed in the ass business, I would consider that a feature not a bug.
See? I can make fun of them.
If you’re going to walk around stark naked in public, acting like a class A jackass…you’re pretty much asking for it.
Typical insecure jackass talking like a big tough guy behind the anonymity of the ‘net. Gotta make sure that everyone knows that you’re super not-gay and that your penis is definitely not small or anything like that. Because you’re a Real Man, and masculinity is determined by penis size, which, according to you, is determined by sexuality.
In all seriousness, I’m all in favor of free speech. I hope you espouse similar viewpoints in real life; your attempt to ridicule gay people is in itself hilarious.
Stay classy, bro!
“Typical insecure jackass talking like a big tough guy behind the anonymity of the ‘net.”
I post under my real name, because I’m not interested in retaining anonymity…moron.
And, you don’t have to be especially tough to slag off the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. The worst that’s going to happen to you is they’ll throw a little hissy fit and break into tears.
“…your penis is definitely not small or anything like that.”
This is true, though modesty forbids me delving into the subject in detail.
You know what else is true? When your girlfriend tells you “Don’t worry about it. Size doesn’t matter”.
She’s lying.
“I post under my real name, because I’m not interested in retaining anonymity…moron.”
Having your name associated with a comment doesn’t remove anonymity… moron. Certainly, if someone on here knows you in real life, they will recognize your name and know that it’s you. However, very few (if any) people will know who you are “IRL,” so you can say basically anything without consequence.
“This is true, though modesty forbids me delving into the subject in detail. ”
This gets back to the question of anonymity. You can make claims on the internet that you wouldn’t make in public in real life. Can you imagine announcing your penis size to a complete stranger offline? Anyway, grats on the huge e-penis you have.
“You know what else is true? When your girlfriend tells you “Don’t worry about it. Size doesn’t matter”.
She’s lying.”
A swing and a miss!
“Having your name associated with a comment doesn’t remove anonymity… moron.”
I would suggest that you consult a dictionary, halfwit. The fact that I’m posting under my own name means I’m not posting anonymously, by definition.
I post under my real name, because I’m not interested in being anonymous.
“A swing and a miss!”
LOL. So you have heard that from the ladies, eh?
Bummer for you.
To post anonymously is to post without revealing your identity. Name =/= identity, as I’ve said before.
“LOL. So you have heard that from the ladies, eh?
Bummer for you.”
I’ve heard nothing of the sort. Your original snarky comment assumed that I’m a male in an opposite-sex romantic relationship. My “swing + miss” rebuttal was motivated by the fact that you have no idea who I am, and you are equally unknowledgeable about my genitals.
“Can you imagine announcing your penis size to a complete stranger offline?”
No, but I’m not the one who announced it. You did.
So…I guess your mom must have told you all about me, huh?
“..you are equally unknowledgeable about my genitals.”
Damn right. And, I intend to do everything in my power to keep it that way.
“No, but I’m not the one who announced it. You did.”
I never said anything about your penis size. I said that you were insecure, which is equally true of average-size men as it is of those who are below-average.
“Damn right. And, I intend to do everything in my power to keep it that way.”
This is the ridiculousness I was referring to above. We get it, you’re a heterosexual male, you can stop pushing your sexuality on everyone you talk to.
“…your penis is definitely not small or anything like that.”
You’re the one who brought MY penis size into the conversation, sport.
Not me.
You.
It’s not something I would bring up, but if you want to talk about it…I’m not all that shy. And since you seem to have an interest in the subject, I’m happy to indulge you.
Considering the subject matter in Zombie’s original post, I figure pretty much anything goes, and hopefully no one will be offended by your somewhat odd interest in my reproductive organs.
However, as far as your gentials go, the less said the better, I think.
Hedwig, your inch just called – it’s angry.
You wrote a post saying that you can make fun of anyone you want. I wrote back, making fun of you you, and what followed was a series of irrational, reactionary posts on your part.
You’ve shown how insecure you are with all of your absurd defensiveness. By now, it’s just tiresome.
“You wrote a post saying that you can make fun of anyone you want. I wrote back, making…”
…an ass out of yourself, and giving me plenty of opportunity to make some more jokes, at your expense.
Thanks for that.
I enjoyed it.
Cruel World,
Oh, this is too rich! Please go back and read my first post 27(a).
Thank you so much for proving my point. And Mr. Dave Surls, now you know what it is like to deal with the CWs of the world when they go bonkers, and I’m not even sure CW is intoxicated.
Oh for the memories. All of them BAD.
I am constantly amazed that PJM’s essentially social liberal writing staff (or the bulk of it that is) believes that you can stand for ‘Western’ or ‘Judeo-Christian’ values while defending – on moral grounds – the right of people to mock same. By that I mean not allowing them to do it, which I agree is necessary, but essentially celebrating your permission (given to them) as a kind of moral signature. This just amazes me; even as Roger Simon and others talk about the need to fight Islam (or ‘Islamism’) they just can’t bring themselves to expect of ‘infidel’ societies to behave by the values that stand in contradiction to ‘true’ Islam.
Zombie, your mind is facile as ever – and equally puerile.
Allowing unfettered freedom of speech IS the essence of “standing in contradiction to Islam.”
“Western values” ARE the values of individual independence which necessarily entail not dictating what anyone can say.
If that means my mind is puerile, then puerile I shall be.
—————————————-
Everyone knows there is an alliance of convenience against Islamic fundamentalism.
Christians and secularists equally despise Islam, but for different reasons:
Christian think Islam is the wrong theology.
Secularists think any theology is the wrong theology.
For now, the alliance generally works, because we both understand the enemy. But if Islam were to ever go away, the old rift in Western society could very well erupt again.
Luckily, our alliance is much stronger and more sensible that the Left’s alliance, which literally makes no sense and entails several sets of mortal enemies pretending to be on the same team.
I’m happy to side with Christians on the issues that matter, for the foreseeable future. I was hoping this essay would point the correct direction in how to deal with ideological assaults like the one depicted in this report: Don’t call for censorship, because that opens the old suspicions that there is a hidden theocratic urge in the Christian community; instead, point out the hypocrisy and use gay Christian-bashing as a tool to destroy all politically correct speech codes.
What you’re really amazed at is America. Because, ya see, here, I can marry a Jewish woman which is against the rules is some chitlin circuit democracies I’ve heard about.
I’ll lend ya a Constitution if ya wanna read it.
When the cannibals in Kalimantan can’t get people, they enjoy fish.
What would happen if someone convinced them that faggots taste like tuna?
I always scoffed at those who blithely say with the wave of their hand, “Heaven and hell are on earth.” After seeing these photos I feel I have seen a limpse of hell on earth.
To the “I was born this way” crowd…
Well, let’s follow that line of thinking. We’re all tempted to indulge in our own predisposed behavior from time to time, whether or not it is the right thing to do. The difference is we don’t give in to them. Despite your “genetic predisipositions” you have a choice whether or not to imbibe. The same can be said of alcoholics. They were born with a predisposition to overly indulge in alcohol. They cannot control it. The only way to do so for them is to abstain. That is their cross, they bear it. We’ve all got our burdens. The difference is how we bear them.
To the “God doesnt make mistakes” crowd…
True, he doesn’t. He gave mankind a free will when he created them in his likeness. Mankind chose to rebel against God, the consequences of which reveal themselves in all manner of ways; not the least of which is some of us born with predispositions for all sorts of things. Rape, homosexuality, greed, avarice, pride, addiction, etc. Mankind reaps what it has sown. That we are afflicted by those among us born with all sorts of maladies is our own fault. Not a mistake of God; who is perfect.
There are a couple of things in the bible, concepts if you will that it seems to me most christians don’t share with others. These are:
1. The fact that God tells us that there are some things that are beyond human comprehension.
- When we try and apply our own faulty human minds to God’s divine creation; our own explanations cannot encompass a great many things. There are some things humanity will never explain or even begin to approach understanding. We simply were not created with the faculty to understand or even comprehend it.
2. God tells us some of us are not meant to be married! This particular concept tells me that certainly some of us may in fact be born “Gay.” But that is their burden! That does not give the Gay license to engage in homosexuality! Rather it liberates them from the duties of the traditional family to take on a life revealed to them. Is it easy? Abso-friggen-lutely-not! Guess what? It isn’t easy for straight people either (Divorce, adultery, etc.) Man up and make your way.
3. Christians, sin is sin. There is no sin that is more than another. Your white lie is the same as Bob and Tom gettin it on. Are the consequences to society greater? YES! But as christians our purpose is to spread the word of Jesus and help one another. That it is difficult for us to help out the liberal homosexuals that we may despise (Barney Frank comes to mind), I think it is the sin of pride not to do what we can for them. And it that sin, we are as guilty in the eyes of God as they are.
Lastly, I am a Californian. San Francisco is a great place. It’s a pity that so many of these people choose to go there and do this crap. I wish it werent so, but none of you other states are without this same sort of thing within your borders. You just have to scratch the surface.
What’s the cure? Get married, make babies, stay faithful, go to church, fellowship with other christians, enjoy the company of one another, don’t turn your back on God, meditate, study a bit, acknowledge the guilt, the regret, admit your imperfections and ask for forgivenss. Repeat. In fact this might just be the cure for all that ails us. Lord knows it’s not in Washington, NYC or any American Mecca.
You just enunciated The Agnostics’ Creed: If there are things beyond our comprehension, then how can we ever be sure that God (or anything supranatural) even exists? Yep, even the Bible supports agnosticism.
I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. I don’t deny (nor insist upon) the existence of God: i simply confess that I do not know, and that my puny brain will almost certainly never be able to apprehend the reality of something utterly beyond my intellectual bailiwick.
My attitude is: Who the hell am I to say whether or not there is a God? To even have an opinion on the subject is hubris.
I cast a jaundiced eye on atheists to the exact same extent I do on Christians (or members of any religion). So many people, all so sure of themselves. Where did this baseless self-assurance come from, to say with such conviction that God either most definitely doesn’t exist, or does? I’ll never know.
No one can prove the nonexistence of anything because the negative proof is logically fallacious. Still, we may say that something doesn’t exist in the absence of evidence for its existence.
Are you agnostic about unicorns or leprechauns? How about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?
We have no reason to beleive that these things exist, so we don’t! An infinite number of different supernatural beings could possibly be real, but there is no reason to take an uncertain position on the subject. I don’t
Having some technical difficulties. I was going to finish by saying:
I don’t claim to have absolute knowledge of anything, so you can’t say that hubris influences my beliefs. I am fine with atheism because from a practical point of view, I act as though no gawds exist. In other words, I don’t pray “just in case” gawd is real or other things that soem agnostics do.
“Still, we may say that something doesn’t exist in the absence of evidence for its existence.”
Nope. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But, then, you think Dave’s posting anonymously, so logic is not your strong suit.
No, dumbass, it’s called the burden of evidence. If Person X claims Y, no one is obliged to believe them unless they can provide evidence for their claims.
I won’t even address the anonymity issue– I already refuted his arguments on that point thoroughly and he said nothing further on the topic. Care to discuss it, or do you just want to throw around ad hominems in the absence of a real argument.
Zom,
when you ask “Where does this baseless self assurance come from?”
Faith.
It takes faith to be an atheist. It takes faith to be agnostic.
Zombie,
You wrote a great article, so please don’t ruin it by attempting to tell Christians or anyone else how “sure” they are about their faith system. Baseless self-assurance? I have doubts every day. Many Christians do for varied reasons. It’s why they call it faith. Romans 1 and Hebrews 11:1.
Before the agnostic can claim his humble neutrality, he must first place his ‘puny brain’ on the judge’s bench and deny the truth claims of Christian scripture. Only then will he be willing to accept the possibility of the existence of god, just not the Christian God as revealed in the Bible.
As this article reports on events that happened in San Francisco, the New Testament scriptures report on historical events that had their culmination in Jerusalem. And, as the article offers some explanation of the events, so too the New Testament provides explanation of the events to which it bears witness. The Scriptures even go so far to say that if these events did not occur,the Christian hope is in vain.
Biblical Christianity is based on historical claims. Faith is trust that these historical propositions are true, and admits that if these claims are overthrown, Christianity is overthrown.
Agnosticism has its faith. It believes that God could not reveal himself in human history, and even if He did, well, that doesn’t overthrow the agnostic.
Which one is hubris?
So, it’s hubris to admit one’s own limitations and ignorance? Interesting definition.
I don’t “deny the truth claims of Christian scripture.” I simply confess that I do not know if they are true or not. And how could I?
You do realize that there are many other self-defined holy books which also make many historical and theological claims, and I profess uncertainly about them as well.
Your presumption that it is solely the Bible that I must confront and become convinced of is itself myopic. Why am I not compelled to accept the Book of Mormon, or the Koran, or Dianetics, or the Diamond Sutra, or the Upanishads, or whatever?
It is a mere accident of history that I was born here in this time and place in a Judeo-Christian society. And because I was, I am expected (according to you) to embrace a particular faith-based belief system, since that is our cultural norm. But if I wasn’t born here and now, I wouldn’t even be expected to deny or accept the truth claims of Christian scripture, as they would have no more status than any other book.
The same argument you’re employing can be (and has been) employed in other cultures and other times to convince people to embrace the culturally dominant faith system of that era.
In fact, it is knowing all this about history which strengthens my agnosticism. How can I possibly know which spirituality (if any) has ultimate claim to the truth?
A religious person picks one or the other and says “THIS is the truth.”
An atheist rejects all and says “NONE are the truth.”
An agnostic admits defeat and says “How the heck should I know?”
And that counts as hubris to you?
From your response would it be reasonable to assume that you believe in the reality of god, but you cannot know which religion has the one, true God? I am sure that you can see that this is different than arguing the existence of God.
Indeed, I do believe it is hubris and contradictory to make the sweeping claim that none of ultimate reality is knowable. I claim to know what has been revealed, and yet you have a more comprehensive take on ultimate reality than I. I have what I have by grace, and you have what you have from your own ‘puny mind.’
Jesus Christ existed, even written about by secular authors. If you do not believe the word was made flesh was born by a virgin, healed the sick, raised the dead, cast out demons, was murdered, and rose from the dead to sit at the right hand of G-d the Father that is your choice.
Where in the world did you hear that?
The only purported secular author who contemporaneously wrote about someone who could be interpreted as Jesus was the Jewish historian Josephus, but that is now considered highly dubious and is most likely a later addition by a Christian author, since the earliest version of Josephus’ manuscripts did not contain any references to Jesus himself.
And aside from that — zilch:
Now, I’m not claiming that the “absence of evidence” is “evidence of absence” — I’m only pointing out that there is no actual proof that Jesus even existed, much less was divine; nor is there proof that he didn’t exist and wasn’t divine. All we have are stories, written long long ago, yet after he was supposed to have been alive, for which there is no independent verification.
So what does a skeptical mind like mine do? It reserves judgment. I’m not convinced either way. I’ve read countless, countless arguments on both sides; Christian scholars absolutely insist Jesus was real; many secular scholars are pretty convinced he’s nothing but a fabrication, or a conflation of earlier figures. And still other scholars concede he might have existed, but that stories about him were exaggerated over time, and so though real he was just a man.
I’m not making any definitive statement on his realness or his divinity, as I am not an internationally known expert. And even if I was, one could always find other experts who came to the exact opposite conclusion.
So, as a “layperson,” what do I do? Devote my life to worhsipping a possibly real or possibly fictional or possibly divine or possibly mundane figure? Or become a militant unbeliever, based on nothing other than the absence of evidence?
No. Neither. I reserve judgment. I cosmically shrug my shoulders and admit defeat, in the absence of sufficient information.
That is the reason for my agnosticism. You may disagree with me. You may dislike it. But unless you come up with some very very convincing primary sources, succeeding where 1700 years of Christian apologists and Church Fathers have failed, then you’re not going to convince me to change my mind.
America is filled with bullheaded secularists and atheists. Why pick a fight with me, one of the few non-believers who’s at least open to evidence and not oppositional to Christianity?
@Zombie said: “I’m only pointing out that there is no actual proof that Jesus even existed, much less was divine; nor is there proof that he didn’t exist and wasn’t divine. All we have are stories, written long long ago, ”
Well, that’s all we have about Shakespeare and Chaucer, too. Nobody knows very much about them, and there’s loads of speculation. “All we have are stories, written long long ago”
Precisely. And do you see me worshipping Shakespeare or Chaucer? Not sure if you were trying to make my point for me, but you just did.
Uh, no, Zombie. It’s the other way around. I really believe that Shakespeare & Chaucer truly existed, that they were flesh & bone and walked on this planet, even though nobody can prove it. I have faith that they were real.
Man oh man, you picked a really bad example. You just keep on proving my point for me.
We know TONS more about Shakespeare than we do about Jesus. And there’s tons of INDEPENDENT verifiation for Shakespeare’s existence, aside from his writings.
Every critic and intellectual in England reviewed and commented on Shakespeare’s plays when they were first performed during his lifetime.
We have documentation for his marriage to Anne Hathaway. We have documentation for where he lived, in both Stratford-upon-Avon and in London.
Other writers based their works on his influence, citing him, during his lifetime.
His burial place is known and proven.
His name is recorded in parish registers.
Etc. etc. etc.
(And the same can be said to a certain extent about Chaucer, though to a lesser degree.)
You see, that‘s the kind of evidence a real person leaves behind.
Yet with Jesus, we have none of that. Random peasants in Rome and Judea often left more of a trace than he did.
Every single minor politician or civil servant in the entire Roman Empire, no matter how unimportant, left a trace, because their names and careers were recorded and discussed by any number of historians. Every rebel, every newfangled messiah (and there were scores of them), was dutifully noted down.
In fact, it’s quite noteworthy that practically NONE of the earth-shattering events described in the Gospels, including the existence of Jesus Christ, were recorded by writers living at the time. Quite strange. And suggestive that they either a. Were greatly exaggerated after the fact to appear much more significant than they really were; or b. Didn’t really happen as described at all; or c. Did not occur. The last option, d. They happened exactly as described, but somehow eluded the notice of every Roman and Jewish historian, seems far and away the least likely option.
Even Saint Helen, Constantine’s mother, went to the Holy Land a scant 300 years after the era of the Gospels, in a quest to find and bring home traces of the Christ, and even back then could find no evidence of him, except for obvious frauds presented to her by wily locals looking to scam a buck (several intact True Crosses, etc.).
A great many scholars, seeing all this, state with deep conviction that the Gospels are obviously a fictional account. But not me — I make no such claim. I merely look at the absence of evidence, and say “I do not know for sure if all this happened as described.” And yet people here are jumping on me as a convenient target, because I’m the one here exuding my diabolical non-Christianness. But in the realm of skeptics, I’m probably the most open-minded and least dismissive of the Christian story.
If you want to get mad at an unbeliever, there are many many people, many of whom have much higher status than me, who are vastly more vociferous than I am in their disbelief. Go joust with them. Or perhaps do you resist doing so because they have even more facts at their fingertips to rebut claims?
Playing rhetorical games with me won’t change my mind, nor will it change the mind of any other skeptics. All the tired old argumentation techniques — “Since you don’t know, the safest bet is to believe, because if you’re wrong, you will regret it forever” — “You accept as real many things for which you have no personal evidence” — etc. etc. — have been tried out a zillion times before, in a zillion different formats, from the early Middle Ages until today. And they’ve run out of juice. Don’t work no more. Been dissected too many times.
There are billions of people on this earth who are actively oppositional to Christianity. And here you are picking nits with someone who is, in the scheme of things, on your team. Perhaps there are more fruitful targets of your ire?
Hey, Zombie, I’m not angry. You’re doing OK, and I really enjoyed the photo-essay of the fruits in SF wagging their bottoms about the place. I’m just saying I believe, without needing to prove everything beyond a reasonable doubt. If nobody has actually come across an account of Jesus from a first-hand encounter so far, one will turn up eventually. I don’t demand that level of proof in order to understand the concept. Don’t worry about it.
What an interesting comment and one I had not heard before. “Hubris to even say there is a God”? Are you sure that you are not using this position as an excuse to attempt to find out?
Why not open your heart and mind to God? He so loved us that he gave us his only Son to know. He came to us as a servant. As a someone who suffered, hungered, thirsted, lonely,betrayed by his closest friends, He is not so far above us. God sent His Son into the world to reconcile us with himself, certainly, but he also sent Jesus to show us how to live.
The philosophy of Christ is the ultimate philosophy of human happiness. It isn’t just a way of life; it is the way of life
If you want to beging to know God, read the life of Christ in the Gospels. He wants you to know him. Fundamentally, that is why we were created. To know and love God thru Christ.
so who is “right” darwin or homosexuals? come on people not a tough question.
if darwin is right: homosexuals are loud mouth political group
if homosexuals are “right”: homosexuals are loud mouth political group
“3. Christians, sin is sin. There is no sin that is more than another. Your white lie is the same as Bob and Tom gettin it on. Are the consequences to society greater? YES!”
One thing I’d like to point out about this statement since it is getting rather cliched anymore is that it is Evangelical teaching. Traditionally, the Catholics have had something called venal and mortal sins, so not all sins are equal. There are also places in the Bible that suggest not all sins are equal as well. However, in these discussions, I rarely see anyone mention either of those things.
Is Zombie’s gender still kept secret? Because I’m thinkin’ it’s pretty clear Zombie’s a girl. A girl who loves her these crazy weirdo gay love-in festivals. She attends them every. Single. Time.
Or maybe a gay dude, which is fine, but Zombie has that, “I’m a totally straight female but look at that! EW! LOL!” thing goin’ on in these posts.
I only bring this up to say let yo freak flag fly, girlfriend!
Actually, no. Far from it.
The Folsom Street Fair happens every single year. The “Up Your Alley Fair” happens every single year. The Tranny Parade happens every single year. And Hunky Jesus happens every single year.
And yet, since 2007 (that’s four years), I’ve only attended ONE of EACH of these events. Which means I’ve (purposely) missed the other three of each. Not to mention, I reported on NONE of them prior to 2007. And on top of that, there are many other wild-and-crazy naked/gay/sexual public events I also fail to cover (Nude Olympics, Leather Weekend, World Naked Bike Ride, etc. etc.) every single year.
All in all, I’ve probably covered only about 5% of the available sextravaganzas in San Francisco in recent years. It just seems that I’m always covering them because no one else has the chutzpah to cover even one of them.
As to my gender and orientation — only my hairdresser knows for sure!
hairdresser?
lol
Half Beaner, are you trying to say that zombie is a “fag hag”?
Nah. I’m surprised no one else has ever noticed this…
You know that picture of the stone-cold foxy black chick zombie included in the last report, claiming it was taken “accidentally”? If you’d been paying attention, that same chick has appeared in several past reports, always described as a random passerby.
There’s no way the same person could wander by each event, over a several year span. Too coincidental. The only explanation is that that black chick *is* zombie, and she’s been sneaking self-portraits in the reports as an in-joke.
I was convinced of this even before her latest appearance.
So, fag “hag” is so inappropriate. Maybe more like a Queer Dear.
If that Black chick is zombie, she ought to enter politics and run for president! Looks, brains, double-minority status, and a libertarian bent that can appeal to elements of the political right and left.
Aside from the sheer narcissism of it, looks to me like the gays are saying to Christians, ‘You judge us, and reject us, so FU, we’ll do the most offensive thing we can think of in revenge for you judging us’.
And in doing so, perform their own act of judgment and rejection. Religious judgment of homosexuality is based on scripture, and so not personal, but a prohibition of behavior. Clearly it results in pain to gay people, but that is not the intent of the scripture. The intent of the gay judgment IS to cause offense, to take revenge, personal to each of the ‘performers’, I suppose. Thus taking sexuality from the potentially sublime act of love, down through simply boring instinctual gratification (even snails have sex), through tawdry and ridiculous into public vindictiveness, nasty pettiness.
I’m not saddened or upset by their antics. Every day I make choices and practice self-control related to my faith. These people are making their own choices. Choices have consequences. I believe the consequences are as inevitable as gravity, these people don’t. They would not be interested in my faith, except to insult me about it, nor would they accept any help I could offer them. Emoting is a waste in such a circumstance.
The bottom line is if gays and their hangers-on want to go around poking fun at Christians, like by mocking Easter celebrations, or dressing up like nuns, then they got no kick when they get repaid in their own coin.
And if making fun of flamers in the City offends the delicate sensibilities of liberals, that’s just tough luck.
“Christians should be free if they so choose to publicly mock gays or the stereotypical gay lifestyle.”
there aren’t any hate speech laws stopping xtians from verbally abusing gay people. in fact, it happens all the time.
of course, freedom of sppech applies to everyone, including those who don’t like anti-gay jokes. and if you make fun of gay people, they have the right to say “you’re a prejudiced asshole.” if you really think that hetero is better than homo, defend your opinion and defend it honestly instead of playing the victim when someone challenges you.
by the way, you can’t equating gay with anti-christian. most gay americans are christian, and they wouldn’t like this either. seems like you’re trying to scapegoat an unpopular minority b/c of the actions of a few of them. sf is not representative of all gay people.
Ihr perversen Schweine,traut ihr euch auch das gleiche mit dem Islam zu machen?
Nein dazu ist so ein Dreckspack wie ihr ja zu feige für.
Die Musels wüeden euch am nächsten Baukran aufhängen,das ist auch das beste
was mit euch Schweinen machen kann.
Herr Dude! No scheiss!
Is it not the truth in Schreber you perverts?
Man, these San Franciscans are absolutely sick. The way they treat sex, you’d think they’d been depraved of it for decades. And we all know that’s not the case. It’s bizarre. And this crowd certainly doesn’t help negate the notion that gays are perverse people.
Busy as heck, but in brief:
(1) They should be named the Sisters of Perpetual Tiresomeness
(2) Personally I think homosexuality is nature in some people, nurture in others, a matter of choice for yet others. This aside from people that are bisexual to some degree. There are probably genetic factors that increase the likelihood that somebody will prefer the same gender, but I very much doubt that there is a gene that says “ghey” or “straight” or “bi”.
(3) Tolerance is one thing; acceptance another; privileged status a third (and, for me and most, a bridge too far). The point isn’t that these tiresome w*nkers don’t have the right to put this cr*p on (they do): it’s that they demand total license to offend “safe” targets while they would be the first to cry “hate speech” if others mocked them (or other “privileged” groups) in the same way.
“Personally I think homosexuality is nature in some people, nurture in others, a matter of choice for yet others. [...] I very much doubt that there is a gene that says “ghey” or “straight” or “bi”.”
That you consider yourself knowledgeable enough to speak on this subject is laguhable. You fail to cite any evidence or give reasoning behind your stance, so how can you even “think” this?
Also, a biological origin of sexuality doesn’t imply a single gene. It could be a multitude of genes working in unison, it could be in utero hormones, or something else.
Of course, no one knows what “causes” sexuality because there is very little research on the matter. At this point, educated guesses by lay people are unhelpful and most likely untrue.
“The point isn’t that these tiresome w*nkers don’t have the right to put this cr*p on (they do): it’s that they demand total license to offend “safe” targets while they would be the first to cry “hate speech” if others mocked them (or other “privileged” groups) in the same way.”
You fail to differentiate between the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and gay people. Only a handful of gay people make up the Sisterhood, so why are the two groups being conflated?
You can make fun of the Sisters as much as you’d like; there are plenty of gay people that do the same. This is different from refusing to accept someone because they are gay. The latter is based in nonsensical hostility; it destroys lives and it has no place in any society.
Whatever, dude. I explicitly stated that what I said is my personal opinion, and do not claim it is a scientific statement. Humans are complicated little machines, and I very much doubt that any personality trait/cognitive trait/sexual preference/… would be just a matter of one or two genes.
Also, where was I speaking about homosexuals in general? I was speaking about the SPI in particular, and more generally about a particular type of leftie “community activist” that seeks to place one group above criticism or reproach while claiming the right to mock or belittle everybody else (except those targets that might blow them up or kill them). A particular kind of male homosexual activist (which you rightly point out many homosexuals find just as repellent as I do) is just a special case of this more general phenomenon.
To use an analogy: most of the members of the Neturei Karta sect are Ashkenazi Jews like myself. This is a truly repellent group that most Jews want no more truck with than they want with Arafat, even though THEY claim they are the only truly authentic Jews. Does mocking and criticizing the Neturei Karta whackjobs make you an antisemite or me a self-hating Jew?
Taking the analogy a bit further (I deliberately continue to speak of people I have a genetic and cultural tie with): groups marginally less extreme (and idiotic) than the Neturei Karta demand special treatment (government handouts, draft exemptions, special breaks for their very large families) and immunity from criticism, from the State of Israel and Israeli society. The secular majority generally tells them where to go, and are of course being accused of being “antisemites”, “Hebrew-speaking Gentiles”, “worse than Nazis”, etc. for this. While I’m not on the same page as these secular Jews on many things, I fully agree with them here.
Isn’t San Francisco going broke? Is this how the ciry of San Francisco spends the publics money?
Under the local standards and the law Gay San Franciscans have the right to do this and to continue to do this.
The MSM will continue to ignore it because they know it would cost them votes, particularly among the black community.
It would be very interesting to see if any Federal Grant monies are involved in this festival, and to ask congressmen and senators if they support said funds for this festival.
It would also be interesting to see if these people would have the same contest involving Mohammad.
Nevertheless as I said they are free to continue to mock Christianity in general and Christ in particularly for the rest of their lives…
…after that their own their own
There are kids present and watching!!! That is called child sexual abuse. They should go to jail for their perversions. What is wrong with these people???? I am wondering how much the taxpayers ended up paying for this cesspool of sin?
The last thing I want is for government to have the power to steal from me or take my child away because I attend something said government finds unpleasant.
Hence, Liberty.
As I began to read the article, especially as I saw the nude photos, I thought, “Surely, these people are not Christians.” I was relieved to find that they weren’t.
I am not at all surprised when people who don’t follow Christ act in this way. Why shouldn’t they? What motivation would they have other than their own self-interest?
But Christians are called to do unto others as they would have others do unto them. If I don’t want to be mocked, I shouldn’t mock others. If I want the right to free speech, I must grant that right to others.
I would have been truly ashamed if these mockers had been Christians. It is the kindness of God that leads people to repentance, not the anger or censure, or even the good behavior, of Christians.
“I would have been truly ashamed if these mockers had been Christians.”
Why so self-righteous? Christian people do far worse than mock gay people on a daily basis. Because of you people, homosexuality was criminalized in all US states through the 1960s, and remained illegal in 15 states until 2003. Christians are committing genocide gay people in sub-Saharan Africa as we speak (and justifying it with Bible quotes); are you ashamed by that? This line of discussion could go on indefinitely, but one thing is for sure: Christians do not practice the “do unto others” principle.
“I am not at all surprised when people who don’t follow Christ act in this way.”
The next time a Christian destroys another human being in the name of religion, I’ll say: “I am not at all surprised when people who follow Christ act in this way. Why shouldn’t they? What motivation would they have other than their own self-interest [in getting into heaven]?”
@Cruel World said: “Christians are committing genocide [on] gay people in sub-Saharan Africa as we speak (and justifying it with Bible quotes); are you ashamed by that?”
Uh, Cruel World, that’s Muslims you’re thinking of. You have to get out of your head more often.
Zombie: I actually like Hunky Jesus; I’m not a Christian, nor am I religious in the slightest, so the “blasphemy” doesn’t bother me one bit.
[snip]
But the real low point was spotting one of my fellow photographers proudly sporting an anti-Israel message. Jerk!
**********
Oh Zombie, Zombie, Zombie…
You can dish it out, but you can’t take it.
You see, I’m not a Jew or an Israeli, so the “anti-Israeli” stuff doesn’t bother me one bit although I know it bothers you quite a bit. Just wait until Mission Dolores is filled with people attending a rally explicitly dedicated to mocking Jews as chiselers and money grubbers.
I mean, common decency should have me up in arms about that…but as you so helpfully pointed out, since I’m not a member of the outraged community, Jew bashing shouldn’t bother me one bit!
I am neither an Israeli nor a follower of Judaism, so I am also not a member of the outraged community. What bothered me about the man’s message is the heaping of hypocrisy upon hypocrisy; here at an event centered on the ability to be openly homosexual he is essentially calling for the destruction of the only country in the Middle East where it’s legal to be gay; and by demilitarizing Israel he is not-so-secretly hoping that the Palestinians then take over, at which point the Hamasniks would then impose nationwide the same death penalty for homosexuality that they’ve imposed in Gaza. He’s a jerk because his Jew-hatred even overwhelms his pro-gay stance — which must mean a whole lot of Jew-hatred.
When I said that I was not bothered by blasphemy because I’m not religious, I was in no way saying that Christians have no right to be bothered by the blasphemy. I was speaking for myself. If you or any Christian are offended, then that is your right.
Remember: I was not the one “dishing” on Christians at the event — I was merely an observer — so your statement about me that “You can dish it out, but you can’t take it” is incorrect.
Zombie: “What bothered me about the man’s message is the heaping of hypocrisy upon hypocrisy”
So…if this guy was wearing a shirt essentially calling for the destruction of Israel, not at a Hunky Jesus contest, but just on the streets of San Francisco, you’d be cool with it? Because there wasn’t any “hypocrisy”? Well, using your above arguments, that would be cool, but it wouldn’t be cool with me. He’d still be a jerk.
Since you object to the “dish it out” metaphor, how about this? “It’s all cool with Zombie, unless it’s Zombie’s ox that’s being gored”?
Geez, what bee got in your bonnet?
Everybody is offended by the things that they’re offended by. And by extension everybody is indeed OK with stuff when their own ox isn’t being gored.
Let’s say for hypothetical example that you yourself eat meat. You see someone else eating a hamburger and someone asks you, “Doesn’t that offend you?” To which you’d reply, “No — why should it?” Then the questioner reveals himself to be a radical vegan and starts screaming “MEAT IS MURDER! By not condemning that meat-eater you are part of the problem!”
But you’d think to yourself — hey, buddy, being offended by meat-eating is your issue, not mine. Don’t ask me to become offended on your behalf.
The same applies here. I’m not the one mocking Christians. But since I’m not a Christian, I don’t feel personally hurt when I see it happening. However, I can fully understand how it would hurt a Christian, which is the very reason I made this report. I’m on your side — can’t you see that? Without me bringing in the facts, there would be no discussion in the first place. Don’t fault me for being an insufficiently partisan moderator.
Zombie: Geez, what bee got in your bonnet?
Ouch, Zombie. That stings. That really “stings”.
Ahem…
OK, on with the rest of the response.
Zombie: Everybody is offended by the things that they’re offended by. And by extension everybody is indeed OK with stuff when their own ox isn’t being gored.
No. The second sentence is factually incorrect. I am indeed offended by and not OK with stuff that doesn’t involve my own “ox.” As stated above, I am not Jewish. Yet anti-Jewish tropes bother me greatly. As they do you.
You and I have danced around the “hypocrisy” argument. Personally, I think that argument is thin gruel. It is not the hypocrisy of the anti-Semitic photographer or the Hunky Jesus event that bothers me. It is the act or sentiment that I find objectionable.
Zombie: I’m on your side — can’t you see that? Without me bringing in the facts, there would be no discussion in the first place. Don’t fault me for being an insufficiently partisan moderator.
You aren’t on the Christian’s side. You are on “your” side. You see Christians as “allies of convenience.” For bringing the facts, I sincerely thank you, and consider myself to be in your debt. And I don’t fault you for being “insufficiently partisan”. I have taken issue with some of your statements and logical arguments on their behalf.
But since we are to be allies of convenience, I suppose it is up to us keep from fraying the ties that bind. So… I’ll go first.
At a blog essay describing something that is about as offensive and blasphemous as is possible to be to Christians, adding the lines “I actually *like Hunky Jesus*; I’m not a Christian, nor am I religious in the slightest, so the “blasphemy” *doesn’t bother me one bit*” ruffles some peoples tail feathers.
Now your turn. Feel free to let me know of my transgressions and failings. They are legion, I can assure you.
@ed- amen and amen. Later you say he is not on the side of Christians – amen and amen to that.
Zombie is neither an Israeli or follower of Judaism. Interpretation- he is a non religious Jew born outside of Israel.
Zombie just cant fathom the liberals alliance with Islam. Interpretation – how can those liberal Jews be so stupid, don’t they know that the Arabs hate them and want to destroy them.
Basically Zombie and the Roger Simon crowd are in a tough spot. They are neo-judaic centric (non religious jewish state and social progressiveism are above all other causes) which forces them into an alliance with Christians because Christians are the only ones who are for a Jewish state. However they are totally against any moral codes or any beliefs the Christians hold dear and voice their opinion on. Good call ed.
You don’t know jack-doodle about me and you never will. A few years ago, after I replied to some comments made in Tagalog, many people became convinced I was Filipina. Some people on this very thread think I’m black. Other folks are quite convinced I’m an Asian Cal student. You think I’m Jewish. And just about everybody else assumes I’m a fat redneck loser who lives in his Mom’s basement.
That’s fine. Speculate. My ethnicity is (and ought to be) totally irrelevant. That is indeed one of the goals of my “career” — to make the content of reportage the point, not the ethnicity or gender or identity of the reporter.
Am I comparatively socially liberal, when measured against a conservative Christian? Well, obviously so, and I have said so in many posts. At the same time, leftists consider me a goose-stepping right-wing extremist. Who’s correct? Both and neither. The two sides are so far apart, that they can’t even see each other. I stand in the middle and everyone throws stones at me as the only visible member of some distant enemy army.
To say that I am “totally against any moral codes or any beliefs the Christians hold dear” is patently ridiculous, and you know it. I’ve written literally hundreds of essays enunciating and explicating a point of view that most deem “conservative” in this current climate. How many have you written?
I don’t think of myself as liberal or conservative; I march to my own drummer, even though liberals almost universally deem me ultra-conservative based on certain key positions I hold.
It’s no secret that I often muse about the fragile alliances on both sides of the aisle. And it’s no secret that I’ve said I will stand by Christians to defend America and western values and civilization.
But it’s also no secret that in a century or two or three, if history takes a certain course and communism and Islam are defeated, and if in this scenario certain Christian groups call for the re-establishment of a Christian theocracy, then yes, I would have to oppose them. I feel no shame in that. I oppose theocracy in all forms. Currently, there is essentially no threat from Christianity in that regard. The threat is from Islam. And so we stand against it together. But if in a hypothetical scenario it was Christian theocrats vs. constitutional secularists and there were no other extenuating circumstances, I’d side with the latter. Until then (if there ever is a then), we’re on the same team. If you choose to shun me and reject me anyway, then that’s your choice.
As some people have noted, this is not about “gay” per se, but about the double standard which permits “gays” to mock Christians (and Jews, and Mormons) with impunity, but which condemns anyone who might have the temerity to mock “gays” or the “gay lifestyle” and decries such mockery as “hate speech” (and therefore, theoretically subject to a lesser standard of free-speech protection) when directed at “gays.”
What gets lost in the shuffle is the fundamentally fraudulent construct of the modern “gay identity.” I observed upthread that the creation of this identity is thoroughly pseudoscientific, as indeed it is: one need only look to the instance which occurred last year in Seattle, where a “gay softball league” refused to permit some self-described bisexuals (the “B” in the omnipresent “LGBT” alphabet soup) to participate, on the grounds that the bisexuals “weren’t gay enough.”
Many, if not most, “gays” consider “bisexuals” to be “gays” who have not yet had the courage to fully “come out,” i.e., to fully reject their vestigial connection to the social mores of the larger society. The activists resolutely include “bisexuals” in the alphabet-soup mix in an effort to swell their claims to a large demographic, just as they included the so-called “transgenders”—even though surgically self-mutilating one’s body so that acting on one’s same-sex attraction outwardly conforms to heterosexual norms would seem to be the greatest possible antithesis to the concept of “gay and proud.”
“Coming out”—publicly acknowledging one’s same-sex attraction and acting on it—is touted as “getting in touch with one’s true self.” Yet there are many people who, having lived within the “gay lifestyle,” later choose to abandon that life for a heterosexual partnership. These people are surely “finding their true self” as much as those who go in the opposite direction—yet they are resolutely ignored (or, if not, decried) by the gay-activists, for they are living proof that homosexual behavior is, for most, a choice, not a compulsion or a biologically-determined destiny. Indeed, the gay-activists used to refer, not so long ago, to “sexual preference,” recognizing the choice element—and, while “preference” has largely been replaced by the more-hard-wired-implication of “orientation” as the activist adjective of choice, it still surfaces when the activists find it convenient to argue both ends against the middle.
I mention all this because the political untouchabilty of “gays” is grounded in an effort to establish a victim class based upon overt sexual transgression. The actual parameters of that class are ill-defined even within the class itself, but the class presents itself (and its demands) to the larger body politic based solely on its appeals to pseudoscience and its claims to an inalienable right to engage in public vulgarity.
Hey Zombie, did you happen to notice if any of the good folks from Westboro Baptist Church were anywhere in the vicinity? If not then you should send a link to this event to the good reverend Fred Phelps and all the Phelps clan. Hoo boy! That’d I’d pay to see.
Why would Phelps bother?
Phelps is a Democrat — far left — instigator. His job is to make Christians look bad by running around acting like the most extreme parody of them. There’s no one in SF left for him to convince.
You’ll notice he gets national press coverage while this crap in SF does not.
Phelps though started out by going to funerals for gays who died from AIDS. I am sure he would go to events like this if he thought he could get out alive. Its ok for him to go to military funerals because much to our dismay, he has freedom of speech rights and we wouldn’t hurt him. The gay community on the other hand, would kill him at an event like that. They wouldn’t protest him, they would kill him due to the reason’s Zombie has brought forth here, the double standard that is the gay community.
You may be right, Rory. Brother Phelps and his clan are a bunch of shyster lawyers looking for venues where they stand a good chance of being harassed, giving their apparently inbred clan an opening for a lawsuit and the opportunity to make some money. While Rob C may be correct about Fred’s political affiliation – I don’t know one way or the other – his real motivation appears to be to make money (shock! horror!) and gain attention. Your idea would seem to answer the question of why the Westboro gang wasn’t visible; they value their sorry rear ends more than the money they could potentially make from a lawsuit. Maybe wrongful death lawsutis don’t pay well enough.
NuckinFutz says:
Phelps’s candidacies (as a Democrat, every time) and his action as a fundraiser for Democratic Presidential candidate Al Gore are a matter of public record, easily searchable online. He and his PhelpsCo. clan are quite clearly allied with the Democrats, which lends credence to PhelpsCo. being a false-flag operation to discredit conservatives, particularly conservative Christians, and to keep gays on the Democratic plantation.
The notion that PhelpsCo. makes its money from lawsuits is not credible to anyone who has actually dealt in litigation. There is not enough money in the sort of spurious injury suits which PhelpsCo. could concoct from any of the confrontations arising from their demonstrations, nor would such money be sufficiently certain and consistent, to support PhelpsCo. in between their travels, let alone pay for those travels. Wherever PhelpsCo.’s money comes from, it is not from litigating their own injuries—and they are hardly sufficiently credible for one to believe that they have a steady stream of outside clients to represent. Indeed, where their money actually comes from is a mystery.
I scan this site periodically to get an idea of what the far right is thinking, and the zombie reports are always interesting. The commentary herein shows that much of the far right is the judgmental holier than thou group of pinheads that the gays rightfully mock. Most of you are too dense to grasp this. Gays aren’t against christianity; they despise crass bible thumping morons who justify their claims of moral superiority using their bibles as a club.
Many (most) of the zombie commenters display the very attitude that drives these gay events in the first place. Take away the idiotic suppression of being gay and the gay events would wither; hunky jeebus just ain’t as funny when you can’t make fun of imbeciles.
For those of you who require a crayon to grasp what I just said — you are the target of the gay events, not the notion of turning the other cheek or loving one’s enemies. Gays are deliberately provoking the morons who think their bible has authority on the subject of who gays are allowed to fall in love with.
I say good for them.
Zombie I figure you missed this time. Gays aren’t anti-christian; they’re against judgmentalism hypocritically and wrongfully applied by those using the christian bible as their excuse. If there is a hell, it’s not the gays who will populate the place — it’s the bible thumping jackasses who hubristically assume they can speak for their god.
What nonsense. There has been no “suppression of being gay” in San Francisco for at least 30 to 35 years. Sodomy laws have been abrogated by the Supreme Court. This has not led to a “withering of gay events,” but an increase in rutting in the street in San Francisco.
The removal of what you call “suppression” has led to increased demands that the glories of homosexual behavior be taught to ever-younger schoolchildren on the public dime; to creation of an invented victim-class that demands deference in the military, and invention of new form of “marriage” be invented on the basis of a spurious comparison to the old miscegenation laws; to the inappropriate insertion of “human rights” into American jurisprudence, where it has no place; to quasi-legitimization of the pseudoscientific term “homophobia”—and, unfortunately, to the creation of a grievance-mongering playbook that has been effectively copied by the Islamists, who will, if successful, gladly kill the people whining for all these things.
The removal of what you call “suppression” has led to increased demands that the glories of homosexual behavior be taught to ever-younger schoolchildren on the public dime…
Speaking of judgmentalism, derision, and suppression… did you reply as you did as parody? Sadly, I don’t think so.
So, you believe public funds should be spent on teaching elementary school children about “two mommies” and “two daddies,” teaching “safe fisting” to high school students (as “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings did prior to his elevation to the Obama shadow cabinet), and indoctrinating children dealing with their first rushes of hormones into believing that their participation in a circle jerk during a Boy Scout campout irretrievably condemns them to a “gay lifestyle?”
Thanks for clarifying.
“gay events would wither”
Going by that photo of “Hunky Jesus”, I’d say the withering process has already begun.
“If there is a hell, it’s not the gays who will populate the place…”
So, you figure that guys who publically display their stretched out anuses to crowds that include small children, are destined to win God’s favor and a one-way trip to paradise, as a reward for their good deeds?
Interesting theory.
So, you figure that guys who publically display their stretched out anuses to crowds that include small children, are destined to win God’s favor and a one-way trip to paradise, as a reward for their good deeds?
Ain’t free speech a bitch?
The fine point you and others seem to have no grip on is the same point the climate eco-fascists also miss. They don’t seem to quite grasp the notion that climate skeptics aren’t initiating anything. They are REACTING to stimuli (e.g. paying an extra 25% tax to Obama for solving the dreaded CO2 problem.) As a guy who doesn’t buy the CO2 alarmism you can see this for what it is. Skeptics don’t initiate. They react. Eco-fascists can’t see this. They see the skeptics as attacking Trvth and Righteousness.
Similarly gays are reacting, not initiating. They react to what they perceive as oppression and aggression.
You don’t see this. You see the gays as attacking Trvth and Righteousness.
Hmmmmmmm.
I can see no discernable difference between you and the eco-fascist regarding approach, method, or demonstrating even remote understanding of whom is the initiator and who is reacting.
But then again I don’t have a dog in this hunt.
randomengineer: Similarly gays are reacting, not initiating. They react to what they perceive as oppression and aggression.
Nonsense, yet again. The capering clowns in the San Francisco game preserve are not being “oppressed,” nor is there any “aggression” being directed against them.
That they “perceive” these things, as you put it, is merely an example of their deluded view of the world. They are not demonstrating in Tiananmen Square; there are no tanks waiting to crush them, no police seeking to haul them off to re-education camps. So far from being “oppressed,” what they are doing is flaunting their local political power which permits them to engage in a public spectacle of nudity (illegal in most jurisdiction), sexual posturing, and vulgar behavior with an assurance of impunity.
Now, you may argue that merely because these vulgarians do have the local political power to act out with impunity, “community standards”—the standards of the attendees no less than the organizers and the performers—render their debased bacchanal perfectly kosher, on a local basis. But if that is your argument, you have, on that very basis, no reason to object to other people finding this charivari as repulsive as the spectacle of a suttee.
In the end, what it comes down to is that you seek to excuse to justify this grotesque adult tantrum on the basis of “perceived aggression and oppression.” Yet you cannot show how these people are being in any way “oppressed” or “aggressed” upon—and therefore cannot show why their perceptions should be given any credence, let alone respect.
Some people or groups only define themselves by what they are against. Shows like this are meant to shock or push against a thing. That value ended a long time ago but if they have fun who cares.
Rock and roll and underground comics and the whole vibe coming out of the 60s was the same, in direct contrast to preceding generations who were more mature and didn’t seem to resent their parents as prehistoric cretins.
Without dark there’s no light – it’s the way we think and move, it’s what motivates us, wind for the sails, we like some drama in our lives and if it’s not there we make it up. People who have it really good like in the West tend to make up drama – in the Third World they have all the drama they can handle and so tend to be more grounded in reality.
These shows target Christians because they rebelling against those values and so have a history with them. They have no history with Islam although that day is coming but not for awhile. The show is a reflection of their history and is not only to shock but to shock with specific symbols.
“You don’t see this.”
I don’t know what you see, but I see one guy playing with another guy’s dick, with small children standing there watching.
Doesn’t sound like the sort of thing that’s likely to get you an all-expenses paid trip to heaven.
OTOH, you also appear to be saying that folks who cite things out of their bibles are destined for hell, which kind of doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
“Ain’t free speech a bitch?”
It is when nitwits start holding forth. Causes headaches.
#74, randomengineer, has the most accurate interpretation of the motivation for this event: it is a parody of people who use their religion as the rationale for their hatreds. Zombie’s anti-gay columns put him/her in the same group, only he/she adopts the pose of the disinterested reporter as his/her cover.
Anti-gay hatreds are several orders of magnitude more vicious than any parody ever could be because they have successfully imposed second-class citizenship on gays and deny gays the equality and liberty of their preferred choice of a same-sex spouse, along with 1,136 federal rights and thousands and thousands of state and local rights that heterosexuals enjoy. The only rationale ever offered for this is the right of the majority to use the coercive powers of the state to impose their religious beliefs on a minority that is not useful to them because their union does not directly make babies. They even go so far as to assert both their religions and the state have the right to deny gays the right to believe in their own goodness and equality.
Depriving gays of equality is a deliberate effort to destroy their lives — and it stunts the lives of the gays that don’t actually die as a result. That is why it is opposition to gay equality that constitutes moral depravity. It also is bizarre to criticize gays for striking back at religions that have declared them as intrinsically evil, so evil on the level of being that no accumulation of virtuous deeds can redeem them. And it is not astonishing that people who have been cast out of every socializing institution of society conclude that since no good deed on their part will be rewarded as it is for straights, that they are therefore free to do as they like without regard for morality.
Here we go with that again.
Did I arrange this event? Did I force people to go up on stage? Did I make them take their clothes off? No, no, and no. I simply stood in the audience and dutifully recorded what other people did and said. Then I presented the evidence, along with my own opinions, which frankly are pretty mild and in which I honestly say I liked the contest.
And yet, here I stand accused of “hatred” and of having some diabolical genocidal scheme behind my mask. Say what?
Christians accuse me of not condemning the event sufficiently; “conservative lesbians” now accuse me of condemning it too much. Seems I can’t win.
So, this event exists. What do you expect me to do? Censor myself? Say, “Oooh, this might make gays look bad. I must be dishonest and refrain from publishing it!”
Or should I publish it and lie about my opinions? “I see no hypocrisy or double-standard here at all, nosiree!”
If this whole topic upsets you, then write to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and tell them to knock it off.
If, on the other hand, the event pleases you, then you should be gleeful that it “pissed off” so many Christians, as the Mother Superior head Sister MC announced was the purpose of the event.
The Hunky Jesus contest started off with the announcement, “Ready to piss off some Christians?” (Crowd: “YES!”) And lo and behold, it worked. So — what exactly are you unhappy about? Isn’t this comments section filed with pissed off Christians exactly the desired outcome?
Maybe the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence should give me an award for making their dream (of pissing off Christians) come true.
Baloney.
Society doesn’t give any special consideration to homosexual relationships for the same reason it doesn’t give any special consideration to my relationships with my male friends.
They aren’t important enough to society to merit any special consideration.
Breeders are vital to society…lesbians aren’t.
Might as well grow up and start dealing with it.
“… at religions that have declared them as intrinsically evil, so evil on the level of being that no accumulation of virtuous deeds can redeem them.”
Cynthia,
Can you show me where Jesus Christ singled out homosexuals as intrinsically evil? Don’t you know that according to christian doctrine we are all evil and all condemned? No one is more evil than the other. None are without sin.
When you go on to say “…no accumulation of virtuous deeds can reedem them.” I have to point out that this is the same for all of us, christians and non-believers. None of us are saved by our works or our station in life or our accomplishments, but only through the grace of God through faith. Christ really doesn’t care what it is that you do in this world; he is only concerned with your repentence and your faith. This is perhaps a most difficult piece of christianity for the academics to embrace.
“Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian” writes like anything but “a conservative”—more like a wannabee welfare queen. She is demanding not merely an “equality” that does not exist, but “rights” which are not rights, but various forms of benefits, i.e., welfare.
The homosexually-inclined have all the rights of American citizens; they can vote, travel freely, associate with whom they will. They have freedom of religion, should they adhere to one; they have freedom of speech and the press. They have the right to gun ownership, to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, to trial by jury, to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Et cetera.
Marriage is not a “right”; it is a privilege granted to some and not to others. There is absolutely no equivalence between the old racial miscegenation laws and the gay-rights agitators’ goal of legalizing same-sex marriage. The former prevented otherwise-eligible partners from marrying on the basis of the extraneous characteristic of race. Same-sex marriage is the invention of a new type of “marriage” between otherwise-ineligible partners.
It is ironic that the gay-rights agitators are now demanding “marriage rights,” insofar as the post-Stonewall gay-rights movement was founded on the principle of destroying the institution of marriage. In light of this history, and in light of the fact that the “gay community” is, as I have noted upthread, an utterly pseudoscientific construct which has no internally consistent self-definition, there is absolutely no reason for the larger society to pay any attention whatsoever to that community’s agitators’ demands for a nonexistent, undefinable, and therefore wholly unattainable “equality.”
Marriage is neither a right nor a privilege but an institution based on reality.
That is unless you have hopes of starting a family by marrying a pick up truck.
Hump an anus or a muffler – same result family-wise.
Both need adoption which in this case, if you think about it, is like some old fantasy story about zombie people raiding human towns and stealing kids to survive.
The raiding is just more orderly and composed in SF – same theory though.
James May: I’m not sure what you mean by marriage being “an institution based in reality,” but I will hazard that you are referring to its being an institution designed for the conception, raising, and protection of children and the orderly transfer of property—or something along those lines. Which is true, as far as it goes; though you must also recognize that marriages are permissible between people who are past the age of conception, and also remain valid even if the marriage produces no children, which means that however much marriage does have the creation/rearing/protection of children as its primary purpose, that is by no means its sole purpose.
In any event, I will have to disagree with you as to whether or not marriage is a “privilege.” Entering into a marriage requires, first, that the parties reach a legally-determined age of consent, and second, that they be neither within the consanguinity restrictions forbidden by law, nor encumbered by a pre-existing spouse that has not been divorced or deceased. In short, there are legal restrictions as to who may obtain a marriage license, just as there are legal restrictions as to who may obtain a driver’s license. Thus, being able to marry is a privilege—irrespective of whatever “reality” the institution itself may or may not be based in.
If Hunky Jesus were held somewhere besides San Francisco, you might, remotely, be held to have a point.
However, the truth is that Hunky Jesus mocks…a construct that bears little to no resemblance to any reality anyone usually encounters.
The point was the sheer silliness and hypocrisy of the Sisters and their antics.
Only deadly humorless people, cowering under their beds in mortal terror of the christian totalitarians living in their heads miss that.
Gosh, you’re being very, very judgmental.
Yours sincerely,
A. Pyn Head
Mr. Random I love the way you thought those comments were some kind of eye opening epiphany.
They would be considered nuanced if I was a goat but I’m not and so they’re not.
Re: the existence/purpose of Hell/Heaven
Actually, modern Christianity has it all wrong. When the New Testament speaks of hell, the word hell is frequently translated from the original Greek word gehenna. Gehenna was a place, a valley or canyon outside Jerusalem where Ba’alists and Cananites sacrificed their children using fire. Also, it was a rubbish disposal place, where rubbish was burned into cinders. Hell is a “lake of fire” where everything is totally consumed.
So, for those who had a chance to be converted, to turn from sin, who did not, who rejected truth, they will, simply, ultimately cease to exist. Be burned up completely. Now, close your eyes, imagine nothingness. You cannot think, see or feel. You don’t exist. Not around anymore, forever. Bye Bye.
Why would a loving God allow eternal torture and suffering? He doesn’t. He mercifully gets rid of the refuse. Mercifully for them and those they would affect.
You and I are on the same page with the origin of the concept from the New Testament, so be sure to see my comment at the top of the thread. As for the idea that hell is just ceasing to exist, which is an interesting theory, well, isn’t that what athiests have been saying is the truth about the afterlife after all? I guess it will be true for them even if hell exists if you envision it correctly….
Seems more consistent with the Christian God.
“So many people, all so sure of themselves. Where did this baseless self-assurance come from, to say with such conviction that God either most definitely doesn’t exist, or does? I’ll never know.”
My point exactly, Zombie. I don’t know how people can be sure one way or the other and I don’t know how they have reached this conclusion. I often try to point this out to both sides as to what evidence they have to conclude that a God does or doesn’t exist and both argue vigorously why they are right. Atheists (especially militant atheists) don’t want to have themselves lumped in the same crowd as believers in a God and are stuck defending an illogical position that “nonbelief does not equal belief”. Well, if that’s the case, then why do you waste so much time trying to convince others that a God doesn’t exist?
Oh, and on that subject:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html?pagewanted=all
“Atheist leaders acknowledge the seeming contradiction of nonbelievers seeking to become chaplains or receive recognition from the chaplain corps. But they say they believe the imprimatur of the chaplaincy will embolden atheists who worry about being ostracized for their worldviews.”
But of course! If you don’t believe and nonbelief does not equal belief, then why in the hell do you want your own chaplain?
NSFW
unless one works at the department of justice
It is impossible for anyone to mock gays when they mock themselves like this.
True. How does one mock what is already a mockery.
The very point of male queerness, dressing as women, assuming female speech patterns and mannerisms, simply fulfills their desire to “mock” us.
They call us “homophobes”.
Maybe we should start calling them what they are, “gynophobes”.
Other than drag performers, few gay men dress or act like women. Nor do gay men hate women. You have no basis for villifying gay people because you have no concept of what it means to be gay.
All one has to do is check out some of the absolutely heinous attire, makeup and hair at any Hollywood awards show red carpet event to see how much ‘gays’ hate women.
Somebody call this crybaby a waaaaaaaaambulance!
That’s not true – black folks use the “N-word” all the time but don’t cousin (pun) that stuff from anyone else.
No way gays take a ribbing from straights they may dole out to themselves.
I am thankful for Zombie getting out there and showing the outrageous behavior that is, the gay community. The point Zombie is making is great, double standards no matter what are not fair and the gay community is the most flagrant violator of it. I have gone through previous postings from Zombie and seen some things I wish I could wash from my mind, the Folsom Street Fair, the naked bike ride …. if only I could wipe the images from my memory. Anyway, seeing the MSM gets on all fours for the gay community I think events like this one and the Folsom Street Fair should be picked up by the blogosphere and pushed out across middle America, the gay community should be shown for what it truly is, San Francisco should be shown for what it deems appropriate and acceptable behavior especially for what it says is acceptable to children. Want to stop this type of thing, show the rest of the country what the gay community thinks is appropriate behavior. Betcha if this was shown on the nightly news we wouldn’t be having conversations about SS marriage or DADT, it would be a dead issue.
Wow, evidence of the end times!!!!! Not the photos, but the fact that everyone is upset at the MSMs double standard. Seriously, can you image a headline in the LA Times “Local Christians Upset at SF Gay Easter Fest” featuring quotes from Father O’Reilly, Pastor Lundqvist and the local AME bishop?
I’m guessing most of the posters here are under 40 or so. When you reach my advanced age of 56, its hard to be shocked anymore. Life has punched you out so many times, you just don’t care.
As shocking as these images are (reach for the barf bag!), they are not any more representative of gay life in the US than graphic photos from some alcohol-fueled frat house orgy are representative of hetero middle class life.
Gay marriage, DADT, women in combat, unfair media, unfair life: all here to stay. It ain’t pretty, but its time to move on, folks.
Nah, Tom, it ain’t time to “move on,” by which you mean accept “gay marriage.” We should resist it; fight it; oppose it; nay-say it, every chance we get.
Recently Kobe Bryant was fined 100 grand for saying “f__king faggot” during an NBA game in a moment of anger as he was sitting down on the bench.
HRC said “What a disgrace for Kobe Bryant to use such horribly offensive and distasteful language, especially when millions of people are watching. Hopefully Mr. Bryant will recognize that as a person with such fame and influence, the use of such language not only offends millions of LGBT people around the world, but also perpetuates a culture of discrimination and hate that all of us, most notably Mr. Bryant, should be working to eradicate. Bryant and the Lakers have a responsibility to speak up on this issue immediately. America is watching.”
GLAAD said “For better or worse, Kobe Bryant has created a teachable moment for the millions of fans – many of them young – who saw that outburst on the floor,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “And the right thing to do now is to apologize and take responsibility for suggesting that the worst thing you can do to someone is to scream out a gay slur. This kind of homophobic outburst has dangerous consequences, even more so when it comes from a celebrity in the national spotlight.”
Note the “many of them young” comment in light of the children at the SF event and I guess they had a kid’s event right before. Every one knows Bryant’s not going to make an issue of this, after all it’s his career, but it would’ve been nice if he’d held a press conference showing photos that couldn’t have been shown on TV from this Easter Hunky Jesus.
You don’t have to be a genius to see that there is a lot of hypocrisy coming from the gay community on this Bryant issue in light of the SF event. The first statement talks about offending people but they seem to have no problem with Christians being offended; that is a double standard that should not stand and they should’ve been called out for it. That’s what you call a “teachable moment”. You wanna mock, then be prepared to be mocked and like it. If it’s okay to call Jesus whatever horrible slurs I’m sure were used in SF in abundance, then using the word faggot in anger, or even calling a gay a faggot seems no more than fair. If it’s not, the the gay community should get on this Hunky Jesus group which has been around since 1979.
The SFList, a mainstream SF promo site, even had the gall to write “There’s something for all ages at Dolores Park on Sunday.” Even the MSM is saying it’s okay for kids to see nudity and obscenity so it should be perfectly fine to forget about Bryant doing something in a moment of anger. There’s really even no comparison. The Rainbow groups in this country have a special shield and it’s rife with hypocrisy. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander so it’s faggots away. If there’s such a thing a “homophobia” then one can argue that homos suffer from “Christianophobia”.
For a group of people who are confused about anuses and vaginas and dildos and penises, and want everyone to buy into that as if it’s totally normal then I say fine; it’s totally normal for me to NOT be confused and say so and do it in a way fags do to Christians. Semper fag, Byaatch!
Zombie, love your work, not even 1/3 way thru, i knew it was the reverse and you made your point very well. HOWEVER, here in flyover country, i suggest we drop a daisy cutter right in the middle of that bunch of *******. Be gay all you want, but YOU ARE NOT THE MAJORITY – SHUT THE F*CK UP ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS – YOU ONLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE AS YOU CHOOSE, NOT SUBJECT THE REST OF US TO YOUR PERVERSIONS. Now, FOAD! NOW.
I’m no more offended nor will I speak of ‘Fire and brimstone’ nonsense than hearing a comedian years back speak of his sitting in a Catholic service, staring at the cross and thinking, ‘Wow, Jesus had great abs’.
To threaten eternal damnation or merely attempting a rational religious discussion is waste of time.
Like ALL illiberal outcomes, the illiberal will attack its host and devour from within. It’s been their quid pro since man has been envious of another for an infinite-like number of reasons..
Would love to share this all over the internet in order to get your point about the double standard the attention it deserves. Unfortunately, my standards don’t permit me to do so with all the graphic nudity contained in the pics. Let me know if you intend to “clean them up” enough to share to audiences of all ages (and sensibilities), and I’ll gladly do so.
Sorry — reality is reality. I do my best to not censor. I know from experience that unless I “deliver the goods,” no one will actually believe it could be possibly true.
Feel free to take a selection of the photos of your choice, and pixelate them if you want to, and make your own mini-report for sharing with the delicate.
I don’t think it is right for either group to mock the other. It is extremely distasteful. Hell may be exactly what we think it will be, as might Heaven. I am assured of the reality of both places.
They expect us to respect them?
Forget it.
This is the most offensive and disgusting thing I have ever seen.
They, them. Who do your words refer to?
The people who need respect and those who are “disgusting” you are two different groups. In short, the people in these photos, both hetero and homosexual, are not representative of all gay people.
Imagine that I took the Jersey Shore cast and said, “Those people [heterosexuals] expect me to respect them? Forget it.” You are shaming a group based the actions of a few.
The Jersey Shore cast has nothing to do with it. They are not intentionally and publicly insulting Christians as “they” at the above event are.
I take offensive even though I am irreligous. It is just outrageos and no I didn’t make through all the pictures.
Recently I have started thinking that God is really, really ticked at man and is showing his displeasure daily. Do you think that this type of behavior is part of the problem. And how much did this festival cost S.F. in extra security and street clean-up?
Sigh. My first impulse seeing these was to go and pray a rosary so that Mama Mary will ask her son to have mercy on them. They seem like spoiled children having a tantrum, more silly than evil. They are harming only themselves.
Finally: Yes, I believe in Hell: Maybe because I live overseas where good “religious” politicians steal millions from the poor in bribes and kickbacks, and kill their political enemies and whistleblowers.
These mocking children? Purgatory, not hell might be a better fit.
Hypocrisy is rampant these days. There’s a prime example in some of the other articles on this site. Look how Obama gets away with all the shenanigans with hiding his past. Just let a republican try something like that. We shouldn’t stop pointing out the hypocrisy, or it will lead to acceptance.
The SF gay advocates are irrational–early in the AIDS epidemic the plaque could have stopped if the bath houses were closed–as the Health Department recommended.
The gays claimed this was a civil rights issue and drove the public health director out of his job and out of town
So the band played on and millions died as the SF gay bathhouses were a major vector for the plaque world wide–thing have not changed despite the evidence–for example
The male homosexuals in SF now and world wide have very serious problems.
1/ 50% of Black male homosexuals and bi-sexuals in the the USA now have HIV/AIDS.
2/ The rate of infection with HIV in SF is still and epidemic–drugs can keep them alive–but it is a tough life with premature aging and dementia.
3/ A new strain of MSRA is now epidemic among male homosexuals in SF
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322766,00.html
Gays are now vectors for spreading this disfiguring and fatal disease among themselves and to the rest of the population-it is a new plaque on top of the HIV/AIDS plaque
Gays health risk behaviors have not changed–the rest of the population is paying for the treatment of these diseases.
The health issues are a better focus for gay attention–if their behavior does not change then quarantine laws and felony prosecutions for spreading life threatening diseases will be enforced.
In Africa and the US it is Christian Charities that do the most to help those with gay behavior diseases– when all their friend have deserted them
–because they are too sick or too old.
“A new strain of MSRA is now epidemic among male homosexuals in SF”
Homosexuality and promiscuity: the gifts that just keep on giving.
Thank you for the fair report, Zombie!
Zombie, you are too goddamn moderate!
Stop taking well-reasoned positions. If you don’t adopt my extremist beliefs, I shall condemn you!
My group, the GayChristianLiberalConservatives, will not allow your opinion to exist. So take your evidence, your unique information, and crawl back in your hole. We’d rather dwell in ignorance and argue with each other without reference to any distracting facts!
You claim you don’t know the answers to everything. What monstrous hubris is this, to claim you don’t know. Of course you know! All the most modest people like me realize that we are omniscient. How dare you insist you don’t possess omniscience! Where is your modesty?
Now bow down and confess that my view trumps all others. And no, I don’t have to explain what my view is, because you already know it, in your omniscience, you vanilla pervert!
classic..
Yes, I often think this too, while perusing the Zombie-docs: This cat lays it all out and let’s the viewer/reader decide – what callous disregard for hype you have good sir/madam!
So how about a “Hunky Pelosi Contest?” A “Limp Dick Obama Contest?” Now those would be considered a bit queer….
You conclude rightly, “And what this tells me is that our society is currently enduring a condition of mass rank hypocrisy.”
You are one hundred percent accurats to call this all mass rank hypocrisy. But the other side to it is simple: for all the folks who might have otherwise visited San Francisco and deliver tourist dollars, this adds to the mix and very probably negatively.
As for all the “courageous” gay men who can stand in public and do this in San Francisco, how about announcing that next years’s fete will be in Dearborn, Michigan? Or across from the White House on Congress?
You’ll see when Suden day come. Burn in hell!!!!!
What a tantrum of cowardly hypocrisy.
There’s a world religion whose fanatics kill homosexuals on a regular basis.
Then there’s a world religion whose fanatics condemn homosexuals but pray for their salvation.
Which group gets made fun of?
Ah the question is not that I stand by you but that you stand by me. There are many many many more Christians than there are neo-Judaic centrists – you need the alliance so stop with the phony straw man of a Christan state. You obviously have not read or understand the New Testament. Christians seek a heavenly kingdom not an earthy kingdom. You are correct in pointing out the hypocrisy of gays, but that is only a side issue. We think homosexually is a sin just like coveting, killing , etc. Nothing more or nothing less. So if you want to splash lewd pictures on your site, go ahead but you have ruffled a few feathers. In the meantime stop with the phony straw man and Christan bashing. Read the Bible.
Today I ran across a really vile article called “White America’s Shame” at HuffPo about birthers being all racists and wrote an essay on it.
I expanded my comment about Kobe Bryant versus the “Hunky Jesus” pageant and incorporated it into the essay.
It’s called “The Huffington Post and ‘White America’s Shame’” Click on my name for it.
Needless to say, a “Hunky Obama” contest would be frowned on by one and all within the Rainbow Left as “racist”. Now that’s an R-rated stage show I’d pay to see. Hopefully the winner would be “Barak F__king Obama”.
It would be for sure another test of the “Emergency Double-Standard System”.
Or maybe a half-black, half-white Obama like Frank Gorshin’s “Star Trek” character. Maybe a “Before and After Obama” “Drunken Red-Neck Obama”? “Colostomy Bag Obama”? “Apple of my Brown-Eye Obama”?
Needless to say, a “Hunky Obama” contest would be frowned on by one and all within the Rainbow Left as “racist”.
How about a “Flunky Obama” contest? Would they accept that as reality-based?
Barney Fife Obama, Buckwheat Obama, Polly Wanna Cracker Obama, “Rerun” Obama, Locking Dance Obama, Urkel Obama, “Weezy” Obama, Dynomite Obama, Live Long and Prosper Obama, “I built the Pyramids” Obama, Cleopatra Obama, Foxy Obama, Maxi-coat Obama, Jerri-curls Obama, Royal Crown Obama, Michael Jackson Obama, Doris Day Obama, See-ment Pond Obama, Abe Lincoln Obama, Esperanza Spalding Obama.
Soulglo Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doTln-HDFQo
“”Rerun” Obama”… CLASSIC!! ROFL!!! Crap that hurt.
I propose a “Hunky MLK Day”, in which contestants see who can write the best plagiarized dissertation…
Nothing backward about my logic. Facts are facts, whether you like them or not.
Since I’m not an atheist, I can’t answer your question, but you too seem to be a “true Christian” in your inability to think, to read, to reason, or to admit reality.
Deep down, the people who support this spectacle recognize that Jesus really does have power over them. They seek to speak truth to power but in reality they show how little power they have against the Truth.
===
btw.. Zombie is being Christian by questioning everything.. thanks for the advice JC..
When I first read the head line I thought how terrible and that it wasn’t very christian to pick on a certain group,but when I read more and saw more I just felt very sad. I know some gay people and have always treated them well but this just made me want to puke especially the little kids seeing it.I wouldn’t like it even if it were heterosexual’s doing it. I’ve been to San Fransisco many time and I go to New Orleans at least once a year. I love the place they have southern decadence ( gay day) and that may not be my cup of tea but they don’t mock Jesus. Sad very sad
After they do Hunky Mohammed and Hunky MLK, I’d like to see a Hunky Darwin contest. After all, teh gay is all in the genes, thank Darwin.
Time to start planning yet another celebration for May 22nd (Harvey Milk Day). Same venue. Instead of a pie eating contest you could have a fudge packing contest. Or perhaps a biathlon which combines eating twinkies with target shooting.
Zombie rocks! One amazing essay after another — all in one week…
NOW GET US THE REAL STORY ON THE WHITE HOUSE VERSUS S.F. CHRONICLE SPAT!!!!
(Yes, we know: the Comical will soon be doing the kow-tow bow to “O” again….)
Why is it always the guys with the littlest appendages that parade around? Hasn’t anyone told them? Whoever said the human body is beautiful wasn’t at this gala affair.
Ed, do you know what a “check valve” is?
No sentinent man can escape having a religion. Religions require no gods. Buddhism, for example, has no gods. What comprises a religion is aptly aimed at by the word “religion”, which, broken down to its Latin roots, means “the ties that bind”. The functions of religion include providing a framework for moral reasoning, and also providing a common framework of beliefs, a body of common knowledge and language, a set of common principles and outlooks so necessary to ensure cultural cohesion as generations pass.
These assclowns on stage in San Francisco are publicly practicing their religion here. This annual ‘anti-ritual’ is yet a religious ritual. Some communal aspects of, say, a Catholic Mass are present. Theirs is built on a foundation of progressive radicalism, edgy “in your face” activism, and a spirituality largely informed by sexual gratifications. We could hardly expect anything less – the homosexual sex-act is itself a form of orgiastic protest. “The personal is political” with this sorry lot, so we arrive pretty quickly to these Shavian exhibitions.
Protest is built-in to this religion. So, they have to protest something, and Christianity is the safest and most ripe target. The assclowns do not have a ritual that only celebrates themselves, it cannot occur sans protest. The so-called gay pride parades are staged with an eye on maximum shock value, they are totally wrapped up in protest.
All progressive and Marxist derived movements are like this. The logic of humanistic socialism is inescapably utopian, meaning set upon constructing a heaven here on earth. That’s the “hope and change we’ve been waiting for”, the unnamed Promise Land, the land of milk and honey, the New Jerusalem.
Yet all religions are not equally good, nor interchangeable, nor bound by the multiculti subjective bullshit. Some bear bad fruit indeed, as you can see here, with these pitiful, decadent, lost little children up on stage making assclowns of themselves.
It’s very sad to watch. They really are embarrassing examples of humans.
There are a definite series of double standards in our society in regards to the behaviors that the media overlooks and those it screams for blood over. One thing that ought to be taken into consideration is that the general standards of Christian behavior are based in love for your fellow man and an acceptance that it is up to God to judge the individual rather than anyone else. That is perhaps the largest reason as to why you won’t see an event similar to the one described in this article taking place. Outside of extremists who’ve strayed away from the basic precepts of Christianity that strip men of their right to judge others on their adherence to godly principles and commandments you’ll find people who are bothered by the mockery, and the double standards…but fewer people who will stand up and try to show the world that somehow two wrongs make a right.
Social hypocracy in the media is perhaps the Christian communities penalty for being willing to turn the other cheek.
Zombie;
Thanks for the splendid work you have put into this article and responses.
I survived a Catholic education, and became agnostic decades ago. But, I believe I owe some gratitude for my parochial education. It instilled discipline, which is invaluable character trait. This very discipline is severely lacking today.
Your articles and arguments are thought provoking and educational. You are getting the job done, as I’m sure you are aware.
Thank you, and please, keep up this great work.
I have taken a lot of heat for advocating on my radio show that gay men and women be given “the full measure of liberty” in America. While I understand that these knuckleheads are a tiny percentage of the gay community and do not represent the views of most gays, it is nevertheless disappointing to see these morons reveling in degrading that which is held so dear by other Americans. I wonder where the criticism is from the rest of the gay community. It would do the gay community a lot of good with the average American for the non-radical gays to come forward and speak out against this type of conduct.
The issue here is beyond anything commented on — it is about basic decency which is being totally lost in this country. Zombie, you say you like this contest. Then you like over-sexualized public displays that are advocated and supported by a local government. It wouldn’t matter if they weren’t mocking Jesus here, there is absolutely no reason under the sun for any sexually-tinged display to occur in public anywhere in our country, ever. Not homosexual, not heterosexual, not bi or trans or any other type people have come up with. It is about class and decency. Keep your private parts private, for Pete’s sake!!! Total debauchery was a sign of the end of the Roman Empire. If people don’t start standing up against these kinds of displays it will be the end to our country too. Whenever I think that I might start supporting some gay rights causes I see things like this and come to the conclusion that the gay community is not mature enough to deserve my support. I will be waiting with baited breath for condemnations by representatives of the gay community of this event — if I hear them, I might actually feel like expending some energy in their support. If I don’t, I know their silence is tacit approval. And by the way, for me this applies to heterosexuals as well. Over-the-top Mardi Gras parades where women show their parts, Spring Break drunken public displays, etc. etc. — all should be banned. If you want to do that, get a private room and do it to your heart’s content. Just leave the public square as a place where ALL people can walk and enjoy with being subjected to your sexual fantasies and fetishes.
Goodness gracious, check out all the jealous envious heteros posting their HOMOPHOBIC hate lingo! If I didn’t know any better I’d say that over half the bored hetero posters on this blog are just dying to come out of their closets but seriously lack the cajones! Know what? ya don’t care for the way we do things here in SF stay the FUCK OUT!!! I’m sure these little kids who were here for this event didn’t just wander in off the street now did they?!? They were there with their PARENTS APPROVAL!! Unless of course you breeder hypocrites are now saying that parents shouldn’t be allowed to tell their children what they can and can’t do. Isn’t that ANTI family? STFU and go back to Nebraska, Mississippi or Saudi Arabia! You won’t be missed! The only thing wrong with the Annual Hunky Jesus contest was that it wasn’t held directly in front of the local chapter of the Pedophile, er…I mean Catholic Church Diocese!
@ Markus You say “if hell is to have any meaning in a universe created and ruled by loving and just God, it must temporary and transitional, in short, there must be some way to escape from it through repentance or some other means.” Just wanted to let you know, God has provided a way of escape, it is salvation through the precious blood of Jesus Christ who died for ALL of mankind’s sins from eternity past to the end of this world. God has offered this special gift and one only need except it to receive it…Turn away (repentance) from sin and turn(surrender self)to Christ as Lord and Savior. God’s word explains it…it is up to the individual as to whether he/she is going to believe it.
Yah? If god truly existed then why the fuck can’t he just forgive us on his own?? LMFAO!
“Abba, Abba, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing”
Communist nonsense, mocking the faith and religion, make fun of families, the practice of debauchery without limits, constraining people to accept defilements that disregard their beliefs and culture.
Who will it fit?
Had a blast at the Hunky Jesus contest! See you next year!
Zombie, love your work, but do you really think we couldn’t see that one coming? What’s the expression about ‘laying it on thick’ and a ‘trowel’? Love the red typeface though – we didn’t miss the message, that’s for sure!
I do not know if all gays are sick, but the people on these picture definitely are.
This is completely disturbing. Either these people are lying about being Christians, or they don’t know anything about Christianity. The bible clearly states homosexuality is something that disgusts God. However, it also says don’t judge people, and everyone is a sinner. Every sin disturbs him, and that includes hatred, lust and so on. You don’t see people doing this to other sinners. We should have every right to say what we believe in, but something like this completely goes against Christian teachings. This is sick.
The “one’ huh?!? Seems to me the only people on this world in need of psychiatric help are the religious morons who actually think that fairy tales are REAL!! Yes, religious nutjobs, delusional ways of thinking ARE classified as psychological if not psychiatric DISORDERS! Tell ya what religious whacknuts, go get yourselves mentally evaluated THEN come back and condemn homosexuality. ‘Kay. In the meantime try not to WATCH SO MUCH of our Hunky jesus Contest(if it truly “disgusts” ya’ll so much). Your computer keyboard’s gettin’ all gummed up from the drool and the semen!! LMFAO!!
THis is outrageuos, ridiculous. These guys are something less than shit. Manure at least can grown plants.
These people are NOT Christians! This is either gay people framing Christians, or some idiots that are mocking God and Gays at the same time! Gay people, nice try, but your NOT going to discredit the truth with this garbage…
Ok Ok, I get it now, I failed to read the rest of the blog…. yes there is a double standard big time!
Don’t call these Christians, Christians this is a lie, these are people mocking Christianity by being naked, Christians are to follow modesty, this is a total LIE this is non christians mocking Christians…..holylove.org and medjugorje.org read this book: Miracles in the Eucharist by Bob and Penny Lord
Christians are so small minded that it makes me sick.
But Muslims you respect. Go stretch your anus in front of little kids in SF. It will sure boost your self esteem
It is interesting reading this as a gay Christian. At first I was like “OMG how can those Christians out there be so disgusting and hateful and ignorant towards gay people!? Will it ever end!?” And then I get to the end of the article and see that it’s actually the other way around and am like “OMG how terrible of those gay people to bash Christianity and be so blasphemous towards the beliefs of others!!”. It’s like at first I felt ashamed to be associated with the Christian bigots, and then I wind up feeling ashamed to be associated with the gay people mocking Jesus. I think either scenario is plain awful. I agree with what’s said in the article. Gay people (I myself am gay, don’t forget) want to have their cake and eat it too. In other words, they demand tolerance from others, yet fail dramatically to tolerate the religious beliefs of others. However, I would like to see neither side being mocked. I mean, seriously, do people have nothing better to do? Aren’t there more important things out there and more pressing matters at hand than putting down the beliefs or the lives of others? Think of how much could be accomplished if bigotry were turned to acceptance!
What people do behind closed doors is their business but to teach children that fingering and licking a man’s anus is normal affectionate behaviour is the most disgusting, filthy thing imaginable.
Zombie has it 100% right. I cannot imagine any group besides Christians who could be mocked in this way without media outrage. I doubt that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are aware that Muslims also revere Jesus, as a prophet second only to Mohammed, and are capable of making their wrath felt.
But those who mock Jesus in this way more effectively mock themselves. Not all homosexuals behave in such ways, and some (Andrew Sullivan,for example) express their disapproval of such behavior openly. But “Hunky Jesus” provides as convincing a bit of evidence for the proposition that male homosexuality is a form of arrested development as we are likely to find. SF has been a gay utopia since about 1968, and they are still provoking Big Bad Daddy to spank them.
So let him — in this world or the next. (As a Catholic I believe in purgatory, which softens the last clause a bit.) Meanwhile, Christians who are concerned about attacks on religious freedom — as for example Pope Benedict is — now have the best of all possible arguments against those who cry “hate speech” if we say that homosexual practices are sinful. On the whole, we benefit from the rule of law and an expansive scheme of civil liberties. Pilate as judge acquitted Jesus, but as governor — invoking the then current version of homeland security — ordered him executed.
(Children are another matter; exposing them to things like “Hunky Jesus” is a form of child abuse.)
PD