It always seems to be very much tolerated by the public, they actually seem to (gasp) enjoy it. Why in gods name ( o wait, hehe) would anyone want this to be banned?? If only the fundamentalist fanactics could catch themselves on. We all know that isnt going to happen though. I have to say i was rather pleased to see the 'protesters' caged off, and also silent. How very dignified of them. Titti provided some very amusing slagging off via microphone. O how we laughed at the poor little lambs. Also glad that there was a barrier of onlookers between them anyway, very good. up the queers

Jazz bands eh? That sounds to me like a vast improvement on the usual Ulster marching band fare. Perhaps lessons can be learnt.

Denny Boy,

Gives a whole new (and, I must say rather sickening) meaning to the image of "The Sash My Father Wore."

My apologies, Alan. Didn't realize you're a jazz fan. It would have to be trad of course :0)

Keeping with the costume theme, Bob Fosse made creative use of bowler hats in his choreography, as did Lena Olin in "The Unbearable Lightness of Being." Also, the New Orleans tradition of playing dirges on the way to a funeral and hot jazz on the way back might work, too.

"Also, the New Orleans tradition of playing dirges on the way to a funeral and hot jazz on the way back might work, too."

Now you're talking, Alan! Some lightening up would sit well with the OO. I came across this one recently. Could be the start of a whole new lease of life.

Denny Boy,

Thanks so much for the link. I especially liked the photo of Odd Job. Speaking of fillums, I have never seen When Brendan Met Trudy, but it is said to contain the following scene:

"The scene involves a troupe of gay Orangemen, complete with pink sashes and bowler hats, proclaiming their right to march."

I was one of many Brits who came over from the mainland for Belfast Pride. Apart from the group of fundamentalist "hate-mongers" outside City Hall waiving their placards (they were far outnumbered by ordinarly Belfast folk enjoying the parade, we found Belfast very friendly. The only vaguely "homophobic" remarks that we heard all the time we were there was on the bus from town to the Airport - and the remarks came from a group of ENGLISH rugby players!

Thank you Belfast for a great weekend! We'll be back!

Went to watch the parade on Saturday and I must say it was a great turn out from the gay community. Had to laugh at one of the marchers who had a Paisley mask on and his t shirt said "My Berry is a fruit" brilliant lol.

Romans 1.21-30

They knew God, but they did not give glory to God or thank him. Their thinking became useless. Their foolish minds were filled with darkness. They said they were wise, but they became fools. They traded the glory of God who lives forever for the worship of idols made to look like earthly people, birds, animals, and snakes. Because they did these things, God left them and let them go their sinful way, wanting only to do evil. As a result, they became full of sexual sin, using their bodies wrongly with each other. They traded the truth of God for a lie. They worshipped and served what had been created instead of the God who created those things, who should be praised forever. Amen.

Because people did those things, God left them and let them do the shameful things they wanted to do. Women stopped having natural sex and started having sex with other women. In the same way, men stopped having natural sex and began wanting each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and in their bodies they received the punishment for those wrongs. People did not think it was important to have a true knowledge of God. So God left them and allowed them to have their own worthless thinking and to do things they should not do. They are filled with every kind of sin, evil, selfishness, and hatred. They are full of jealousy, murder, fighting, lying, and thinking the worst about each other. They gossip and say evil things about each other. They hate God. They are rude and conceited and brag about themselves. They invent ways of doing evil.

What b**locks

Redt

That's the Word of God you're denying. Do you claim to know better than God?

"That's the Word of God you're denying."

You're sure of that, are you, David? Do you know when those words were written down, and by whom? What about the Koran? Is that the Word of God too?

Thank God I'm not an Ulsterman. Such certainties must be so very hard to shoulder and sustain.

6countyprod,

because heterosexuals are completely devoid of any "kind of sin, evil, selfishness, and hatred" and I've certainly noticed they lack any "jealousy, murder, fighting, lying".

Tell me why I should pay more heed to you and your bible than I do to muslims and the koran?

"Tell me why I should pay more heed to you and your bible than I do to muslims and the koran?"

Indeed, Robert.

The adherence to literal interpretations of religious tracts [and I'd include quasi-political tracts in that] is the fundamental source of many of the problems we face.

As any skoolboy nose, religious tracts aka the Word of God were written to suit the theopolitics of the time, and the rulers du jour. Which explains why most of the "tracts" neatly suit someone's agenda.

Personally, I find the following a reasonable rule of thumb. If it's truly from God, delivered via Jesus, it'll carry a message of love and tolerance. If it doesn't, and it purports to be of divine provenance, then it's blasphemy – and it will cause grief and strife in the world.

If it's from the Bible or any church/denomination/faith...I say, boll*cks.

What in the name of God are they proud of? That they have severe psychological problems and gender disorientation?

I guess it is reverse psychology to say you are proud of your mental illness.

Sure, if it makes them happy, they can sashay all day.

They're queer, they're here, and they shouldn't live in fear."

Being gay is a mental illness then?

Interesting, or it would be as an idea is this was the 1500's.

Should we burn a few and see if they recover any?

Whatever happened to Christian charity? To "live and let live"?

Oh, I forgot: we're talking Northern Ireland here.

6County Prod and David etc...

Please keep you narrow and literalist interpretation of the Bible to yourselves - no wonder reading of it was restricted in the middle ages....

As one of the Pride participants' t-shirt said:

"God wants spiritual fruits not religious nuts!"

Alan McD - If you get a chance to watch 'When Brendan Met Trudy' do - it's a cracker!

I want a return to biblical standards of morality: widespread desruction of property; mass murder of entire tribes; random infliction of plagues; mass extictions.... My God, things were simpler then.

Who are we to judge?

its this not the beauty of it all. everybody is allowed an opinion and its only when we censor the opinion or expression in the name of freedom/religion/whatever do we ourselves become the oppressor.

cbs

I wish it were that simple. But from where I'm sitting very few people in our society seem to have formed their own opinions. On my visits to Northern Ireland I encounter so much "received wisdom" and bigotry that has been accepted (from an older generation, say) without much critical examination.

If more individuals could form their own opinions based on first-hand experience, and with genuine charity and fellow feeling, then we might start to build a halfway decent society.

Just had to comment on the more biblical comments above...

the fact that you are for real makes it all the more funny, that you believe exactly what you've written, even that so many people have replied saying "bollocks" etc. probably excites you even more, and you love the fact that you're so narrow-minded and contrived.

Truthfully I do two things when I encounter people like yourselves:

1. Laugh at you, because it's quite hilarious that people like you exist in this world

2. Thank god (oh yes i said God) that I have had the intelligence, common sense, up-bringing whatever to not have any of your opinions.

To quote redt:

What bollocks!

Cash, such people believe what suits their prejudices. Note that when I asked when that piece of "Romans" came to be written, and by whom, there was a significant silence.

If for a moment you accept the fundamentalist argument that homosexuality is a sin then why not get so worked up about other sins that are deemed to be acceptable in modern society but which are condemned in the bible.

For instance usury doesn’t get a great press in the bible so why aren't the fanatics protesting outside finance houses in the city.

To say nothing of course for sectarian hatred which is far more prevalent in NI than homosexuality.

And while we're at quoting from the bible can we please wheel out Leviticus. That classic that commands us to stone disobedient women, not plant different crops in the same field etc.

Good on you, 6 County Prod and David. As is obvious from the above, nothing stings a heathen heart like the Word of God.

In an attempt to divert the attention of these so-called Christians my friends and I proposed singing the "Ave Maria" at them - just to see what they'd do..... Which would be worse? A fruit or a fenian? Being both, we were unconvinced that there were enough police to ensure our safety....

fundamentalist fanactics (sic); keep you (sic) narrow and literalist interpretation of the Bible to yourselves; fundamentalist "hate-mongers"; red herring, red herring, etc, etc, etc.

Some folks just have no time for the Bible. That’s their choice. But, here’s a thought:

If a ‘silent’ and ‘dignified’ expression of Christian disagreement to homosexual activity can inspire such hostility and resentment from the gay crowd , what is it going to sound like when "> Islam starts imposing Sharia law on them?

The Christian 'Funny Mentalists' are going to seem a pretty tame bunch. I, personally, do not have one iota of animosity towards gay people. I would just love them to know what God thinks of them.

The Watchman wrote: "As is obvious from the above, nothing stings a heathen heart like the Word of God."

The Word of God, eh? More blasphemy. Let's examine one of those "divine" sentences, shall we?

"They traded the glory of God who lives forever for the worship of idols made to look like earthly people, birds, animals, and snakes."

What this actually says is that God spends all His time worshipping idols, and is unaware that people, bird and snakes are ALL animals.

BTW I wonder what it was they traded the glory of God for, but "Paul" ain't saying....

6 County Prod . I am sure gay people couldn't give a hoot what God thinks of them if we're talking about a narrow minded intolerant God thatis implied in your postings.

Jesus was a bit of a radical and if he was on earth today I am sure he would have been on the parade if not leading it.

Which people did he always gravtitate towards???- Mary Magdalen etc... ie. all the ones that were victimised and marginalised by the bigots of the day... plus ca change....

"I would just love them to know what God thinks of them."

Seeing as you are on such personal terms with God and enjoy telling others His views, maybe you could be so kind as to let us know what He thinks of you 6countyprod?

click on the link, guys and gals!

To read such hate used in the name of God is truely blasphemous, ironic and hilarious. The bible could be quoted here all day for and against cases. I guess it depends on whether you are an old testament type of person ('eye for an eye') or a new testament person ('love your neighbour').I've read the bible, many times. I have not memorised entire passages as I believe the general 'gist' of it should do, which is to love one another as he loves us. At the end of the day, it's God who will decide these things and unless he's spoken directly to anyone here about his decision, then I think we just have to keep our end of the bargain and live as civil human beings of virtue and tolerence.

It was great to see the fundamentalist Christian lobby out on the streets protesting against the murders and attempted murders being perpetrated by loyalist paramilitaries lately.

Oops, sorry. I was thinking of a world that made sense.

In reality, of course, they pick on a peaceful and benign section of the community; not the violent thugs whom they haven't the balls to stand up to.

"Some folks just have no time for the Bible. That’s their choice."

MAYBE SOME FOLKS THINK IT'S RIDICULOUS TO BLINDLY FOLLOW A 3000-YEAR-OLD TEXT, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT CONDONES RAPE:
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.";
SLAVE BEATING:
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." Exodus 21:20-21 NAB;
CHILD ABUSE:
"Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock." Psalms 137:9 NAB;
AND GENOCIDE:
During this period, Joshua destroyed all the descendants of Anak, who lived in the hill country of Hebron, Debir, Anab, and the entire hill country of Judah and Israel. He killed them all and completely destroyed their towns. Not one was left in all the land of Israel, though some still remained in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod. So Joshua took control of the entire land, just as the LORD had instructed Moses. He gave it to the people of Israel as their special possession, dividing the land among the tribes. So the land finally had rest from war. (Joshua 11:21-23 NLT)
BUT HEY, THE BIBLE DOESN'T CONDONE BOY-ON-BOY ACTION SO THAT'S GOTTA BE STOPPED!

I'm in complete agreement with you Dr Snuggles. Christian fundamentalists decry gays as being depraved and disgusting however their gross hypocrisy is exposed when one looks to such sites as www.godhatesfags.com which revels in what it considers is currently happening to a young gay man, Matthew Sheppherd, who was brutally beaten and subsequently tied to a fence to die from his injuries and hypothermia. Sickening, disgusting, vile and perverted! Jesus said to love your neighbour as you love yourself - most of these so-called Christians are obviously on the path to self-destruction"

"Some folks just have no time for the Bible. That’s their choice."

MAYBE SOME FOLKS THINK IT'S RIDICULOUS TO BLINDLY FOLLOW A 3000-YEAR-OLD TEXT, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT CONDONES RAPE:
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deuteronomy 22:28-29;
SLAVE BEATING:
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." Exodus 21:20-21 NAB;
CHILD ABUSE:
"Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock." Psalms 137:9 NAB;
AND GENOCIDE:
During this period, Joshua destroyed all the descendants of Anak, who lived in the hill country of Hebron, Debir, Anab, and the entire hill country of Judah and Israel. He killed them all and completely destroyed their towns. Not one was left in all the land of Israel, though some still remained in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod. So Joshua took control of the entire land, just as the LORD had instructed Moses. He gave it to the people of Israel as their special possession, dividing the land among the tribes. So the land finally had rest from war. (Joshua 11:21-23 NLT)
BUT HEY, THE BIBLE DOESN'T CONDONE BOY-ON-BOY ACTION SO THAT'S GOTTA BE STOPPED!

I, personally, do not have one iota of animosity towards gay people. I would just love them to know what God thinks of them

First off you will have to establish a proof for the existence of this god creature you rabbit on about. If you ever surmount that hurdle then we can talk about how your views are up your arse.

The problem with people who believe in a deity is that they'll believe anything.

The fundamentalists definitely give Christians a bad name....

If the put the same energy that they use in hating gays, unmarrieds etc etc etc in to easing the plight of the poor, world peace etc etc it would be a much better use of their time.

Robert

"First off you will have to establish a proof for the existence of this god creature you rabbit on about."

Every time you write a date you are testifying that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is a reality. The year 2005? Where does that come from?

Jesus not only existed as an historical person, but as the eternal Son of God as the Bible (the God breathed Word) tells us. The Bible also says that anyone who says there is no God is a fool (Psalm 54 v 1) becuase the evidence is so clear that God exists and He has revealed Himself to us. how has God revealed Himself? Through Creation, through the Bible, and supremely through His Son Jesus Christ, whom to know is life eternal.

Yes, Robert, you silly boy. We know God exists because the Bible says He does! How do we know the Bible is real? Because God says it is! And how do we know this is 2005? Because the Bible tells us it is!

Er...

The real issue of this thread is not Gay Pride parades, the legitimacy of homosexuality, etc. It is the refusal of most people posting here to accept the authority of God's Word as revealed in the Scriptures. All the talk about the Israelites on the battlefield, the Mosaic Law or even Denny Boy's misinterpretation of Romans 1 9n his 2.40 post is a red herring. Even if these things weren't an issue, I suspect there would still be no submission to God by His critics here, because they want to be god of their own lives.

Watchman

The real issue is narrow-minded people presuming to know the mind of God.

And how have I misinterpreted that line from Romans? Do explain.

Denny Boy,

I don't presume to know the mind of God. But I can read His Word.

As for Romans 1, the passage is all about how sinful man substitutes worship of the creation for worship of the Creator, and the sobering consequences of this blatant sin.

It seems to me that you have taken one verse totally out of context without reference to its neighbours, which, funnily enough, is usually the accusation thrown at people like me.

we can't know the mind of God. A better perspective for the argument would be "to the know of will of god" as outlined in the bible -

Love God and love your neigbour and from these two commands all acts of a true christian come. Comment and measure all those who preach christ against those two things.

I especially like the comments of Paul Meekin (a Belfast hair salon manager quoted on the BBC website) "if you don't want to see what is going on on Royal Avenue, stay away for an hour - it's only for an hour every year." The Orange Order should get this gut to work for them on the Garvahy Road. When tolerance prevails, everybody wins.

No, Watchman, you don't get off that easily.

The line reads: "They traded the glory of God who lives forever..."

Instead of: "They traded the glory of God who lives for ever..."

As in "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever. Amen." You'll recognize Christ's words there, no? The word "forever" means "continuously" or "all the time".

The rest of the sentence – ..."for the worship of idols made to look like earthly people, birds, animals, and snakes" – is a solecism, because as I stated earlier, they are ALL animals.

If this were truly the word of God then it would not contain solecisms. This is part of a cobbled together piece of nonsense by somebody calling himself "Paul" and designed to suit the agenda of people or peoples of a certain era.

So if you're going to tell me that it's taken out of context or even lost in translation, then what parts of the NT d'you reckon are the real, unadulterated, perfect Words of God?

As somebody said earlier (and I paraphrase) "Forget the shite; all you need is love."

Jesus not only existed as an historical person,

Agreed.

but as the eternal Son of God as the Bible (the God breathed Word) tells us.

Claiming to be the son of god is not precisely the same as actually being, nor do other people repeating it increase its veracity.

Through Creation,

How? You have some evidence you can provide that would establish conclusively the involvement of god in the creation of this planet, sun, solar system, galaxy or universe? You should forward this information to Nature and Science as they would LOVE to publish it.

through the Bible,

The south americans, indians and asians all have written scriptures older than the bible. It's apparent that a diety is not required to create and maintain a set of religious texts.

and supremely through His Son Jesus Christ, whom to know is life eternal.

Circular at all?

Bring back Cardinal Usher, all is forgiven.

Denny Boy,

Thanks for the new word, - solecism.

This thread contains a lot of crude and offensive remarks aimed at those who do not agree with the gay agenda. There are so many insults flying around that I am not even going to try to respond to them, apart from saying that the statements underline, and even prove the basic premise of Romans 1.30, that folks who act this way are ‘haters of God’. That’s the bottom line. The Bible does not approve of homosexual activity, and the gay lobby just hate that.

I was disappointed in your inability to distinguish between a possible solecism in a modern English translation of Scripture, and the real McCoy, as it were, of Paul’s letter to the Romans, written in Greek between 56-58AD. It has always amazed me that over the period of thousands of years the basic underlying message of the Bible and the Gospel has remained the same. With all the modern conveniences that we have, including spell checkers, we still make many mistakes, but the essence of the Word of God remains constant. The whole focus of the Bible is that Christ is the way, the truth and the life, and that eternal life can only be obtained by trusting in Christ for salvation.

The original Scriptures were inspired by God, who worked within the ability of the various writers, around 40, to express His truth. For example, the works of Paul and Luke, who were well educated men, contain a larger vocabulary than, say, Peter, who was a fisherman. I don’t know enough of the Greek language to know if a solecism does actually exist in the original autographs, but, because of Paul’s background, I very much doubt it. Even if such minor variations do appear within a given text, invariably it is scribal error which is the main cause. I believe the Bible is the word of God, and can be trusted.

6countyprod, I wish you luck in distinguishing fact from fiction in the gallimaufrey that we call Scripture. In fact we know almost nothing about the writer or writers known as "Paul"; but we can be reasonably sure that he was not transcribing the words of Jesus. After the passage of, what, at least 40 years of hearsay and secondhand oral repetition, we'd be in a classical version of the "Send two-and-fourpence; we're going to a dance" situation: ergo very dodgy transcription.

If I can find two errors in one line of one translation – without too much expenditure of thought by the way – what idiocy must be contained in the rest of what laughingly passes for the word of God, ie the "Bible".

But from what we can adduce about Jesus, he would never damn a man because of his sexual orientation. Nor do I, and nor should you.

Robert Keogh

Do as I do: choose to believe. That way, when you die you'll find yourself in one of two situations.

1. You'll discover that there is a God after all, complete with heaven, an afterlife and all that goes with it. As a believer, you'll have gained brownie points with yo' Maker!

2. There'll be none of the above, in which case you'll no longer exist and be totally unaware of anything. A big black nada.

But if you choose not to believe, and the first scenario is the true one, boy are you in trouble with the Man! :0)

That should of course have been "three-and-fourpence"!

Denny Boy,

Pascal's Gamblers argument does not alter reality.

Of course you are completely neglecting the penalty one pays in this life for saddling oneself with the guilt, shame, bizarre and illogical limitations that religions foist upon its followers.

Seeing as how there is no evidence for your scenario 1 then you are willing to definitely pay a hefty penalty on the offchance god actually exists.

Besides which, a god that would demand a father sacrifice his son, would wipe out cities of people, flood the entire earth, order the Israelites to commit genocide in Canaan and would crucify his own son - can go fuck himself. If he does exist he is a contemptable excuse for an entity and deserves our pity, certainly not our worship.

Nonono, Robert, that's not my god at all.

Mine is kind and teaches me to be kind as well. Between us (and a billion other chaps, it has to be said) we do our best to make the world a little better for those who'll come here after me. It's a matter of not allowing the bad guys to win ALL the time.

And shit, I just googled Pascal's Gambler, to discover that my proposition wasn't original. Shame, I could have called it Denny's Gambler....

Denny Boy,

didn't mean to lump you in with the nuts.

Conversations like this always remind me of Ghandi - when asked what he thought of christianity he replied "I think it's a good idea."

I notice alot of people on this blog that profess to be christians but are gung-ho supporters of the invasion of Iraq and the extra-judicial murders of british security forces. Could never figure out how they reconcile their position with "Thou shalt not kill".

Christianity is a good idea - maybe one day christians will actually live it.

Here, yet again, is still further evidence of what is so wrong here and elsewhere. Let's judge Christians not by what they say they believe in, which is just so much obvious childish nonsense anyway, but how they actually behave.

Disgraceful.

Ghandi actually said

"I think it would be a very good idea." ;)

"Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock." Psalms 137:9 NAB

..could someone explain to me WHAT THE HELL thats about?

John 8:7

"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her". (KJV)

..at which point a woman threw a stone and Jesus said "Mum...puhleese!!!!!"

Re. Ghandi,

Wasn't that quote about western civilisation, rather than christianity?

Since starting to post on Slugger a couple of months ago, I have learned quite a lot about myself.

I thought I was just a regular, fair-minded, conservative sort of guy, who believed in a nation’s right to defend itself from terrorist threats, and who wanted to live his life by biblical standards.

Apparently, however, I am nothing more than a homophobic, narrow-minded bigot, who is an apologist for state murder. Now Mr Keogh implies I might even qualify as a nut!

I guess some people have so little tolerance for those with a different point of view that they feel compelled to resort to aggressive and insulting language in order to get their point across. I would suggest that when one uses degrading or condescending language, it only exposes an inherent weakness in one’s basic argument.

A favourite strategy employed by liberals is to try to undermine the integrity and ability of the conservative. The liberal presents himself as intellectually superior to the conservative, and maintains that the conservative needs to be enlightened. The basic premise in their philosophy is that conservatives are dopey, stuck in a rut, and need to be exposed for their ignorance. It’s a very obnoxious and arrogant approach, but it seems to work on some folks.

However, ‘If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn't their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why can't the argument itself be dismembered rather than the speaker's personal style or hidden motives?’

Despite concerted and sustained vicious attacks by liberals on conservative candidates, in the past 9 months, three major western democracies have reelected conservative incumbents to retain high office. It appears the ‘looney left’ needs to find a new strategy in order to convince the majority of ‘inferior mortals’ in the UK, US and Australia that liberals are indeed fit lead or be trusted. The ‘superior than thou’ approach just isn’t working.

6co:

As a rule, don't generalise. I have yet to see viciousness demonstrated by a liberal - sarcasm, irony and general scathing remarks, but rarely where these were not justified. I personally don't call people "nuts" but they hey, I'm just wishy wasky.

Alan:
Actually I think you're right. See? I even admit it when I'm wrong ;) Now..off to talk to to the office plant...

6 County,

Let me reason a while with you. After the November 2004 election here in the USA, my liberal friends and I were discussing the Republican victory with one of our life-long Republican pals. I will admit that we said things like, "How could the voters be so stupid?" and he replied, "If Republicans are so stupid, how come they won?"

Less than a year later, A Gallup survey last week found that a majority of Americans - 51 percent - now believe that Bush "deliberately misled the people when he asserted Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

Here's my explanation: People desparately wanted to believe Bush, and their belief trumped thier reason. You might have noticed how very hard it is to reason someone out of a fiercely held belief.

6countyprod, I'm genuinely sorry that you're upset by folk calling you a nut just because they don't share your point of view. But hey, in the final analysis, it's you who choose to be upset. And I'm not being patronizing.

Scripture? Yes, I believe that it was divinely inspired. Yet I also believe that much of what passes for Scripture is bowdlerized – sometimes deliberately so, sometimes as an unfortunate consequence of poor translation. (And no, I can't help Jo with that enigmatic line from Psalms. Makes no sense to me either.)

Wasn't it the late great Anthony Burgess who solved the mystery of the camel being unable to pass through the eye of a needle, a concept that always had me baffled. He proceeded to read the NT in the original Greek, only to find that some idiot had substituted "camel" for the word which meant a camel ROPE or tether. When seen in this light, Jesus' analogy makes perfect sense.

So what about all that gay-bashing in the Bible? I wouldn't pay it too much mind if I were you. Go where your heart leads you.

BTW I'm not sure Tony Blair would like your calling him a "conservative candidate". Correct me if I'm wrong, but few other British PMs have introduced so much new peacetime legislation as he has.

Denny Boy,

I'm just back from two days at the cottage. When I left, we were all chatting about cross-dressing Orangemen. When I got back, we had all gone to hell in a hand basket.

Guess I should have stuck around, at least until everyone had marched back from church.

6 County prod - liberalism is not a dirty word (even thought neo cons try to use it as term of abuse)..

Mabe your postings would be moe appreciated/suited to ATW whilst it's still on the airwaves before the religous/race hate bill gets passed.

Denny Boy,

The "eye of the needle" through which the camel cannot pass is the narrow entranceway to the camel stables thorugh which a human, but a camel may not pass.

6countyprod,

you believe something without a shred of proof. Irrational and anti-intellectual. You want to claim that this is sane and rational behviour?

Am I right in presuming your whole liberal/conservate/intellectual superiority argument was a distraction to avoid actually providing some proof for your beliefs?

Perhaps Belfast's growing Muslim community could get their first Mosque along the route of the parade and then we can sit and wait to see how long it takes the parade to be re-routed or banned for not taking into consideration the 'rights' of a fellow minority community...(as has, indeed, been the case throughout other major cities in the British Isles).

Naturally the anti-Christian looby on here won't bother condemning that as bigotry or intolerance, either where it has happened in the past in Britain or where it will happen in the future in Belfast. You should bugger off back to your skate-boards and "Ché" T-shirts, no gives a fiddlers about your trendy-'rebellious' lobby.

Robert Keogh:

'The "eye of the needle" through which the camel cannot pass is the narrow entranceway to the camel stables thorugh which a human, but a camel may not pass.'

I came across this one too, but still prefer Burgess's take on it. It's in his autobiography (Part one, I believe). He was asked to write the screenplay for Jesus of Nazareth and retired to a caravan in Malta, I think, with the Greek Bible for company.

A puzzle though: If the camels cannae pass through" the narrow entranceway" to the stables then HTF do they get out of said stables? :0)

Jimmy:
I haven't really seen this discussion as anti-christian, rather anti-dogma (particularly the dogma of established, conservative churches). Christianity for me is not about dogma (but then again thats just my interpretation).

I jumped on earlier to address 6 County's political assertions because 1)I don't think this discussion really is about religion, and 2) I don't care about religious discussions.

BTW, in case I forgot to state the obviuos, I don't think Northern Ireland is about religion either.

very interesting comments. By what right do these people judge anyone?. The bible is full of inconsistencies written sometime after the real Jesus was on earth.

I think Jesus would be appalled by scum like the protesters. Live and let live. Life is to short.

Matt,

i agree, although Jesus would also be appalled by the fact that gay men can even have a parade, and the unionists, couldn't even have a peaceful parade for the 12th of july.

By saying live and let live, we aren't then doing the best job anyway. There should be equality for gays, unionsts, and anyone else.

For all those who use the bible to condemn homosexuality, would you call yourselves christian? my understanding of christianity is that you are a follower of Jesus Christ. if you believe yourself to be christian and this is your understanding of what a christian is, could you perhaps tell me what he had to say on the subject of homosexuality? I can't seem to find the exact transcript...

True, Christ Himself did not refer directly to homosexuality. But He did regard God's Word as revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures as authoritative. Now we have God's Word in its entirety, why ignore what Scripture says elsewhere? Genesis teaches that God intended that sexual relationships be confined to marriage between heterosexuals in people's best interests.

The real question is whether people are prepared to sit under the authority of Scripture, with its teaching about sexual relationships and everything else. As I've said before, I think many contributors to this thread have an issue with this whole idea of submission, of which appropriate sexual conduct is only an aspect.

"True, Christ Himself did not refer directly to homosexuality."

Yes, I think he had better things to do with his time than worry about how men entertain themselves.

"But He did regard God's Word as revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures as authoritative. "

Didn't he update the OT teachings? Things like "eye for an eye" giving way to revolutionary stuff like "turn the other cheek"? the OT god was a nasty piece of work, filled with vengeance and hate; the NT god, as promoted by Jesus (who christians are supposed to follow), was full of love and compassion. Why is that never remembered when certain christian sects when they're on their high horses and sitting in judgement over everyone?

"I think many contributors to this thread have an issue with this whole idea of submission, of which appropriate sexual conduct is only an aspect."

And yet it's the aspect that most fundamentalist 'christians' seem to obsess on. Why is that?