Lady Gaga's most recent video has Katy Perry bitching about "blasphemy" - Polidicks

From the person that sang a song about lesbians...which as far as I can tell...from Christians point of view...are the devil in the flesh

[QUOTE=InsanePyro;22534996]From the person that sang a song about lesbians...which as far as I can tell...from Christians point of view...are the devil in the flesh[/QUOTE] Again, you're taking the views of radicals and assuming it's the views of the whole religion.

[QUOTE=Zinayzen;22535466]Again, you're taking the views of radicals and assuming it's the views of the whole religion.[/QUOTE] Well if lesbian erotica is anything to go by, most nuns wear latex habits and have huge orgies while deep throating crucifixes. It's only the radicals that don't. :colbert:

[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;22504384] The eight-minute-long video features Gaga in a latex nun’s habit with a cross over her groin, eating a string of rosary beads before she is stripped naked and ravaged by a group of men. [/QUOTE] Dude that sounds like a great porno.

[QUOTE=Zinayzen;22535466]Again, you're taking the views of radicals and assuming it's the views of the whole religion.[/QUOTE] so... the religion doesn't hate gays?

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niqrrmev4mA[/media] huh

I dodged a bullet. [img]http://idolator.com/assets/resources/2008/04/AP070601027280.jpg[/img] [editline]01:35PM[/editline] lady gaga has a better ass so I vote for her.

[QUOTE=Splurgy;22534863]Yeah, but if the person deepthroating the rosary beads is ugly, maybe not. She was not attractive in this video.[/QUOTE] Was to me, probably more so than in other videos.

[QUOTE=Warhol;22536911]so... the religion doesn't hate gays?[/QUOTE] Quite frankly, it depends on the denomination. For example, Catholics practice mass and more traditional methods of worship, whereas people like Baptists practice a more modern approach. The ideas behind it don't change, just the methods. That being said, (and being a Christian myself), I don't see a problem with gay people. There's nowhere in the Bible where it says people can't be gay (except those couple of verses in Leviticus, but the people that choose to only believe those verses have a serious deficit in biblical history or knowledge, but that's another story). That's not to say, though, that individuals can't vary from the denomination. Obviously they can. I'm baptist (or was), and I live five minutes away from Saddleback Church. Their stance on it, from what I've gathered, is that they don't particularly like it. I've talked to Rick Warren personally about it, though, and his opinion was that he doesn't have a problem with gay people, but if he'd voted for Prop 8 eventually someone would get married there (lot of weddings at saddleback), and gay marriage goes against the principles of the church. (Baptists, while taking a modern approach to worship, do still cling to a few odd beliefs.) Personally, I really don't care. I have a girlfriend that I love, and now that I know what love really feels like it seems like a crime against humanity to refuse to let others feel that, or to persecute them for it. And it's not like they're being gay towards me or anything. I mean if gay people just started running up and trying to like fuck me when i'm going about my day like some sort of pestilence, then there's a problem. Until that happens, I really don't care. Then again, I do have a LOT of different views about religion than a lot of people (especially my parents, which gets awkward). I'm not saying I don't believe in the principles, which I do, but the other parts of it, in my opinion, aren't as concrete as I've always been told.

My mum used to say this about religion: Take everything with a grain of salt.

[QUOTE=Zinayzen;22540727] There's nowhere in the Bible where it says people can't be gay (except those couple of verses in Leviticus, but the people that choose to only believe those verses have a serious deficit in biblical history or knowledge, but that's another story).[/QUOTE] you just contradicted yourself. Leviticus says to kill gay people what are you fucking arguing?

The bible contradicts itself.

[QUOTE=flippy645;22516627]none of them are catchy its all just auto tune crap[/QUOTE] What auto tune? She can actually sing, as evidenced earlier in her younger years before she became famous.

[QUOTE=Zinayzen;22540727]Quite frankly, it depends on the denomination. For example, Catholics practice mass and more traditional methods of worship, whereas people like Baptists practice a more modern approach. The ideas behind it don't change, just the methods. That being said, (and being a Christian myself), I don't see a problem with gay people. There's nowhere in the Bible where it says people can't be gay (except those couple of verses in Leviticus, but the people that choose to only believe those verses have a serious deficit in biblical history or knowledge, but that's another story). That's not to say, though, that individuals can't vary from the denomination. Obviously they can. I'm baptist (or was), and I live five minutes away from Saddleback Church. Their stance on it, from what I've gathered, is that they don't particularly like it. I've talked to Rick Warren personally about it, though, and his opinion was that he doesn't have a problem with gay people, but if he'd voted for Prop 8 eventually someone would get married there (lot of weddings at saddleback), and gay marriage goes against the principles of the church. (Baptists, while taking a modern approach to worship, do still cling to a few odd beliefs.) Personally, I really don't care. I have a girlfriend that I love, and now that I know what love really feels like it seems like a crime against humanity to refuse to let others feel that, or to persecute them for it. And it's not like they're being gay towards me or anything. I mean if gay people just started running up and trying to like fuck me when i'm going about my day like some sort of pestilence, then there's a problem. Until that happens, I really don't care. Then again, I do have a LOT of different views about religion than a lot of people (especially my parents, which gets awkward). I'm not saying I don't believe in the principles, which I do, but the other parts of it, in my opinion, aren't as concrete as I've always been told.[/QUOTE] So Im curious. Why do you willfully follow a book you know is contradicting itself, wrong, and all around, immoral?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;22542859]So Im curious. Why do you willfully follow a book you know is contradicting itself, wrong, and all around, immoral?[/QUOTE] Not contradicting itself. How's it wrong? And how the hell is it immoral? [QUOTE=Warhol;22541452]you just contradicted yourself. Leviticus says to kill gay people[/QUOTE] No, it doesn't. Common misconception and one that's unfortunately been perpetuated because of those damn radicals. Thanks, WBC. The Leviticus verse that people always refer to says something like a many can't lie with another man as he would a woman, for it is detestable. There might be something about stoning, but whatever. Point is, a hell of a lot of the old testament's rules aren't rules we're supposed to follow, but really it's just there to give context to the times. In the old Hebrew culture, everything was a rule like that. You steal, you lose your hand, you commit adultery, you get stoned, you have gay sex, you die. Whatever. But that's obviously not how it is now, and it was never meant to be taken that way.

I dont like this. Lady Gaga is a retard anyways, even more now. thats just disgusting. also, isnt Katy Perry bi? but shes Christian? I have NEVER met a bi Christian person.

[QUOTE=Splurgy;22534863]Yeah, but if the person deepthroating the rosary beads is ugly, maybe not. She was not attractive in this video.[/QUOTE] She looked good in the nun costume... the red lipstick was pretty hot too.

[QUOTE=Beau_Chaotica;22505549]Celebrities bitching at each other makes big news nowadays...[/QUOTE] Which is absolutely depressing.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;22544680]She looked good in the nun costume... the red lipstick was pretty hot too.[/QUOTE] Only thing I directly don't like must be her eyes, or eyelids. With the wrong makeup she looks horrid.

[QUOTE=Zinayzen;22543329]Not contradicting itself. How's it wrong? And how the hell is it immoral? No, it doesn't. Common misconception and one that's unfortunately been perpetuated because of those damn radicals. Thanks, WBC. The Leviticus verse that people always refer to says something like a many can't lie with another man as he would a woman, for it is detestable. There might be something about stoning, but whatever. Point is, a hell of a lot of the old testament's rules aren't rules we're supposed to follow, but really it's just there to give context to the times. In the old Hebrew culture, everything was a rule like that. You steal, you lose your hand, you commit adultery, you get stoned, you have gay sex, you die. Whatever. But that's obviously not how it is now, and it was never meant to be taken that way.[/QUOTE] uh Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version) 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. in every english bible, the Russian and Hebrew bible, the only ones I can read, say the EXACT same thing. what the fuck do you think "put to death" means? death, put, to. death = DIE not hard, there Zinayzen you don't need WBC to point out that it says that. Mind you, this is not only there, it says countless times in the old and new testament. [editline]03:47AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr_Sun;22544064]I dont like this. Lady Gaga is a retard anyways, even more now. thats just disgusting.[/QUOTE] art, whooosh congratulations, you're shallow and a prude.

[QUOTE=Warhol;22546760]uh Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version) 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. in every english bible, the Russian and Hebrew bible, the only ones I can read, say the EXACT same thing. what the fuck do you think "put to death" means? death, put, to. death = DIE not hard, there Zinayzen you don't need WBC to point out that it says that. Mind you, this is not only there, it says countless times in the old and new testament.[/quote] Again, I'm trying to explain it to you. A lot of stuff like that was put into it not as guidelines to follow but to provide cultural context of the time. Obviously that stuff won't pass over to modern times, it's simply there to help us understand the implications and context of what's being said.

Isiah disagrees with you

[QUOTE=MuTAnT;22545832]Which is absolutely depressing.[/QUOTE] Very true. [QUOTE=thisispain;22539120]-the video- huh[/QUOTE] Thanks for that.

[QUOTE=Zinayzen;22543329]Not contradicting itself. How's it wrong? And how the hell is it immoral? No, it doesn't. Common misconception and one that's unfortunately been perpetuated because of those damn radicals. Thanks, WBC. The Leviticus verse that people always refer to says something like a many can't lie with another man as he would a woman, for it is detestable. There might be something about stoning, but whatever. Point is, a hell of a lot of the old testament's rules aren't rules we're supposed to follow, but really it's just there to give context to the times. In the old Hebrew culture, everything was a rule like that. You steal, you lose your hand, you commit adultery, you get stoned, you have gay sex, you die. Whatever. But that's obviously not how it is now, and it was never meant to be taken that way.[/QUOTE] It contradicts itself in the numerous messages it sends then contradicts. It literally contradicts itself. Do you think the book doesn't contradict itself? There are entire websites dedicated to finding contradictions in the book across the book, and you would be surprised how many contradictions there are, from beginning to end. How is it wrong? It states several thousand things that are totally wrong in light of science since then. It says these things are true, and this is gods knowledge. God cant be wrong, and if you are a literalist, you take the bibles knowledge as fact and reject science, which is factual more often than not. How is it immoral? Can you [b]really[/b] explain away stoning disobedient kids, killing gays, killing women who sleep while married with other men, women who sleep with men outside of marriage, sodomy being a crime, etc, can you [b]REALLY[/b] explain that away? Yes, that is the remnants of the time, however, the book still says to follow it to the letter, despite the time. If it is a book from god, doesnt it stand to reason you would figure out the big problem here?

[QUOTE=Beau_Chaotica;22558224]Very true. Thanks for that.[/QUOTE] I like how you have the same avatar as Jenkem, but it's upright and you're not retarded.

Holy shit. A thread with only a hint of religiosity becomes all out religious.

[QUOTE=Sprocket Shit;22562778]Holy shit. A thread with only a hint of religiosity becomes all out religious.[/QUOTE] I know, right? Don't you just hate it? [QUOTE=Warhol;22562031]I like how you have the same avatar as Jenkem, but it's upright and you're not retarded.[/QUOTE] Aww schucks, I'm blushing! [QUOTE=Zinayzen;22550074]Again, I'm trying to explain it to you. A lot of stuff like that was put into it not as guidelines to follow but to provide cultural context of the time. Obviously that stuff won't pass over to modern times, it's simply there to help us understand the implications and context of what's being said.[/QUOTE] Wait so...one part (above) puts forward some ideas which are actually quite [I]forceful[/I], and the type that ought to be obeyed on fear of...well, death. That section though, according to you is "ehhhhhhh welllll y'see it kinda, sorta, doesn't really count because it's like not really sort of yeah you know". However all the sections about the, YAKNOW crazy leaps of faith and logic, are actually sound and not at all to be taken as 'in context for a time when the idea of God explained a lot of stuff we didn't yet understand, but which we now do?' What if, and I'm just...just bear with me here, ok. What if...God...was just a metaphor? [I]WHAT IF[/I] God is now obsolete, and the whole thing was never intended to be factual anyway, but was just meant to teach people how to live a good life? The fact that some parts are a little wibbly-wobbly on that concept doesn't matter in the whole scheme of organised religion anyway, now does it? tl;dr One rule for one, something else for another.