Welcome to The Copious Christian. co·pi·ous [koh-pee-uhs] adjective 1.large in quantity or number; abundant; plentiful: copious amounts of food. 2.having or yielding an abundant supply: a copious larder; a copious harvest. 3. exhibiting abundance or fullness, as of thoughts or words. This is a blog dedicated to defending and discussing the word of God against Nominal Christians, Atheists, and Political Correctness with Biblical support and general logic.
Showing posts with label TYT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TYT. Show all posts
Monday, May 20, 2013
All's Fair In Food & Same Sex Marriage
This is an article that should have been written a LOOOOOOOOOOONG time ago, but sadly I've never gotten around to it until today. The reason being, there are already SEVERAL people more capable to handle this...rambling (I refuse to call it an argument) more aptly than I can. Furthermore seeing as how this really isn't an argument it's hardly worth discussing. The unfortunate reality is that there are people (short-sighted, shallow thinking people) who think that not only is this an argument but it's a compelling argument.
So now we come to our old pals Mr. John Fugelsang & The Young Turks, Mr. Fugelsang had a discussion with Bill Donohue of The Catholic League (not the best guy to talk to unfortunately) and The Young Turks commented. I'm of the mind set now where I'd like to challenge Mr. Fugelsang to a debate on scripture since by his own words he claims to be an "admirer of Jesus", any TRUE admirer of Jesus wouldn't have such a foolish perspective on scripture...I mean I expect this from The Young Turks but from you Mr. Fugelsang...from you a self-proclaim "admirer of Jesus" (slight divorce joke at Jesus' expense, blasphemy much?)...I hope you understand you're going to face judgment for that. OF COURSE YOU DON'T...let's get started.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Homosexuality ?
So it's time we talked about Homosexuality. Despite how I begin this article I'll still be called a Homophobe, people will still say I'm promoting Hate Speech, and at this time it doesn't really matter. I'm going to address this topic as best as I can and as logically as I can. Before I begin I'd like to say that I do NOT hate gay people, I know gay people and they're cool people. They are sinners in the same way that I am a sinner, so I'm not going to sit here and pretend that Homosexuality is the WORST THING TO EVER HAPPEN! The only reason Christians are so concerned with Homosexuality is because;
1) It is against what we believe.
2) It is against what we believe and we are being told we are not allowed to say it's against what we believe and act accordingly to that belief.
When someone like Kirk Cameron says;
“I think it’s unnatural, that it’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”
and someone who isn't gay (Roseanne Barr) responds with;
“Kirk or kurt or whatever Cameron is an accomplice to murder with his hate speech. So is rick warren. Their peers r killing gays in Uganda.”
I doubt this article is going to be received with much critical thought, and will only suffer emotional responses from Gay sympathizers rather than homosexuals themselves, and they will disregard the content and only reply with calling me a homophobe and ect. ect. So with that out of the way let's begin.
First I'd like to address the MYTH that Homosexuality is NOT a choice. It most certainly is a choice and it is VERY easy to prove. I'm a guy and like most guys I have some knowledge on Porn. In the Porn Industry there is such a thing called "Gay For Pay". This is when Straight Male Pornstars do sex scenes with other male pornstars. Hence the term "Gay For Pay", they are Straight but for the right price they'll be Gay. This is interesting because this proves that Homosexuality is NOT something innate and immutable. How does it do that? Simple. This proves that people have the CHOICE to be Gay. If one can CHOOSE to be Gay, then Homosexuality is NOT innate or immutable. Ugo, that doesn't prove anything, those pornstars aren't Gay, you just said they were Straight. They're just doing that for money. That's true, but there is no such thing as "Black/White for Pay". If people can change their orientation for money, the case that homosexuality isn't a choice doesn't look very good. So how do you judge who is Gay? You can't see Gay people based on their clothes, voice, skin color, manner of dress, you can only judge a Gay person on their actions. I know this because I've accused of being Gay SOLELY based on my voice.
If you see a guy sitting by himself you wouldn't be able to say "They're gay.". You'd only be able to figure them out based on what they do. If this guy gets up and makes out with another guy, you'd immediately know he was Gay. After all, what is Gay ? Homosexuality is simply defined (via Wikipedia as)
Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender.
Sexual attraction or behavior...hrm..how does one judge this? BY ACTIONS! Actions are NOT innate or immutable. I can have sex with men, I don't what to, but I possess the ability to do so. If Homosexuality was truly innate and immutable, I would not have the ability to do so. As an example, I am African American, this is innate and immutable, I did not choose to be African American and I am unable to NOT be African American. I cannot wake up one morning and decide to be Japanese or Native American. Despite everything I will always be African American NOTHING can change this. Race is innate and immutable, Homosexuality is NOT.
Furthermore, there are EX-GAYS, people who used to be Homosexuals and are not anymore. What about them? Are they somehow not counted in this discussion of Homosexuality? They could argue that they weren't really Gay in the first place but how would they know? And I am NOT talking about the poor kids in those "conversion" camps who suffer at the hands of people who think they're doing God's work and claim that they're no longer Gay when deep down the truly are. I'm talking about actual Gay people who made a CHOICE and CHOOSE to be Gay no longer. Such people exist, do a Google search. What happens to that argument when these people are added to the equation?
I'll tell you what there aren't any of, Ex-Black people. You can make ALL the Michael Jackson jokes you want, Michael Jackson is Black. Furthermore there is NO such thing as a Closeted Black Person. You can spot a Black person IMMEDIATELY, but you can't spot a Gay Person at all UNLESS they did something to call attention to that fact. For proof, look below and tell me which one is Black.
That was easy, now scroll back up and tell me which one of them is Gay. The best you can do is guess, but you WON'T know for sure (unless you've seen these men before). But for the sake of proving my point I'll tell you which one is Gay, it's the Gay one. Which one is that? Ah ha! This little exercise was also made to prove that Homosexuality is NOT a Civil Rights issue. There is a BIG difference between being treated like a Human Being and being given privileges for a certain kind of behavior (Wikipedia's word, not mine, take it up with them). I don't recall there being any Straight Only Water Fountains, I don't recall Homosexuals having to sit in the back of the bus because Straight people didn't want them sitting in the front of it. I know Homosexuals suffer murders for their homosexuality, but those murders are only committed when one of the homosexuals are caught engaging in homosexual activity or suspected of doing so (not an excuse, just a fact), for African American, we can be killed for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Being Gay is something that CAN and HAS been hidden, being Black is something I cannot, nor can any other Black person hide (unless they're passing). Furthermore Homosexuality is NOT a Civil Rights issues because Homosexuality is a condition that CAN change (once again, there are Ex-Gay) so why are we re-defining marriage based on something that is changeable? And as far as Interracial Marriage is concerned, comparing Homosexuality to that is an even bigger issue, because there is NO way prove that Interracial Marriage is a bad thing. Sure there were people who spoke out against it, but their arguments are senseless and foolish.
Marriage is the union between a Man and a Woman. I don't recall ANYONE with authority putting any stipulation on that. Furthermore where did the concept of marriage come from in the first place? I believe it came from God, BUT if you're not a believer in God then isn't marriage just some old out-dated custom? Furthermore if there is no final authority on marriage then Interracial marriage CAN be made illegal. But I doubt you want that, and neither do I considering my girlfriend (future wife) is not Black.
Sex is the action that proliferates the species. In order to do that you need a man and a woman. You cannot continue the species with a man and a man and you cannot proliferate the species with a woman and a woman. You can proliferate the species with an Asian Woman & White Man, or with a Black Woman & Mexican Man, and whatever combination you can think of as long as it's a man and a woman. This is Science, notice I am NOT appealing to The Bible to support my view on Homosexuality. Homosexuality is counter evolutionary and if anything Atheists and Agnostics and anyone who claims Empirical evidence to be their final authority should be more against Homosexuality than we are. This is because no one can make a solid case for Homosexuality WITHOUT appealing to emotions. Take Emotions out of the equation and Homosexuality is nothing. Take emotions out of Heterosexuality and you still have species. This is Science.
Furthermore, are we really going to say that Mom and Dad are NOT different? I grew up without a father so I have no frame of reference. But for my readers of do have both parents, do you really NOT see a difference between your Mother and your Father? Because homosexuals will tell you that you don't need a mother/father. There is a reason WHY sex between a man and a woman produces a child, because that child was meant to learn something from both genders. I've said this before:
A Father for a boy teaches him how to be a man and how to treat a woman. A Boy learns this through watching how the father interacts with the mother. A Father for a girl teaches her how a man is supposed to treat a woman. A Girl learns this by watching her mother interact with the father.
A Mother for a boy teaches him what a good woman is. A boy learns this by watching how his mother interacts with his father. A Mother for a girl teachers her how a woman is supposed to treat a man. A girl learns this by watching her mother interacts with the father.
If the parents do their jobs, the boy will have a solid idea on what interactions between a man and woman are supposed to be, same for the girl. But what can a man and another man teach a girl? What can a woman and woman teach a boy? This is NOT some Biblical argument being made, this is factual established psychology. Some of the most functional children in society have 2 parents at home, a mother and a father. Unfortunately LESS and LESS children have this and deviate more and more.
At the moment I'm done writing, but I have a feeling I'll be writing more on this. One last point, if Homosexuals can't get visitation rights, I suggest they lobby to change that (if they haven't already). That'll do it for me, for now...
PLEASE CHECK OUT:
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/05/22/why_gay_is_not_the_new_black
1) It is against what we believe.
2) It is against what we believe and we are being told we are not allowed to say it's against what we believe and act accordingly to that belief.
When someone like Kirk Cameron says;
“I think it’s unnatural, that it’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”
and someone who isn't gay (Roseanne Barr) responds with;
“Kirk or kurt or whatever Cameron is an accomplice to murder with his hate speech. So is rick warren. Their peers r killing gays in Uganda.”
I doubt this article is going to be received with much critical thought, and will only suffer emotional responses from Gay sympathizers rather than homosexuals themselves, and they will disregard the content and only reply with calling me a homophobe and ect. ect. So with that out of the way let's begin.
First I'd like to address the MYTH that Homosexuality is NOT a choice. It most certainly is a choice and it is VERY easy to prove. I'm a guy and like most guys I have some knowledge on Porn. In the Porn Industry there is such a thing called "Gay For Pay". This is when Straight Male Pornstars do sex scenes with other male pornstars. Hence the term "Gay For Pay", they are Straight but for the right price they'll be Gay. This is interesting because this proves that Homosexuality is NOT something innate and immutable. How does it do that? Simple. This proves that people have the CHOICE to be Gay. If one can CHOOSE to be Gay, then Homosexuality is NOT innate or immutable. Ugo, that doesn't prove anything, those pornstars aren't Gay, you just said they were Straight. They're just doing that for money. That's true, but there is no such thing as "Black/White for Pay". If people can change their orientation for money, the case that homosexuality isn't a choice doesn't look very good. So how do you judge who is Gay? You can't see Gay people based on their clothes, voice, skin color, manner of dress, you can only judge a Gay person on their actions. I know this because I've accused of being Gay SOLELY based on my voice.
If you see a guy sitting by himself you wouldn't be able to say "They're gay.". You'd only be able to figure them out based on what they do. If this guy gets up and makes out with another guy, you'd immediately know he was Gay. After all, what is Gay ? Homosexuality is simply defined (via Wikipedia as)
Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender.
Sexual attraction or behavior...hrm..how does one judge this? BY ACTIONS! Actions are NOT innate or immutable. I can have sex with men, I don't what to, but I possess the ability to do so. If Homosexuality was truly innate and immutable, I would not have the ability to do so. As an example, I am African American, this is innate and immutable, I did not choose to be African American and I am unable to NOT be African American. I cannot wake up one morning and decide to be Japanese or Native American. Despite everything I will always be African American NOTHING can change this. Race is innate and immutable, Homosexuality is NOT.
Furthermore, there are EX-GAYS, people who used to be Homosexuals and are not anymore. What about them? Are they somehow not counted in this discussion of Homosexuality? They could argue that they weren't really Gay in the first place but how would they know? And I am NOT talking about the poor kids in those "conversion" camps who suffer at the hands of people who think they're doing God's work and claim that they're no longer Gay when deep down the truly are. I'm talking about actual Gay people who made a CHOICE and CHOOSE to be Gay no longer. Such people exist, do a Google search. What happens to that argument when these people are added to the equation?
I'll tell you what there aren't any of, Ex-Black people. You can make ALL the Michael Jackson jokes you want, Michael Jackson is Black. Furthermore there is NO such thing as a Closeted Black Person. You can spot a Black person IMMEDIATELY, but you can't spot a Gay Person at all UNLESS they did something to call attention to that fact. For proof, look below and tell me which one is Black.
That was easy, now scroll back up and tell me which one of them is Gay. The best you can do is guess, but you WON'T know for sure (unless you've seen these men before). But for the sake of proving my point I'll tell you which one is Gay, it's the Gay one. Which one is that? Ah ha! This little exercise was also made to prove that Homosexuality is NOT a Civil Rights issue. There is a BIG difference between being treated like a Human Being and being given privileges for a certain kind of behavior (Wikipedia's word, not mine, take it up with them). I don't recall there being any Straight Only Water Fountains, I don't recall Homosexuals having to sit in the back of the bus because Straight people didn't want them sitting in the front of it. I know Homosexuals suffer murders for their homosexuality, but those murders are only committed when one of the homosexuals are caught engaging in homosexual activity or suspected of doing so (not an excuse, just a fact), for African American, we can be killed for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Being Gay is something that CAN and HAS been hidden, being Black is something I cannot, nor can any other Black person hide (unless they're passing). Furthermore Homosexuality is NOT a Civil Rights issues because Homosexuality is a condition that CAN change (once again, there are Ex-Gay) so why are we re-defining marriage based on something that is changeable? And as far as Interracial Marriage is concerned, comparing Homosexuality to that is an even bigger issue, because there is NO way prove that Interracial Marriage is a bad thing. Sure there were people who spoke out against it, but their arguments are senseless and foolish.
Marriage is the union between a Man and a Woman. I don't recall ANYONE with authority putting any stipulation on that. Furthermore where did the concept of marriage come from in the first place? I believe it came from God, BUT if you're not a believer in God then isn't marriage just some old out-dated custom? Furthermore if there is no final authority on marriage then Interracial marriage CAN be made illegal. But I doubt you want that, and neither do I considering my girlfriend (future wife) is not Black.
Sex is the action that proliferates the species. In order to do that you need a man and a woman. You cannot continue the species with a man and a man and you cannot proliferate the species with a woman and a woman. You can proliferate the species with an Asian Woman & White Man, or with a Black Woman & Mexican Man, and whatever combination you can think of as long as it's a man and a woman. This is Science, notice I am NOT appealing to The Bible to support my view on Homosexuality. Homosexuality is counter evolutionary and if anything Atheists and Agnostics and anyone who claims Empirical evidence to be their final authority should be more against Homosexuality than we are. This is because no one can make a solid case for Homosexuality WITHOUT appealing to emotions. Take Emotions out of the equation and Homosexuality is nothing. Take emotions out of Heterosexuality and you still have species. This is Science.
Furthermore, are we really going to say that Mom and Dad are NOT different? I grew up without a father so I have no frame of reference. But for my readers of do have both parents, do you really NOT see a difference between your Mother and your Father? Because homosexuals will tell you that you don't need a mother/father. There is a reason WHY sex between a man and a woman produces a child, because that child was meant to learn something from both genders. I've said this before:
A Father for a boy teaches him how to be a man and how to treat a woman. A Boy learns this through watching how the father interacts with the mother. A Father for a girl teaches her how a man is supposed to treat a woman. A Girl learns this by watching her mother interact with the father.
A Mother for a boy teaches him what a good woman is. A boy learns this by watching how his mother interacts with his father. A Mother for a girl teachers her how a woman is supposed to treat a man. A girl learns this by watching her mother interacts with the father.
If the parents do their jobs, the boy will have a solid idea on what interactions between a man and woman are supposed to be, same for the girl. But what can a man and another man teach a girl? What can a woman and woman teach a boy? This is NOT some Biblical argument being made, this is factual established psychology. Some of the most functional children in society have 2 parents at home, a mother and a father. Unfortunately LESS and LESS children have this and deviate more and more.
At the moment I'm done writing, but I have a feeling I'll be writing more on this. One last point, if Homosexuals can't get visitation rights, I suggest they lobby to change that (if they haven't already). That'll do it for me, for now...
PLEASE CHECK OUT:
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/05/22/why_gay_is_not_the_new_black
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Conversions are NOT our business !!
I CANNOT stand this kind of garbage! Somewhere down the line "Christians" decide to take spiritual matters into their own hands and they end up committing horrible acts and THIS is one of those cases. Now, I think I've made it clear here that I am 100% opposed to Homosexuality. Do I think it's wrong and NEEDS to be cured, of course I do, but DON'T think it's our job to cure it. FORCING someone to convert to ANYTHING is NOT an honest conversion. I'd rather have someone be an Atheist of their own freewill than a Christian at the barrel of a gun. Jesus did NOT order us to convert by Any Means Necessary; Jesus taught us to go and make disciples of all the nations (Matt 28:19), Jesus did NOT tell us to FORCE conversions (if I remember correctly, that was Muhamad, Sahih Muslim 1:33).
In this case we have Christians attempting to TORTURE the gay out of gay people. IMPOSSIBLE! The thing about torture is once it begins, the victim will do whatever necessary for it to stop! So a Gay persons can undergo these so-called "conversions" and say they're no longer gay BUT they'll always be gay at heart. Notice what I said there, GAY AT HEART! AND THAT'S THE REAL ISSUE! These "conversions" do NOTHING but torment and make attempts to control physical acts, and while that maybe effective in the short term in the long term it's ineffectual. We as Christians need to be concerned with the HEART. For our homosexual friends and family we need to be in constant prayer that GOD converts them and changes their heart.
And furthermore I'd just like to say that I am APPALLED that this kinda crap is going on in God's name. Atrocities committed in God's name WILL be met with it's just punishment and anyone who supports "conversion" camps are un-biblical and un-Christian. Thank you and God bless.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
UGH! SERIOUSLY TYT ?! SERIOUSLY ?!
"22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,"-Eph 5:22-25
Do I REALLY have to jump down the throat of The Young Turks Today ? I believe I do. WHY because sometimes it just gives me a MAJOR headache when Non-Believers make attempts to put words in the mouth of The Bible from Christians and reapply them to mean something COMPLETELY different. Before I go on, I'd like to say that I don't care about Michelle Bachman at all. I'm a Christian (obviously) and Moderately Conservative and I wouldn't vote for her with a gun to my head. Just so we're clear.
Ana's interuptation of "Submissive" IS NOT what The Bible is saying. God does NOT want Women to be brainless servants with NO personality, NO say in anything, ect. ect. If Ana and Michael had ACTUALLY do research on the context of the text they'd see what I posted above.
"Husbands love your wives, AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH, HE GAVE HIMSELF UP FOR HER!"
Eph 5:25
Does that sound like a "GO MAKE ME A SANDWICH!" type situation ? The submission expressed in the text implies a mutual submission. As made further in Eph 5:28;
"28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself"
That just said. LOVE YOUR WIFE AS YOUR OWN BODY! Does that sound like a BAD submissive relationship? No, rather The Bible is telling Wives to submit to their Husband's authority. Not in a "ANYTHING HE SAYS GOES SENSE!" but as sign of respect. That is the man you chose to be Your Husband therefore you should listen to him. IF The Husband does love you as he loves his own body, he's going to want your input and your suggestions on things. THIS IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO TELL WOMEN THAT THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITHOUT THEIR HUSBAND'S PERMISSION! If my girlfriend (hopefully wife, eventually) asked me for permission to do something I'd be confused and ask her "Why are you asking me ?" Granted, she'd never ask me because she knows that I respect her decisions and choices and vice versa.
From Ana's question I'm assuming that NOT ONCE did she even bother to read the rest of the verse Bachman quoted but instead used Bachman as a reference thinking that That's probably what the text is mandating. Michael however AT LEAST says that there are varying degrees of submission BUT STILL WHY CAN'T THEY ADDRESS THE REST OF THE TEXT?! The UNFORTUNATE thing is that by the end of this video they once again BLAME RELIGION and NOT their lack of Biblical Context, Reading Comprehension and Research Ability. And to make matter worse...people feed into this crap. *sigh* And people say that Christians are the dominate force in America ? Yeah...right.
THANK GOD, at least ONE BEACON OF HOPE HERE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)