• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Desmond Tutu Would Prefer Hell Over A Homophobic Heaven

If you have any reliable proof that anything that I have posted is not correct, let's see it.

By the way, the Bible is not a reliable source, it's a work of fiction composed by fallible men with an ax to grind.

so your saying I have to find the text for you and show it talks about David and Solomon?

why do I feel I would be wasting my time on your in doing that?

could it be, you have already set your mind to what you wish to believe.....
 
I'm not a religious person - haven't been for a long time - part of the reason is demonstrated by the utterly disgraceful and vile comments of some posters here and distortions of church teachings by both religious elders and those who follow them.

It's times like this that I pray (yes, I still pray) there is neither a heaven or a hell if either or both are to be populated by such. I'd much rather simply stop living and rot.
 
There are no facts in the Bible. It is a work of fiction composed by men in which they express their intolerance,their misogyny, their homophobia,their violent thoughts.

If you like reading books that are full of fear, hatred, and man's inhumanity to other men, it's a fine book for you.

So in other words your reply has nothing to do really with the response I made and is more of an anti-Christian rant? I mean the whole basis of this thread is that Desmond TuTu is a Christian and follows Christian tenants in the Bible. Has nothing to do with God's existence or the validity of the Bible. So either you are a Christian and follow them or not.

Now if you can offer a real on topic argument rather than a bigoted rant?

"Man has created God in his own image: Intolerant, sexist, homophobic, and violent." ~ Marie

"All the meanness, all the revenge,All the selfishness,all the cruelty,all the infamy of which the human heart is capable, grew, blossomed, and bore fruit in this one word --Hell."~ Robert Green Ingersoll.

Well heck I can quote stuff...

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." ~ C. S. Lewis

“I am a Christian…so that I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’ — though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory.” ~ J.R.R. Tolkien
 
I'm not a religious person - haven't been for a long time - part of the reason is demonstrated by the utterly disgraceful and vile comments of some posters here and distortions of church teachings by both religious elders and those who follow them.

It's times like this that I pray (yes, I still pray) there is neither a heaven or a hell if either or both are to be populated by such. I'd much rather simply stop living and rot.

Well why don't you point them out so we can address them? Or are you going to instead hide behind yet another off topic anti-Christian rant? Because so far I have seen nothing posted here that comes even close to "utterly disgraceful and vile comments."
 
Last edited:
so your saying I have to find the text for you and show it talks about David and Solomon?

why do I feel I would be wasting my time on your in doing that?

could it be, you have already set your mind to what you wish to believe...
..




And not believe.




"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."~ anon
 
I hope he enjoys his eternal suffering that is so painful we can't imagine it on earth. Hell is no joke.

God judges sin, homosexuality isn't the only sin out there. People that wrongfully divorce, commit adultery, lust, and a myriad of other forms of sexual sin will also be judged for it. Truth of the matter is that we've all sinned and unless we repent we will have to be judged for it which means to be sent to hell for eternity. Desmond Tutu is ignorant and has no idea the level of suffering that awaits unless they repent.
Wow, this is a real "Christian" attitude. Hoping people go to hell. This is some Scribes and Pharisees **** right here.
 
If god is a bigot, creates people gay, and then punishes them for being the way he made them, then god is an evil sadist and the universe is an awful place. If god creates people, creates them flawed, and then punishes them for being flawed, then god is an evil sadist and the universe is an awful place. If god knows everything, and sets up tests for us, then he already knows whether or not we will pass, and has essentially decided already what will happen, because he creates us and creates us a certain way, and then punishes us for failing tests that he designed us to fail and already knew whether or not we would fail before decided to test us, then god is an evil sadist and the universe is an awful place.

An omniscient creator who judges and punishes us for being the way he made us means that there is absolutely no change for free will. At all. None. Zilch. The entire notion of "sin" and judgment is inherently flawed and unworthy of being the basis for any discussions of morality. Causing needless pain and suffering in people is immoral. Discriminating against and hurting gays because of... whatever... is wrong. End of discussion. No one should give a crap what some ancient book says about it. Especially one that employs such obvious logical fallacies and contradictions to justify its backwards and ignorant positions.
Yeah, this is one of the reasons I left the Church (even though I was Episcopal and they're pretty much "no biggie" about everything). It makes zero logical sense to create people in a way that displeases you and then let them go to Hell. It's just completely nonsensical and cruel, at that.
 
Here is another scenario. God creates people and people choose to be gay and choose to reject god. Some will repent and all will be judged by God. Including you Paschendale.
People don't choose to be gay though so your scenario can't happen.
 
I can't seem to find a link to the details of the bishop's remarks, but let me say that I think his position is likely a smidge more complex than is being made out here.

Desmond Tutu's remarks need to be seen through the lens of his fight against apartheid and the injustice black people suffered from decades of South African law. I would guess that Tutu's eyes are not focused solely on marriage rights, but on worldwide discrimination including the death penalty for homosexuality in some places.

In principle I agree with the statements he has been quoted with that have been made widely available. If, however, he approves of homosexuality (which is different from merely not being homophobic), my stance would differ from his. But again, he has seen the depths of injustice inflicted on a powerless minority, so I am willing to give him some latitude for extending his feelings toward genuine persecution of homosexuals.
I'm fairly certain that he believes homosexuality is a sin. When the Anglican Communion recently went through the controversy of electing gay bishops, he said that he was fine with gay bishops and priests, but that he thought they - unlike straight ones - should remain celibate. So I doubt his comment is all, "Yeah! Gay people go have sex! It's awesome!" I think he's just more upset with how gay people are treated in South Africa and other places in the world where they are beaten, denigrated and otherwise harmed by certain populations. I don't know his stance on marriage, but it wouldn't be out the realm of possibility that while he's personally against it, he's okay with other people having the freedom to do it much in the way people have the freedom to commit other acts perceived as sinful.
 
Here is another scenario. God creates people and people choose to be gay and choose to reject god. Some will repent and all will be judged by God. Including you Paschendale.

People don't choose to be gay though so your scenario can't happen.

Let's start with this as a rebuttal and go from there. Nobody chooses their sexual orientation. Some people experiment, but that's just to find out what they like, as in, what orientation they already have. And some people try to bury their existing orientation (all those ex gays) to cave to societal pressure. But both of those situations require an underlying sexuality to exist.

Now let's discuss the idiocy of "rejecting god". No one in their right mind would think that this god nonsense was real and then intentionally ignore it. There's torture and pain involved. How well do you think Germans ignored the Gestapo in 1938? The situation that your god sets up is even worse. There is no escape, at all, even in your mind. No defiance is possible. No freedom to choose for yourself, no liberty, just slavery. No one "rejects" god. We just realize how nonsensical the whole thing is and see that it cannot possibly be real.

I have literally zero fear of being judged by a god. Least of all on the issue of whether or not I happened to pray to that particular god. The whole proposition is complete bunk. But what an astoundingly sadistic and cruel place the universe would be if it were true.
 
We are not Jesus. We try to emulate.


Well, you sure do a piss poor job when it comes to your campaign of persecution against gay people because Jesus never said a word about homosexuality.

If it were as important as all the pharisees are making it, wouldn't He have said so?
 
There are no facts in the Bible. It is a work of fiction composed by men in which they express their intolerance,their misogyny, their homophobia,their violent thoughts.

If you like reading books that are full of fear, hatred, and man's inhumanity to other men, it's a fine book for you.




.


The problem here is that people are referring to "the bible" without making any intelligent distinction of which bible (O.T. or N.T.), or between the actual treachings of Jesus and the more authoritarian and bureaucratic interpretations of Paul.

IMO, the Pharisee Saul is the main problem here in that this persecuter of the true Christians co-opted the entire movement in order to undermine it. When these modern day thumpers use the bible in order to try to hurt others like they do, they invariably refer to the O.T. or to Saul the Pharisee. THey never refer to Jesus because they can't. Jesus was not all about hate.

Jesus said to believe in HIM and to not follow those who purport to speak for God. Saul claimed that he spoke for God, and so what do all these modern day Pharisees do? THey follow Saul, they follow the preacher thumping his bible in the church, they follow each other and they follow anybody BUT Jesus.

THere is all sorts of wonderful stuff in the bible, so it's not all quite like you make it. It's more a matter of intolerant people using the bible as a means to promote the hatred they feel by picking and choosing that which confirms their hatred. If they were to simply pick up the new testament, read what Jesus actually taught and follow suit, the last thing they would ever do is go out on a campign to persecute a small minority of people who cause no intrinsic harm by their actions.
 
How can you heal someone who wants to remain sick? They can in turn infect others.
You mean like many of the Christians on DP who want to remain sick in their poor treatment of people who disagree with them? You mean like Christians - including you - who hope that people go to Hell? I agree. That's toxic and it can infect others. Let's get rid of them and keep the gay guys.
 
Well, you sure do a piss poor job when it comes to your campaign of persecution against gay people because Jesus never said a word about homosexuality.

No he did not. God however did as did Paul. Jesus did however define marriage as between one man and one woman. What does that tell you?

I have never persecuted anyone for being gay. Of course saying someone's action is a sin I guess you define as persecution?

Your blanket statements about Christians persecuting gay's is just that. Ascribing it to me is just a lie.

If it were as important as all the pharisees are making it, wouldn't He have said so?

He did. As I said before Jesus himself defined what marriage is in the eyes of God. Why would he have to say anything? If premarital sex is a sin, and 2 men or women cannot be married in the eyes of God, Why would he say anything else? Jesus was not known for making pointless statements.

Paul however spoke at length as did the OT. So 1+1 still = 2.

So your post boils down to an off topic rant and personal attack which serves little purpose.
 
You mean like many of the Christians on DP who want to remain sick in their poor treatment of people who disagree with them? You mean like Christians - including you - who hope that people go to Hell? I agree. That's toxic and it can infect others. Let's get rid of them and keep the gay guys.

Ummm... No. You see I don't have to lie about what anyone said to make a point. I addressed that in the rest of the post you ignored and cut out so you could reply out of context. Intellectually dishonest at best. Then in the process you drag me off topic for what amounts to nothing really worth responding to.

Please point out were I said I hope people go to hell? Got anything other than untrue personal attacks? As for your opinion, you are entitled even if ridicules and over the top.
 
No. Absolutely wrong. The Bible says no such thing.

Matthew 7:1-5 “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

It means for example if you are an adulterer you cannot sit there and claim someone else is and not be judged for it as well. It is saying you must clear your own sin before judging someone else. This is because you will be judged accordingly.

Sure, if you go in for oversimplified readings that give you the loophole you need to do what you want. "Hey, I'm not a murderer, so I can judge someone else for being a murderer!" Are you without sin? No? Then you might want to think twice before denying someone else entry into the house of god on the basis of their sin.

What right do you have to deny any sinner access to fellowship, guidance, and ultimately the strength to seek the forgiveness that everyone is entitled to?
 
Last edited:
Sure, if you go in for oversimplified readings that give you the loophole you need to do what you want.

Loophole to do what you want? It's the exact opposite. No loopholes in anything I said.

"Hey, I'm not a murderer, so I can judge someone else for being a murderer!"

Yes. Otherwise we would be morons incapable of making any kind of decisions.

Are you without sin? No? Then you might want to think twice before denying someone else entry into the house of god on the basis of their sin.

I am not denying anyone anything. I am however pointing out what the Bible says. Something you may want to read if you want to make accurate statements based on it rather than what you want. Or tell someone else how their religion works.
 
Loophole to do what you want? It's the exact opposite. No loopholes in anything I said.

You're treating the direction not to judge a license to judge by whichever standard you like provided that you pass muster according to it.

Yes. Otherwise we would be morons incapable of making any kind of decisions.

There is a significant difference between deciding whether you're going to be friends or business partners with a murderer and whether or not you will deny them access to a house of worship and all that comes with it.

I am not denying anyone anything.

We were discussing my very firm belief that churches which deny entry because of sin are not Christian, and your disagreement with that belief. Don't be obtuse. Jesus sought out lost sinners specifically for the purpose of reclaiming them and demonstrating the necessity of this to those who came after him, so who are his followers to deny such sinners access to a house of worship on the basis of their sin?

I am however pointing out what the Bible says.

Well then, by all means, point out where Jesus clearly stated that it was okay to deny someone access to the fellowship and guidance of a gathering of Christians -- not heaven, because we're not talking about heaven -- on the basis of their sins.
 
For anyone else who would like to disparage my character or accuse me of nonsense...

First off let me say being "gay" is not a sin, no place does the New or Old Testament say it is. This is not an attack on homosexuals nor is it a condemnation of homosexuality as we are all sinners.

Romans 3:10-11 10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.

According to the Old Testament sodomy is considered a sin or being ritually unclean. According to recent surveys roughly 67% to 80% of male homosexuals practice sodomy.

Leviticus: Lv. 18:223: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It
is an abomination."


20:13: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to
death."


Lesbianism or acts of lesbianism not not even mentioned in the Old Testament in any form. Going by the original text and Jewish interpretation it is not even considered fornication or adultery as it involves no penetration by the male phallus.

Everything in the OT covering sexual uncleanliness or sin seems to revolve around penetration by the male phallus and nothing else.

In the New Testament sexual acts involving men with men and women with women are defined clearly. Even when taking into account translation errors from the Greek, it is plain in it's condemnation of said acts. It goes beyond merely the male phallus and calls then "unnatural" etc.

1 Cor 6:9-10: "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom
of God? Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor the effeminate,
nor those who lie with males...will inherit the kingdom of God."


Romans 1:26-27: "For this reason God handed them over to dishonorable
passions, and their women exchanged their natural use for the unnatural.
And similaly the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned with
desire for one another, males working impropriety on males, and receiving
in themselves the pay which was proper for their wandering."


1 Tim 1:9-10: "Knowing this,that the law is not there for the righteous
man, but for lawless ones...sexually loose, those who lie with males...."


Jude 7: "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which
likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an
example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."


Being gay is not a sin, but according to the OT sodomy is. According to the NT all sexual acts out of wedlock are a sin including homosexuality in or out of wedlock. Jesus himself said even thinking or contemplating an act forbidden is a sin.

Mark 9: 43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

Now Jesus laid down and defined that marriage is about a man and a woman, period. In reference he was talking about divorce, this does not however negate him defining what marriage is supposed to be according to God in the Biblical sense.

Mark 10:9-12But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

So how can a Christian church marry two men or woman when it is clearly against the Bibles commands? How can a pastor, priest etc condone it?

I believe gay marriage should be accepted in our secular society as law. Equal treatment under the law is to important.

What I don't understand is how Christian's can ignore entire swaths of the Bible when it is clear on what is and is not permissible.

I wrote that over 2 years ago at this website. So don't even try to sit there and accuse me of...

Disparaging gays, Persecuting gays, not allowing them rights or any such nonsense.
 
Last edited:
You're treating the direction not to judge a license to judge by whichever standard you like provided that you pass muster according to it.

No. I am judging by what the Bible say's, period.

There is a significant difference between deciding whether you're going to be friends or business partners with a murderer and whether or not you will deny them access to a house of worship and all that comes with it.

Then talk to God, his law is pretty clear.

We were discussing my very firm belief that churches which deny entry because of sin are not Christian, and your disagreement with that belief. Don't be obtuse. Jesus sought out lost sinners specifically for the purpose of reclaiming them and demonstrating the necessity of this to those who came after him, so who are his followers to deny such sinners access to a house of worship on the basis of their sin?

And if they cannot be saved or are unrepentant, they are to be separated from. Again the Bible is very clear. We are not even to let them into our home, or knowledge them. What does this tell you?

Well then, by all means, point out where Jesus clearly stated that it was okay to deny someone access to the fellowship and guidance of a gathering of Christians -- not heaven, because we're not talking about heaven -- on the basis of their sins.

I never said anything about based on anyone's sin. Nice try though.

I said unrepentant sinners who have turned away from Christ.
 
Getting back to TuTU, it's funny... Supposedly according to scripture we will not have a physical body. So sex will not be an issue as we would be spiritual beings, not physical. With no need to breed, it would not be an issue as no one will have a sex to begin with.

He would know this. So I think his comment is more about the treatment of gays by society and around the world. I mean look at what is going on in Africa and Russia. Any Christian who condones that is not much of a Christian.
 
No. I am judging by what the Bible say's, period.

Then talk to God, his law is pretty clear.

And if they cannot be saved or are unrepentant, they are to be separated from. Again the Bible is very clear. We are not even to let them into our home, or knowledge them. What does this tell you?

I never said anything about based on anyone's sin. Nice try though.

I said unrepentant sinners who have turned away from Christ.

Actually, you said, "So unrepentant sinners that we are as Christians told in no uncertain terms to keep a distance from..."

Go ahead, point out where Jesus clearly stated that it was okay to deny someone access to the fellowship and guidance of a gathering of Christians -- not heaven, because we're not talking about heaven -- on the basis of their sins. I'll even tack on unrepentant or otherwise, so that you'll actually answer the question.
 
Actually, you said, "So unrepentant sinners that we are as Christians told in no uncertain terms to keep a distance from..."

Yes. Why are you repeating what I corrected you on? I know I said it and never denied this.

Go ahead, point out where Jesus clearly stated that it was okay to deny someone access to the fellowship and guidance of a gathering of Christians -- not heaven, because we're not talking about heaven -- on the basis of their sins. I'll even track on unrepentant or otherwise, so that you'll actually answer the question.

I posted 3 verses directly in this thread to you...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...over-homophobic-heaven-12.html#post1062114778

Now we can get back on topic I assume?
 
Yes. Why are you repeating what I corrected you on? I know I said it and never denied this.

You tried to rephrase what you said, I was just recalling your words to you.

I posted 3 verses directly in this thread to you...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...over-homophobic-heaven-12.html#post1062114778

Now we can get back on topic I assume?

In order: Jesus, on the subject of the last judgement, not on turning away unrepentant sinners; John; Paul. None of those are an answer to my question, especially seeing as how Jesus never said two of them and the first was dealing with a whole other subject.

But yes, by all means, forget all about the question if it pleases you.
 
Back
Top Bottom