christianity,conversion,gay bars,I wanna take you to the gay bar,louis theroux She USED to be a lesbian, now look at her.tags:
She makes her appearance at 1:37. I don't know the backstory here, and there is obviously more things wrong with this lady than just her conversion, but it's definitely scary stuff. Comments  playlists with this video Blatant Drug References on the Sift by Krupo
• Religious Dogmatica by Constitutional_Patriot
• Raptor Jesus! by legacy0100
• What's currently happening in our world? by Eklek
• Nice tags by cheesemoo
who voted for this video Ornthoron
- Constitutional_Patriot
- legacy0100
- omnistegan
- nibiyabi
- calvados
- heathen
- ElJardinero
- nomino
- Bullard
- Chorian
- deathcow
- berticus
- Haldaug
- Fiver2
- djsunkid
- Majortomyorke
- steroidg
- Zonbie
- HollywoodBob
- brain
- |
Stumble This
if you or someone you know has been exposed to Christianity, you may be entitled to a large cash settlement
LOL
Seriously though, any form of fundamental religion or belief will seem strange to the rest of us, and vice versa. At least the Christians don't come door to door asking you if you've read the "Good Book" and if you would like to save your soul. That doesn't seem to happen as much anymore though. Wonder if it has anything to do with being 15min. walking distance to a Mormon Church (I think they call them temples)?
I have to know. :-o
a place called... WHAT????
I have to know. :-o
My exact reaction as well at the end of this video
Yeah.
Ignorant and incapacitated by the lord...
I also experienced those "symptoms" of being drunk in the Holy Spirit, as they would say.
And it was all a lie.
I just wanted to be part of the group, so I'd pretend it was all happening to me.
This is not to say others are lying, but I don't think they realize just how powerful the art of suggestion can be.
(You can also do it with mild psychoanaleptic substrate.)
As a trained hypnotist...
Awesome. I'm going to start all my sentences that way.
if you or someone you know has been exposed to Christianity, you may be entitled to a large cash settlement
This is not Christianity. People like this have ruined the name of Jesus Christ.
^SSIops
Mormons do not call the Bible the "Good Book," nor do they ask if you would like to save your soul. Were you trying to say that you don't get visited by people like that as much anymore since you live 15 min away from a temple? That would make sense. But if you were trying to suggest that Mormons visit you and say those things, you're not giving an accurate description at all.
How come there is rejoicing and a welcome sense of liberty when an individual decides to become gay, but there is outrage when a homosexual decides that they want to be straight?
If an individual experienced various phenomenon like an in utero hormonal spike that masculinized or feminized the parts of the embryonic brain that were undergoing the most development at that stage... or if they're genetically one gender but by all other measures another gender... than there's no reason for them to go against their nature.
The Bible has 0 to say about either of those conditions. Really, the Bible doesn't even know what a biological cell is. Social pressure to conform to uninformed interpretations of holy texts seems fallacious.
In what way is this not Christianity? I think you confuse that religion with the revisionist "God is love" or some other bullshit.
Don't make up shit that isn't there - just leave that gay bashing fascist club and think for yourself.
I wish to ask a question that arose from reading various comments without promoting this style of service:
How come there is rejoicing and a welcome sense of liberty when an individual decides to become gay, but there is outrage when a homosexual decides that they want to be straight?
Because "coming out" is about accepting yourself and embracing your nature. "Becoming straight" is about denying your true self to conform to flat earth insanity.
You know they used to classify being homosexual as a mental disorder. Maybe one day they'll classify religious belief the same way.
So if a person is "homo-curious" and decides that they are homosexual, that's "embracing nature," but if at some point that person decides that they prefer to be heterosexual, that's "insanity"?
well, yea.
all heterosexuals are mentally insane now. you didn't get the memo?
If Christianity is defined by the religious canon, most modern Christians have seriously missed the mark.
I don't know what you mean by the revisionist "God is love," but I assure you that this is not what I believe.
>> ^Smugglarn:
"This is not Christianity. People like this have ruined the name of Jesus Christ."
In what way is this not Christianity? I think you confuse that religion with the revisionist "God is love" or some other bullshit.
Don't make up shit that isn't there - just leave that gay bashing fascist club and think for yourself.
Because what this woman really needs is a husband and some kids!
Incidentally, would anyone like to buy a wheelchair I've come about?
So if a person is "homo-curious" and decides that they are homosexual, that's "embracing nature," but if at some point that person decides that they prefer to be heterosexual, that's "insanity"?
Said person wouldn't have been a homosexual, possibly bi-sexual, or a heterosexual pretending to be gay. So them "deciding to be homosexual" wouldn't be them embracing their nature would it?
To quote David Cross: "there's no 16 year old heterosexual boy, confused, socially akward, y'know, acne scarred kid sittin' around in his bedroom going, God everyone hates me and no girls, the girls that I like don't like me, and um, I don't know what to do, and the thought of having sex with another man is physically repellent to me...but y'know...maybe it's time I invited even more nonstop harassment into my life. Yeah that'll be fun, things have been going so easy why don't I just introduce the concept of getting the shit kicked out of me for no good reason by a bunch of fucking retards."
You should work for Fox News with those reading comprehension skills you have, since my statement was "flat earth insanity" which is clearly a dig at religion.
>> ^thepinky:
This is not Christianity. People like this have ruined the name of Jesus Christ.
a place called... WHAT????
I have to know. :-o
Indiana.
Because of my limited understanding, I do not presume to know what factors influence sexual orientation, but claiming that choice plays a role has become so taboo that perhaps we fear that discussion. Couldn't choice at least occasionally have something to do with it? Why can't we accept that this woman made a decision about her sexual orientation and leave it at that? Isn't it arrogant to assume that you have such a complete knowledge about the human mind that you know it is impossible for her to decide she isn't gay? Can't we have a say in what we do and who we're attracted to? Who are we to tell her she's gay?
I'm not trying to make any statements about whether same-sex attraction is a choice or not, I just wanted to pose the question because not everyone is the same and sometimes the mind is more powerful than we give it credit for.
So she wants to be straight. I don't care much for the way in which she came to that conclusion, but it's her life and it was her decision to believe that con artist's nonsense. If by some miracle I had found myself in that situation, I would have smacked that guy upside the head.
How come there is rejoicing and a welcome sense of liberty when an individual decides to become gay, but there is outrage when a homosexual decides that they want to be straight?
To quote the lady in the clip, "I was 30 and I was gay all my life, but the lord delivered me".
The argument of freewill vs. environment vs. biology is all very well, but I don't believe that argument is what's on show here. The point is very clear that this specific type of christianity believes that homosexuality is something that people should be "delivered from".
The green dress lady states, "She was [gay], she got delivered during the revival".
I've seen this type of stuff many times before and it just blows me away every time.
Wow!!! Just Wow!!!
I wish to ask a question that arose from reading various comments without promoting this style of service:
How come there is rejoicing and a welcome sense of liberty when an individual decides to become gay, but there is outrage when a homosexual decides that they want to be straight?
Could be because a person doesn't BECOME gay. They come out of the closest. Which is hugely different. When they simply come out about their sexuality, they are letting go of the fear of social dogma and have embraced who they are. When someone becomes straight, they are simply repressing who they are in an attempt to fit a false social paradigm that only seeks to hurt and maim the personalities of individuals they deem "different."
When I speak of insanity, I'm talking about the guy that goes around smacking people and claiming that he is healing them by the power of God and to the people who believe it. I am not referring to the woman's decision to become heterosexual.
Because of my limited understanding, I do not presume to know what factors influence sexual orientation, but claiming that choice plays a role has become so taboo that perhaps we fear that discussion. Couldn't choice at least occasionally have something to do with it? Why can't we accept that this woman made a decision about her sexual orientation and leave it at that? Isn't it arrogant to assume that you have such a complete knowledge about the human mind that you know it is impossible for her to decide she isn't gay? Can't we have a say in what we do and who we're attracted to? Who are we to tell her she's gay?
I'm not trying to make any statements about whether same-sex attraction is a choice or not, I just wanted to pose the question because not everyone is the same and sometimes the mind is more powerful than we give it credit for.
So she wants to be straight. I don't care much for the way in which she came to that conclusion, but it's her life and it was her decision to believe that con artist's nonsense. If by some miracle I had found myself in that situation, I would have smacked that guy upside the head.
Choice is not a factor when it comes to preference, only when it comes to action. For example: I'd say I have little to no choice over the fact that I'm sexually attracted to females that are asian or latina with caramel colored skin, brown eyes and brunette hair. But, I do have the choice to act on those preferences just as a homosexual has the choice to act on his or her preference.
Now what we need to do as a society is stop criticizing them for choosing to act upon their preference. I think you are an intelligent individual, but your dogma is keeping you from practicing critical thought at certain times.
You may call this conjecture, but I think it's clear that this church does not have the capacity to give that woman the help she truly needs.
I'm not even going to start on the themes brought up here though... not even going to start
Of course this is Christianity. Jesus was a raving lunatic, just like these people.
I was going to respond that Christianity brought some valuable innovations to the religious scene of the time, but such a statement would predict that we could identify these innovations that Jewish culture lacks.
Contradicting that prediction is that Jews tend to actually perform significantly better in socially valued outcomes like education, career performance, and Nobel prizes.
here here to this comment "I think you are an intelligent individual, but your dogma is keeping you from practicing critical thought at certain times."
exactly the problem with dogmatic ideas in the first place! I often bicker with religious people and we (at one point or another) usually get to how the scientific method is a fantastic tool that I feel should be used in every aspect of human life. Then I invariably get the response "well then you're a fundamentalist too! You only think your way of thinking is correct!" While I do feel strongly about my methodology I make it clear that within that framework there is an error correcting system. If a theory proves to be wrong, it is discarded. If it's right, it's improved upon.
The problem with religious dogma is that it never makes room for the question "What if we're wrong?" The assumptions then take it out of the context of intelligible (rational) conversation. Trying to have a conversation with a religious person 99% of the time results in a barrage of logical fallacies and a lot of hot air.
Considering the scientific method is not an exact formula, but rather a handful of crucial concepts, I believe that it is self-correcting. If scientists found they were adding a new concept to make their work more accurate, I have no doubt it would be added to the method in short order. It is not, however, stated explicitly anywhere I have seen. But given the generalized nature of the scientific method, it is hard to image some new fundamental aspect that could possibly arise.
But on a serious note:
I knew some one who was part of a Coven (yes I know its crazy), then one day she was saved after being dumped into a vat of water behind the podium of a southern baptist church.
Religious people are raving lunatics. I pray to the video game god, at least it rewards me with gold, player versus player, and unimaginable fun.
I mean if there was a religion that could promise orgasms without me touching myself I might look into it.
^
here here to this comment "I think you are an intelligent individual, but your dogma is keeping you from practicing critical thought at certain times."
exactly the problem with dogmatic ideas in the first place! I often bicker with religious people and we (at one point or another) usually get to how the scientific method is a fantastic tool that I feel should be used in every aspect of human life. Then I invariably get the response "well then you're a fundamentalist too! You only think your way of thinking is correct!" While I do feel strongly about my methodology I make it clear that within that framework there is an error correcting system. If a theory proves to be wrong, it is discarded. If it's right, it's improved upon.
The problem with religious dogma is that it never makes room for the question "What if we're wrong?" The assumptions then take it out of the context of intelligible (rational) conversation. Trying to have a conversation with a religious person 99% of the time results in a barrage of logical fallacies and a lot of hot air.
Part of the problem with dogma and indoctrination is that it encourages a rejection of evidence in favor of the dogma.
Eventually this rejection leads to an impass.
i just want to lol at this thread where a mormon claims "that's not christianity" and then advocates physical violence.
You know what that guy would do if thepinky really smacked him upside the head? Because he is a true Christian, he would turn to her the other side of his head, of course.