Sodom, Greece, Rome and homosexuality.

[AlAyeti]

Does allowing for diversity include parents having no voice in what their children are forced to be taught and have to accept?

Do Christians and the many other cultures and belief systems opposed to homosexuality have the right to have their culture and religious views respected in society when it comes to decent and natural sexual behavior in the education system and in public?

Are homosexuals demanding accesss to children under the label of diversity and anti-hate legislation?

This seems the number one issue between average and normal "family" people and the homosexual agenda.

Can there be laws passed that keeps homosexuality from becoming forced on children and families that oppose it, without the homosexual community and homosexual action organizations crying discrimination?

Is there such a thing anymore as heterosexual rights?

[Cathar1950]

Taking money from those that make it, to pay for the drug habits and illegitmate children of people that will not alter their own morality or behavior to contribute positively to society, is not social progress. It is enslavment. BUT, that is for another thread.

Please don't start another thread.
So do you think we should just let the kids starve because some one is an addict? Why not just abort them?

Is this what you mean by:

Main Entry: ho-mog-e-nize
Pronunciation: hO-'m-j&-"nIz, h&-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -nized; -niz-ing
transitive senses
1 a : to blend (diverse elements) into a uniform mixture b : to make homogeneous
2 a : to reduce to small particles of uniform size and distribute evenly usually in a liquid b : to reduce the particles of so that they are uniformly small and evenly distributed; specifically : to break up the fat globules of (milk) into very fine particles
intransitive senses : to become homogenized

[MagusYanam]

Once again, I am discovering that trying to hold a civil conversation with you is like trying to bash your head against a brick wall.

I think it is great that a rancher owns his own land and that a person has the ability to amass as much wealth as they can.

The Gospels seem to disagree with you. I seem to be remembering something about a camel and the eye of a needle.

The existing systems of law and society "you find repugnant" real people fought and died for you to denigrate. Pacifists are no good to suffering people.

Learn to read. I said I was anti-communist because I find violence repugnant to law and society, things which pacifists and social democrats (like myself) hold dear.

Taking money from those that make it, to pay for the drug habits and illegitmate children of people that will not alter their own morality or behavior to contribute positively to society, is not social progress. It is enslavment.

Rather, taking money from those that make it, to pay for police to bust drug lords, to pay for buses to get people to 'contribute positively to society', to pay for ambulances, hospitals, schools and all those other little services you take advantage of and then like an ingrate scorn for all they're worth. Enslavement? You're only enslaved to your own demented ideology.

When Anglicans proclaim that Jesus is a myth how are they not atheists? Or, parroting them? What is the difference of a liberal like Spong and Neitzsche? Zip.

Read a real liberal theologian like Marcus Borg instead of just spewing the same garbage about Spong. Have you read anything by Spong other than the quote you like to throw in the faces of decent Christians to spite them? There is a huge difference between the atheistic and liberal-theological philosophical viewpoints, particularly as regards the nature of Biblical truth and metaphor.

My history is accurate as well.

Yet you obviously don't know the history of your own religion past 1530. Pathetic. Stop wasting your time.

Stand by it? Why? It is advised to resist the Devil and he will flee. Are you bringing orthodoxy back to the Anglican leadership?

I stand by it as it is a doctrinally sound foundation on which to build a positive, relevant Christian life. Are there some wacky Anglicans out there? No doubt there are. But I'm not going to allow some extremists to destroy an institution which for centuries has been the voice of reason and the positive missions of peace and social justice in the world.

Same-gender marriage is not part of the Gospel. Probably the reason for revisions.

My Bible's the same as yours.

I challange you to find any Biblical support for divorcing your wife and living in a homosexual relationship IS supported anywhere in the Bible.

Guess what? It's not! And guess what else? If you want to find a sinless man to lead your congregation, you're going to be searching a long, long time. People transgress; it's unavoidable. But from what I've been able to gather, Robinson's transgressions didn't outweigh the good fruits of his ministry.

I express my doubts with my Church's decision, and you mock them. I express my loyalty to my faith and you mock that as well. Is this how you treat all your Christian brethren? If so then I can only pity you and pray for you.

You go along with it. Deal.

There still seems to be a little concept called 'loyalty' you are missing here. That's different than blind following.

In liberal theology anything goes!

Learn to read, and then read some Marcus Borg or Gary Dorrien. Liberal theology is based in a sound moral system where what 'goes' is what furthers individual human dignity in Christ - no more. How do I know this? I know my own tradition and I know my Scriptures, and I don't follow blindly.

How can Bush be wrong from a liberal view? Bush is wrong because he failed. He failed to keep the peace in Iraq, he failed to stem the tide of economic and moral decay in our society, he failed to parent his children properly, he failed to appoint competent or scrupulous officials to vital agencies. What were the results? Death and poverty. If Clinton had failed this miserably, he wouldn't just have been impeached, he would have been removed from office. Maybe when you're more mature you'll realise there's more to morality than just issues of sex.

Relativism is for pimps, hedonists, the lascivious licentious, drug dealers and progressive professors with their captive audiences.

And guess what? I'm not a relativist! Straw man after straw man after straw man. Take some logic and reasoning 101 and come back here only when you can keep a civil hand on your keyboard.

[1John2_26]

1John wrote:
Heresy keeps people on the highway to hell.

Just wondering. What passages in the NT indicate that people will go to hell because they don't agree with the existing dominant doctrine.

I love that spin stuff you progressives live for. Please try at least once to present "any" Biblical text that celebrates, supports, condones, promotes or tells believers to affirm this radical departure of Biblical truth in propping up sodomy as a choice to be embraced by Christians? Ask Grumpy to answer if you would like.

My Bible says that one way to be saved is to 'believe in your heart and confess with your mouth' that Jesus is Lord (paraphrasing).

I agree with that 100%. And the parables of Jesus that warn us not to trust false teachers. That means that some people that say Christian things are really liars. If you notice, that is exactly what the Sanhedrin members thought Jesus was calling them. They were right. Not everyone that says to Jesus: "Lord, Lord" are really honest people. I'm paraphrasing as well as you did.

1John wrote:
There are no such thing as "homosexual people."

Homosexuality is nothing more than a physical act. No different than adultery.

A rather astounding claim.

It is very Pauline. Please raed 1 Corinthians 6 for my exegesis.

There are certainly many people who say they are homosexual.

There are many people that claim they were abducted by space aliens. There are many people that say their rectums are sexual organs. Some have posted that in this thread.

I suppose you would say they are all lying or deluded?

I'm sorry. "Mentally ill" has been striken from the DSM. I am just left with other truths. Of course "as a Christian" and as a person that lives in American/Western society of today, I'm going with the deluded explanation.

This is like saying there are no dyslexic people, only tshoe who resfue to raed leertts and nmubres in teh porepr odrer.

Sydlexic people seek a cure for their congenital disorder of dyslexia. I haven't seen any sedaraP edirP cixelsyD, marching down mainstreet in front of children to celebrate the "living with dyslexia as a civil rights issue;" to be forced on an unwilling populace.

Would you let an uncured dyslexic work in the contracts section of your lawfirm? Or would you discriminate "appropriately." You would welcome the cured ones with open arms. Have we all forgotten that "discrimination" isn't always a bad word?

Quote:
THIS THREAD is about homosexuals forcing their finite views on every person in society, by force and by law.

Then this thread is about something which is essentially non-existent.

I'll assume this website is not lying: http://www.christianmusictv.com/ex_gay__anti_gay_.htm

Why do these non-believers fight so hard against the God they do not believe exists?

Sign up for our Email Newsletter Alerts
(CMTV) Enraged homosexuals attack Christians in Church, shouting obscenities and chanting "Shut it down," amassed outside a Baptist church in Boston this weekend. World Breaking News,World News Commentary
The homosexuals protesters present from 8 a.m. Saturday until the event ended in the evening yelled, screamed and defiantly waved signs at the Tremont Temple Baptist Church in Boston, prompting police to order conference participants to remain inside there church.

As the conference began to wind down, more homosexuals converged aided by a sound truck and completely blocked the street, prompting a "near-riot" as Boston police continued to stand and watch.

"The anger, rage and hatred form the homosexuals was indescribable," said one conference participant.

The homosexuals boisterous chants included, "What do you want? Bigots out. When do we want it? Now," "1-2-3-4 open up the closet door. 5-6-7-8 don't assume your kids are straight," "This hatred thing is getting old. This hatred thing has gotta go," "Ex-gay, anti-gay" and "Not in Boston, not in America."
The homosexual protesters reportedly were joined during the day by participants in an anti-war rally on the Boston Common.

A homosexual group called QueerToday.com said it planned to join forces with another homosexual group, the Stonewall Warriors, to form the "October 29th Coalition" and protest the conference as activist Cindy Sheehan led the anti-war rally nearby: "For us, Focus on the Family and the Bush war machine march in lockstep every day against the LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender) community and all oppressed people of the world."
On its weblog after the protest, queerToday.com ridiculed Article 8's "over-the-top coverage" of the homosexual protest, but expressed obvious delight in the impact.

Shame-sex marriage"Spokgirlyperson": We will continue to hold Christians accountable for their actions, regardless of what kind of sugary, sing-songy voices they say "God loves you" in. Yes, God loves us, but they don't. Love isn't about what you say. Love means justice.

According to some,- the homosexuals went up to individual conference participants, took close-up photos and taunted them. The homosexual demonstrators also set up two coffins in front of the church, one with the message "Homophobia is deadly."

Your consistent claims to the contrary, you have yet to show there are any real instances of this happening.

This is what amazes me the most about the progressive mind. I have posted over and over again with real happenings of the Gay Agenda attacking Christians, and have posted in the Soulforce thread about the "fact" of the Gay Agenda attacking peaceful Christians there . . . and yet the progressive liberasl says: "But where is your proof?" Now I know why raped women do not want to testify against their assailants. Why? Where is he?

You have refused to accept that the evidence you have posted to date does not support your extravagent claims.

Others are also seeing what is happeining "for real."

http://www.massresistance.com/latest_email_0524.html

In this email update:

1. Mass. Legislatures 2007 budget also creates new "super" Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth "...not subject to the control of any other department or agency." Three Republicans are sponsors!

2. Education Committee chairmen to Article 8 on OPT-IN bill: Don't hold your breath. (Well, we'll see . . . that's what they said the last time!)

3. UNBELIEVABLE: In FY2007 Budget Mass. Legislature poised to QUADRUPLE funding for homosexual programs in schools -- to nearly $2 million (or more)! ARE YOU READY TO DO SOMETHING!

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny;
when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
- Thomas Jefferson


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

=== 1. Mass. Legislatures 2007 budget would also create new "super" Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth independent of Governor! "...not subject to the control of any other department or agency." Three Republicans are sponsors! ===

You probably remember all the hullabaloo over the last few weeks around the "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth", which culminated in a front-page article in the Boston Globe and lead editorial in the Boston Herald. Article 8 / MassResistance presented the Governor's staff with the rather disgusting details of what this Commission actually does with kids. After the Governor started to disband the Commission, then backed down, State Sen. Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge), a well-known gay activist, announced he was going to file legislation to create a new commission that's independent of the Governor's control.

Here's a few of the recent "events" of this Commission:
http://www.massresistance.com/docs/even ... ay_13.html

http://www.article8.org/docs/news_event ... de_052105/

Associated Press report: "Romney leery of parade 'hosted by crossdresser'"
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... ssdresser/

Click below for the TV report:
http://www.article8.net/video/2006-05-1 ... ovComm.wmv


Well, on Tuesday we saw the following article in the Boston Herald (which, curiously, was NOT on the Herald's website):

Senators mull recast gay board
by the Associated Press
Boston Herald, Tuesday, May 23, 2006

More than a dozen Senate lawmakers, including three Republicans, are backing a proposed budget amendment that would create a new state commission on gay and lesbian youth out of the reach of Gov. Mitt Romney.

Romney angered many gay rights activists and lawmakers when he flirted with the idea earlier this month of abolishing the 14-year-old commission, the first of its kind in the nation, after a press release announcing a youth gay pride march was issued without the administration's blessing.

Instead of killing the commission Romney ordered it to refocus on its core mission of suicide prevention.

Romney's decision to keep the commission drew fire from its critics, who charged he had caved in to pressure from gay rights activists.

A spokesman for Romney declined comment yesterday.

The Senate amendment would create a commission with 27 members, none of whom would be directly appointed by the governor.

One of the main goals of the commission would be to create "school-based and community-based programs focusing on suicide prevention, violence intervention, and the promotion of zero-tolerance policies regarding harassment and discrimination against gay and lesbian youth."

Because the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth was created by former Gov. William F. Weld through an executive order, it could be dismantled only by a new executive order issued by Romney.

The Senate is expected to begin its budget debate tomorrow.


Wow! This new Senate budget amendment would make a "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" made up of (of course) homosexual activists, which, as the language states, "The commission shall be an independent agency of the government of the commonwealth and shall not be subject to the control of any other department or agency."

CLICK HERE for the actual language creating this new commission (and list of radical groups required as members):
http://www.massresistance.com/docs/govt ... _2006.html

Massachusetts is -- and would continue to be -- the only state in America with a taxpayer-funded "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth".

And, by law, it would consist of (among others) every parent's worst nightmare:

2 persons appointed by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network of Boston (GLSEN) -- the group which brought us "The Little Black Book"
1 person appointed by MassEquality
4 persons appointed by the Greater Boston Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)
2 persons appointed by the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus
1 persons appointed by the Massachusetts Teachers Association
at least 1 parent of a gay or lesbian person
2 persons appointed by the Fenway Community Health Center (which distributed the Little Black Book to kids at GLSEN conference)
and more.
Gay-activist State Sen. Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge), as promised, put the language into the 2007 Senate Budget instead of as a separate bill -- which is not technically illegal but is pretty sleazy. (So what's new?)

And as we reported last time, the Legislature's 2007 budget also QUADRUPLES the money which taxpayers are funding this commission's work -- to nearly $2 million (and probably more). HERE are the details of that:
http://www.massresistance.com/docs/govt ... _2006.html

Quote:
A litle truth and proper perspective was needed I thought.

It would be good, IMHO, if you would actually supply some once in a while.

That is liberalese for: Tell us what our itching ears want to hear. I'm sorry to travel the straight and narrow road. Convoluted paths seldom go anywhere. The liberal message is "anythong goes" as long as it supports hedonism.

kiwimac wrote:

You can call it revisionism as much as you like ER, but the truth of the matter is that you are reading back into an ancient document modern concerns that were not even concepts then.

1John wrote:
And the Anglican Church is grasping heresy and forcing modern views to "change" the Christian life. Yes we can call heresy "revisionism."

I noticed you again failed to address kiwimac's point. You simply dodge the question by making irrelevant repetitions of your previous statements.

The New Testament is already an argument that demolishes the liberal/progressive Gospel of permissiveness and relativism. Paul sounds like he just watched MTV, HBO, or read Vanity Fair, the New York Times, or any leftist political presentation. Romans 1 sounds like America or Europe 2006.

I also do not recall seeing any coherent refutation of Grumpy's points on your part.

From your vantage point? Even from their you cannot see the ludicrous position of an atheist supporting the homosexualization of the Bible and for homosexuals to become what Grumpy believes is idiocy of belief in God, and, especially what he considers the myth and fairy tale of Christ Jesus?

Gimme a break. He got his theological arguments from infidels.org more than likely. It was so uninspired. And still I cannot see why the zealotry to help gays and lesbians embrace what he despises. Yur gunna have to help me with that one.

[kiwimac]

I Kings 14:22-24 22. Judah did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they committed, above all that their fathers had done. 23. For they also built them high places, and pillars, and Asherim, on every high hill, and under every green tree; 24. and there were also sodomites in the land: they did according to all the abominations of the nations which Yahweh drove out before the children of Israel.

I Kings 15:11-13 11. Asa did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, as did David his father. 12. He put away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. 13. Also Maacah his mother he removed from being queen, because she had made an abominable image for an Asherah; and Asa cut down her image, and burnt it at the brook Kidron.

In looking at the passages in 1st Kings, it is important to notice its context. In both of these passages the context is the removal from Israel of the High Altars to Ashtereth and her consort. And it is in this context that various translations say in 1 Kings 14:24 and 1 Kings 15:12 that Sodomites were 'put out of the land."

What does this mean?

The word translated as 'Sodomite' in these passages is the Hebew Qadesh which is actually "... a (quasi) sacred person, that is, (technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry:..." and this word comes from Qadash which is "...A primitive root; to be (causatively make, pronounce or observe as) clean (ceremonially or morally): - appoint, bid, consecrate, dedicate, defile, hallow, (be, keep) holy (-er, place), keep, prepare, proclaim, purify, sanctify (-ied one, self), X wholly..."

That is the passages are not referring to homosexuality at all but rather to the worship of the Goddess Ashtereth by ritual prostitution. It is the same word used in Deut 23:17. As the following image shows:

[Cathar1950]

MagusYanam

Rather, taking money from those that make it, to pay for police to bust drug lords, to pay for buses to get people to 'contribute positively to society', to pay for ambulances, hospitals, schools and all those other little services you take advantage of and then like an ingrate scorn for all they're worth. Enslavement? You're only enslaved to your own demented ideology.

Good points and I wish I had said that.

Read a real liberal theologian like Marcus Borg instead of just spewing the same garbage about Spong. Have you read anything by Spong other than the quote you like to throw in the faces of decent Christians to spite them? There is a huge difference between the atheistic and liberal-theological philosophical viewpoints, particularly as regards the nature of Biblical truth and metaphor.

I rather enjoyed both authors works.

Yet you obviously don't know the history of your own religion past 1530. Pathetic. Stop wasting your time.

You give him to much credit. I doubt he knows anything past 19th century American Protestant Evangelical bible-believing religion or anything before that.
As Harold Bloom says Jesus replaced God and is being replaced by the Holy Spirit as in mega-churches American style.
Thats entertainment.

And guess what? I'm not a relativist! Straw man after straw man after straw man. Take some logic and reasoning 101 and come back here only when you can keep a civil hand on your keyboard.

I would love too see that.

1 John wrote:

I love that spin stuff you progressives live for. Please try at least once to present "any" Biblical text that celebrates, supports, condones, promotes or tells believers to affirm this radical departure of Biblical truth in propping up sodomy as a choice to be embraced by Christians? Ask Grumpy to answer if you would like.

We are talking about homosexuality not sodomy. Sodomy is your favorite subject.
What are we suppose to ask Grumpy?

There are many people that claim they were abducted by space aliens. There are many people that say their rectums are sexual organs. Some have posted that in this thread.

No one has said rectums are sex organs except you.

I'm sorry. "Mentally ill" has been striken from the DSM. I am just left with other truths. Of course "as a Christian" and as a person that lives in American/Western society of today, I'm going with the deluded explanation.

When was "mentally ill" removed? I question your "truth" but agree you are going with the "deluded explanation".

Would you let an uncured dyslexic work in the contracts section of your lawfirm? Or would you discriminate "appropriately." You would welcome the cured ones with open arms. Have we all forgotten that "discrimination" isn't always a bad word?

Dyslexics dont get cured they learn to deal with the problem.

Gimme a break. He got his theological arguments from infidels.org more than likely. It was so uninspired. And still I cannot see why the zealotry to help gays and lesbians embrace what he despises. Yur gunna have to help me with that one.

I dont know why it is you assume every one gets their information and arguments from infidels.org. There are many here that actually think. Just because you get all your info from other fear and hate mongers doesnt mean other are doing the same. I am just interested in their civil rights and hate to see people abused by over zealous bigots like you. Yes you do indeed need help.

[1John2_26]

Once again, I am discovering that trying to hold a civil conversation with you is like trying to bash your head against a brick wall.

I will not submit even one inch and let the Gospel be mythologized or changed to make friends with the wolves in sheep skin. I'd rather suffer your idignation while letting the Christians to terrified to challenge you read our words.

1John2_26 wrote:
I think it is great that a rancher owns his own land and that a person has the ability to amass as much wealth as they can.

The Gospels seem to disagree with you. I seem to be remembering something about a camel and the eye of a needle.

Read Philemon and get back to me. A rich man that had a church in his house. Some day that will be again reality to the people of Christ to worship without being assaulted in their Churches. Of course there is a reason why leftist/socialists want to do away with priavate land ownership. A very satanic reason.

1John2_26 wrote:
The existing systems of law and society "you find repugnant" real people fought and died for you to denigrate. Pacifists are no good to suffering people.

Learn to read. I said I was anti-communist because I find violence repugnant to law and society, things which pacifists and social democrats (like myself) hold dear.

You cannot reason with those commiting genocide when they have bullets in their guns while thier victims have just their hands in the air. Pacifism is apathy when you watch people get slaughtered and gripe about rich Americans not paying more taxes. American soldiers are pacifists. Real ones not university club-members.

1John2_26 wrote:
Taking money from those that make it, to pay for the drug habits and illegitmate children of people that will not alter their own morality or behavior to contribute positively to society, is not social progress. It is enslavment.

Rather, taking money from those that make it, to pay for police to bust drug lords, to pay for buses to get people to 'contribute positively to society', to pay for ambulances, hospitals, schools and all those other little services you take advantage of and then like an ingrate scorn for all they're worth.

"Parents" are the cure for those woes you just posted. Good parents. AND you know that still.

Enslavement? You're only enslaved to your own demented ideology.

I am enslaved by the knee-jerk reactions of those mind-controlled by leftist education. Anything that challenges permissivness is denigrated and belittled. Tolerance is now affirmation.

1John2_26 wrote:
When Anglicans proclaim that Jesus is a myth how are they not atheists? Or, parroting them? What is the difference of a liberal like Spong and Neitzsche? Zip.

Read a real liberal theologian like Marcus Borg instead of just spewing the same garbage about Spong.

When he and his anti-Christ ilk are not being showcased on TV and in print media Magus. Time for the real world to sink into your life.

Have you read anything by Spong other than the quote you like to throw in the faces of decent Christians to spite them?

Spong is demon-possessed. I have no doubt. "Christianity Must Change or Die?" I'm sorry, I'll go before Christ with that judgment of Spong and his sickness called Christianty. He has led too many to hell already.

There is a huge difference between the atheistic and liberal-theological philosophical viewpoints, particularly as regards the nature of Biblical truth and metaphor.

Spin does not work on a message board. You either believe in the bodily ressurrection of Christ Jesus or you are not a Christian. Again, I'll stake a claim on that moments after my death as well. I am absolutely not afraid of liberal theologians. Praying keeps them at bay.

1John2_26 wrote:
My history is accurate as well.

Yet you obviously don't know the history of your own religion past 1530. Pathetic. Stop wasting your time.

That has no substance that reply of yours. My orthodoxy and correct theology is as old as the disciples. Every epistle and Gospel contradicts liberal theology and appear to have been written to counter the heresy preached still by liberal theologians of the universal-relativism crowd.

1John2_26 wrote:
Stand by it? Why? It is advised to resist the Devil and he will flee. Are you bringing orthodoxy back to the Anglican leadership?

I stand by it as it is a doctrinally sound foundation on which to build a positive, relevant Christian life.

Chaos and permissiveness cannot and will not satisfy the demand necessary to keep feeding the aberrations spreading that are the by-product of licentiousness.

Are there some wacky Anglicans out there? No doubt there are. But I'm not going to allow some extremists to destroy an institution which for centuries has been the voice of reason and the positive missions of peace and social justice in the world.

Amen. Let us hope that the heretics are cast out. They seem unwilling to repent and seem to want to encourage others to embrace Satan.

1John2_26 wrote:
Same-gender marriage is not part of the Gospel. Probably the reason for revisions.

My Bible's the same as yours.

Then please presnt any Biblical support for the homosexualization of this new paradigm of same-gender sexual behavior being celebrated and approved? Since I have the same Bible, I will take your advice and that of the New Testament to "test all things." Let's start with 1 Corinthinans 6 shall we? Paul seems clearly to be saying that homosexuals once they have stopped having same-gender sex are equal members of the Church. Of course I agree with that. Find a good wife (female) and have good Christian kids. Or, if God calls a person to a celibate life, by all means have at it. Paul was a graet and open teacher and preacher.

1John2_26 wrote:
I challange you to find any Biblical support for divorcing your wife and living in a homosexual relationship IS supported anywhere in the Bible.

Guess what? It's not!

And guess what else? If you want to find a sinless man to lead your congregation, you're going to be searching a long, long time.

A sinless man and a reprobate are absolutely two different things.

People transgress; it's unavoidable. But from what I've been able to gather, Robinson's transgressions didn't outweigh the good fruits of his ministry.

There are only children and others to influence to do what he was blessed by this Anglican heresy to celebrate. I cannot believe you think it is good to proclaim rebellion? Like I wrote, that is promoting Satan. Literally.

I express my doubts with my Church's decision, and you mock them.

I am sorry. I think you are seriously wrong and are helping people to choose rebellion. There is hardly a nice way to say that.

I express my loyalty to my faith and you mock that as well.

Your faith no. The Anglican heresy and rebellion yes. It is causing unimaginable harm to the world and the Church what is beinf embraced and celebrated by the Anglican Community. There is no other path being laid than all-out chaos. Anyone can do whatever they want to is clearly the message of celebrating gay life be preached as acceptable for a Christian to choose.

Is this how you treat all your Christian brethren? If so then I can only pity you and pray for you.

Your pity is not well placed. Keep it for those that will die from a licentious lifestyle embraced and encouraged by the Anglican heresy. Your prayers I will ask for in all honesty that I can deal with anti-Christians without ridiculing their stupidity passed off as tolerance. Not you this time, but tolerance is a word that has been killed like so many others by liberals/progressives and replaced by unrestrained permissiveness.

There is nothing Godly or logical in the progressive revision of truth and decency. Only hedonism that some will survive to an old age and some that will die from long before being able to think straight.

1John2_26 wrote:
You go along with it. Deal.

There still seems to be a little concept called 'loyalty' you are missing here. That's different than blind following.

Loyalty to doctrines of demons is a form of blindness. I would rather not argue Christian theology in this thread as the issue here is the Gay Agenda of indoctrinating children into embracing homosexual sex acts. No matter the new label applied to pederasty, that is the issue dividing the two factionsnand those apathetic or senseless to see it.

1John2_26 wrote:
In liberal theology anything goes!

Learn to read, and then read some Marcus Borg or Gary Dorrien. Liberal theology is based in a sound moral system where what 'goes' is what furthers individual human dignity in Christ - no more.

God craeted them male and female from the beginning. The sexual component of that statement is immutably man/woman. It cannot be changed for political correctness or the wierdness of changing tolerance to mean affirm and celebrate or go to jail.

How do I know this? I know my own tradition and I know my Scriptures, and I don't follow blindly.

"Tradition?" Sir, what was it Jesus confronted????? Men turning worship into traditions.

How can Bush be wrong from a liberal view?

He believes in moral absolutes. Something that is hideous to a liberal permissive hedonist.

Bush is wrong because he failed.

At what? If men married women and loved them exclusively. and raised their children morally sound, then there would be hardly any problems.

He failed to keep the peace in Iraq,

Muslims failed to grasp the gift given to them by the Americans that gave their lives to bring them liberty. yes Bush failed. He failed to recognized the futility of bringing justic and freedom to Islam. It cannot and has not ever esisted there.

. . .he failed to stem the tide of economic and moral decay in our society,

Economic decay? Where? Moral decay? From liberal/humanist decadence and hedonism. Not Bush's Christainity. Please a little honesty around Bush just once from a leftist.

he failed to parent his children properly,

He has two colege educated daughters. None have been pregnant. His daughters seem to be fine people.

. . . he failed to appoint competent or scrupulous officials to vital agencies.

Maybe a few of the many agencies with very competent leadership.

What were the results? Death and poverty.

The inner cities fester from fatherless childre. The middle east festers from Islamic murder.

If Clinton had failed this miserably, he wouldn't just have been impeached, he would have been removed from office.

Clinton seemed like he was just a man and not this brilliant thinker so many on the left pander. He was just a man after all his intellectual posing.

Maybe when you're more mature you'll realise there's more to morality than just issues of sex.

We'll ask all of those fatherless children in the inner cities or from being made fatherless in all of the genocidal slaughters carried out by Muslim Jihadists. Bush has the moral actions to help both but the liberals to oppose him. The issue about homosexuality cannot seperate the word "sex" from what they represent. You'll see tat after you live life for awhile outside of the univesity milieu controlling your reactions.

1John2_26 wrote:
Relativism is for pimps, hedonists, the lascivious licentious, drug dealers and progressive professors with their captive audiences.

And guess what? I'm not a relativist! Straw man after straw man after straw man. Take some logic and reasoning 101 and come back here only when you can keep a civil hand on your keyboard.

When dealing with anal and oral sex being taught to children in public schools as something they should do with people of the smae-gender (or not), it is logical to oppose that.

Please show me the reasoning behind a good and decent parent not being concerned about their children being taught homosexuality by homosexuals or liberals that celebrate and affirm homosexual sex? How is it bad to see these kinds of people as trying to indoctrinate your children into a sick and disgusting deviant and degenerate life and lifestyle?

It the "intolerance" of Christians is repugnant to liberals, why is it not OK for good parents to see the intolerance of homosexuals and their liberal/socialist supporters' "diversity" masked as affirmation of licentiousness and sexual hedonism as repugnant?

I see very few ways to do it that will not be seen as "bad" to progressives, when the homosexuals controlling the schools will not allow disapproval of teaching children sodomy. Please show me how you can disapporove of teaching children to celebrate homosexuality - anal, oral and dildo sex - when all "it" is is a sex act? Also please show me how a Christian can celebrate sodomy taught to their kids in a public schools AND, AND, as we now see homosexuality is being demanded to be taught in private Christian schools!!!

We are in dark times and it is not the Christians that have brought us there.

[1John2_26]

MagusYanam
Quote:
Rather, taking money from those that make it, to pay for police to bust drug lords, to pay for buses to get people to 'contribute positively to society', to pay for ambulances, hospitals, schools and all those other little services you take advantage of and then like an ingrate scorn for all they're worth. Enslavement? You're only enslaved to your own demented ideology.

Good points and I wish I had said that.

Back-patting from a clubmember. Connecting the dots and you see there is little diversity allowed in the diversity club.

Quote:
Yet you obviously don't know the history of your own religion past 1530. Pathetic. Stop wasting your time.


You give him to much credit.

That would be too much credit. I don't expect recognition from a clubmember of a club I don't belong to. Rather, I won't belong to.

I doubt he knows anything past 19th century American Protestant Evangelical bible-believing religion or anything before that.

Though my theology was begrudgingly affirmed as correct even from a liberal theologian. Truth is hard to change after all.

As Harold Bloom says Jesus replaced God and is being replaced by the Holy Spirit as in mega-churches American style.
Thats entertainment.

And liberals/agnostics/skeptics/atheists/humanists . . . yada-yada, yiu know "the club" compare humans to animals in sexual deviant behavior and that is not "dehuanizing" homosexuals.

I will not soil theology by debating the above mentioned Christian Church position denigarted by Bloom and Cathar above.

Quote:
And guess what? I'm not a relativist! Straw man after straw man after straw man. Take some logic and reasoning 101 and come back here only when you can keep a civil hand on your keyboard.

I would love to see that.

I frind it impossible to be civil to pinheads that denigrate Christians simply because they lack the intellect to study Christianity. Let them walow in their delusional hatred. I do not fear that or them. Why should I?

1 John wrote:
Quote:
I love that spin stuff you progressives live for. Please try at least once to present "any" Biblical text that celebrates, supports, condones, promotes or tells believers to affirm this radical departure of Biblical truth in propping up sodomy as a choice to be embraced by Christians? Ask Grumpy to answer if you would like.

We are talking about homosexuality not sodomy. Sodomy is your favorite subject.

Not to be taught to children. If you wouldn't mind being honest just this once in responding to my position? Sodomy and homosexuality are one and the same thing. No matter the Texas legal matter to abolish it.

What are we suppose to ask Grumpy?

You really want me to answer that? I man not the scared little Christian you are used to bluffing. But Grumpy is better off left alone.

Quote:
There are many people that claim they were abducted by space aliens. There are many people that say their rectums are sexual organs. Some have posted that in this thread.

No one has said rectums are sex organs except you.

Go back and read Scrotum's treatise on sexuality. Also, I do believe the rectum plays a part in the affirmation of homosexual "rights" if I am n ot mistaken. I know how facts can hurt. No pun intended.

Quote:
I'm sorry. "Mentally ill" has been striken from the DSM. I am just left with other truths. Of course "as a Christian" and as a person that lives in American/Western society of today, I'm going with the deluded explanation.

When was "mentally ill" removed? I question your "truth" but agree you are going with the "deluded explanation".

Look up the DSM of psychiatry before the gay lobby forced the removal of homosexuality from both. Then look up NARTH.

Quote:
Would you let an uncured dyslexic work in the contracts section of your lawfirm? Or would you discriminate "appropriately." You would welcome the cured ones with open arms. Have we all forgotten that "discrimination" isn't always a bad word?

Dyslexics dont get cured they learn to deal with the problem.

You may want to rethink your reply here, take some time and get back to the thread. It doesn't bode well for the Gay Agenda that answer of yours.

Quote:
Gimme a break. He got his theological arguments from infidels.org more than likely. It was so uninspired. And still I cannot see why the zealotry to help gays and lesbians embrace what he despises. Yur gunna have to help me with that one.

I dont know why it is you assume every one gets their information and arguments from infidels.org.

It is just a way of poking a little fun at the simple minded attack waged on Christians from those that pretend they do not hate Christians.

There are many here that actually think.

One way. That is not exactly a glowing endorsement for enlightenment by the garden-variety anti-Christian that prowl or troll here.

Just because you get all your info from other fear and hate mongers doesnt mean other are doing the same.

Aaaannnnnndddd . . . thank you for proving my point.

I am just interested in their civil rights and hate to see people abused by over zealous bigots like you. Yes you do indeed need help.

From who? You?

Please know I am laughing. Not at you, but just laughing. The knee-jerk leftist reationary comeback from any dissent of their absolutist totalitarian belief system is hysterical to see promoted by the "champions of tolerance and diversity."

Hilarious.

Good night.

[Cathar1950]

Back-patting from a clubmember. Connecting the dots and you see there is little diversity allowed in the diversity club.

(try club member not clubmember see below for more information)

Awe, you sound Jealous.
Your still here.

I wrote:

You give him to much credit.

John wrote:

That would be too much credit. I don't expect recognition from a clubmember of a club I don't belong to. Rather, I won't belong to.

Thanks John I went back and fixed it.

Should you go back and fix these?

Let them walow in their delusional hatred.

I think you meant "wallow".

the affirmation of homosexual "rights" if I am n ot mistaken.

I think you mean "not"

yada-yada, yiu know

Here maybe you mean yada, yada you know?

I frind it impossible to be civil to pinheads that denigrate Christians

I am going with "find" not "frind". What do you think?
Maybe you meant friend.

sexual deviant behavior and that is not "dehuanizing"

Do you mean, "dehumanizing"?

above mentioned Christian Church position denigarted

The above-mentioned Christian Church position denigrated might work better but it is just a suggestion.

I see you have shown that those that cant do teach.
But it was a nice diversion and completely irrelevant.

[Jose]

Could it be that you are mis-reading this passage?

No. Why not you?

I'm not mis-reading the passage in that I don't insist that it is true in only one possible interpretation. That's your game. I simply point out that other interpretations are just as reasonable. You pretend you know god's mind; I don't.

I guess I could just be a computer program responding to rebuttals in orthodox ways. I guess i could be a Bonobo taking a braek from whatever it is Bonobos do.

Odd analogy. Bonobos settle their differences by female-female sex in a female-dominated society. That's what makes their societies so much more peaceful than ours.

Could it be that it is more a "manual of style" than anything else?

The Bible is definately a "manual of style."

So you agree that one should lie with a man in a different manner than one should lie with a woman. Like the Joy of Sex, it is a manual of style--of positions.

Could it really be saying that the manner in which man lies with man should be different from the manner in which man lies with woman? Besides, who cares about lying--your concern is always with sex, not sleep.

Jose, this is not a place I would expect you reaching for absurd offerings be considered logic and reason.

You don't want me to be absurd? You black kettle you!

Why is it considered OK to pick and choose? [from the many injunctions in Leviticus]

Pick and choose what? Shell fih really can kill people. Pork has caused many heart attacks. look up the Africam America community and its causes of disease-deaths?

Indeed--the human authors of the bible had made the connection between certain foods and certain diseases, and therefore put in place some dietary restrictions. Yet Christians ignore those restrictions at present, while citing the "manual of style" passage as Absolute.

How can we justify claims of biblical support for one viewpoint, while completely ignoring the biblical injunctions against other actions?

Ask Jesus. I am a Christian. He proclaimed marriage and sex is for a man and a woman. Reading into the text or extrapolating from it. Food IS mentioned. Sex is also, and it does NOT get changed to accept homosexual sex acts be OK'd for Christians "IN the New Testament. C'mon Jose. Do we really need to debate on this level?

Ah. You ask me to go back in time and chat with this guy, because you don't know his teachings well enough to answer. Yes, we do need to debate on this level, because it makes it pretty clear that your beliefs do not stem from the passage that you quoted. You cannot hold the bible to be Absolute Truth, and use that to obey a command on how you should perform and what you should believe if you set aside those parts that you want to ignore while claiming that other parts support your personal repugnance at something you imagine but have not seen.

Is it just a matter of choosing what's convenient?

You tell me? If it was convenience and political power being sought "by Christians" then everyone and ebery sexual practice would, or should be, proclaimed as "what the heck! anything goes!!!" But purity and morallity is proclaimed. Same-gender sex acts is preached against. No amount of arguing hypothetical licentiousness is going to prove whatever point it is Jose, that you are trying to make. The New Testament writers debated you point for point. I just agree with them.

Ah yes. We jump to something else as a way to explain why you cite one passage of "truth" out of a sea of junk you don't believe.

Is it that cultural norms have changed?

Not according to Paul, Peter, John, Jude or James. "Jesus" (it is said) is the same yesterday, today and forever. I just agree with that. I wish I didn't have to be painted with epithets for believing the writers of the New Testament but alas, it is a very light burden.

The recent text written in colloquial Greek? Have we heard Peter, Paul, and (not Mary, but the other guys) recently? You are still relying on a book that proclaims itself to be the word of god; why not rely on one of the other books that makes the same proclamation?

Is it that the price of lambs has increased to where it is unsound economic policy to sacrifice them...

Just the opposite here Jose. You could clone the perfect lamb over and over again. In fact.

Do you have any notion at all of the cost of cloning a lamb? The point here, rather tongue-in-cheek in its presentation, is that the injunctions I pointed out as surrounding the bit you quoted as your justification for gay-bashing have no better reasons to set them aside than the passage to which you cling as to a liferaft.

...or that medical knowledge has advanced to where we know leprosy is a bacterial disease that is unaffected by dabbing blood on ears and toes?

The hands of Jesus produced anti-biotics? Miracles are all around us.

You'd better re-read your bible. This was the recommended practice for the priest. You also might want to check your medical books. Leprosy is not an infection only of the ears and toes.

"I" for example, can raise the dead with the training I have received I am even purchasing an electrical device to do it even more effectively. My CPR and First Aid cards are up to date as we write by the way.

Excellent! But I might point out that while cardiac arrest usually leads to death, restarting the heart before death occurs is not the same as "raising the dead." There's this little matter of biochemistry and neurobiology that you typically choose to ignore in our discussions.

Oh, you know something, I just thought about CPR. Do we do pulmonary resusitation techniquese on the thigh muscles?

No--we do it on the organ that the bible refers to as the seat of knowledge. This is another place where we ignore the bible and go with more recent medical discoveries.

Get where I'm going Jose?

It's hard to tell, I'm afraid. You largely evaded the main questions I asked. But you did bring up some more instances of ignoring biblical Truth in favor of more recent learning.

Good taste is fighting for the rights of peoples all over the earth to have freedom, not just for same-gender couples to wed.

Oxymoron. Good taste is fighting for the rights of peoples all over the earth to have freedom. Period. Fighting against the rights of same-sex couples therefore is not good taste. Nor is fighting against those of non-Christian heritage, as in our holy war in Iraq. [That it is a holy war is made clear by the hard-core Christian teachings of (what I recall as) the Air Force Academy.]

My facts are well established in every anatomy lesson. My history is accurate as well. My theology is that Jesus is the Son of God, that He "really" existed, was NOT a myth, was crucified, was dead and buried (not eaten by dogs) and was ressurected. That Jesus is God. And that divorce is wrong because the idea of Biblical marriage is a man and a woman. The way "the Creator" planned it "from the beginning.

Your anatomical facts are those of the middle ages. They ignore neuroanatomy and functional brain imaging. Move into the 21st century. Your history may be accurate, but is incomplete. Your theology is, well, your theology. That you seek to force it onto others who are not of your personal theology is not good taste--it is not fighting for the rights of peoples all over the earth to have freedom. It is fighting for the subjugation of peoples to your will. It is sin.

A myth cannot give His life on the Cross.

No, but a man can, and myths can be built around him.

Jesus was quoted as saying He in fact came for the lost sheep of Israel. Is that not right?

If so, he goofed--he came back with a bunch of people. See, sheep are quadrupeds, typically furry. The folks he came back with weren't like that. Perhaps you mean to tell us here that the bible is to be taken metaphorically--more a manual of style than a book of Truth.

David Khoresh had faithful followers too. So did James Jones. So does Joseph Smith "still." In liberal theology anything goes! Mormons are conservative in politics and yet have the audacity to proclaim that not only are they "Christians" but are the restored originals. In liberal theology how is anything wrong? Is it just George Bush and Christians that will not vote for gay marriage?

The Branch Davidians were David's branch of their Christian sect. Theirs was not liberal theology, but more fundamentalist. They were one of those Christian militias that planned to save us from the New World Order and return us to our rightful Christian Values. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, seems to have done what others before him did: write a book that claims to be the word of god, and thereby accumulate followers. As near as I can tell, they are Christians just like you are. There are differences in their interpretations of various passages of books, but "liberal theology"? I think not.

James Jones, on the other hand, was just plain weird. (odd for a Hoosier) The weirdest thing is that he got people to follow him! This tells us less about Jones than it tells us about human nature: people will believe anything if it is presented to them "just so." Perhaps the bible's presentation is more compelling than Jones's, and explains the larger number of followers. Conversely, the larger number of followers does not prove the truth of the basic theory.

And if the basic theory is wrong, and we're basing our actions on a work of fiction, we're justifying some pretty horrid discrimination on pretty flimsy "truth"--'someone else said it, so I'm gonna do it.'

Perhaps you are among those who see the world in stark black and white. "If you're not with us, you're against us." If I don't fight against gay marriage, and call it pederasty while I'm at it, I are by definition a subhuman liberal, maybe even as low a life form as a Democrat. But, the world is not black and white. It's far more complex. If you really want to display "Good taste [which] is fighting for the rights of peoples all over the earth to have freedom," then you might want to get off this one-track crusade and try to help the rest of us solve some real problems.

[Easyrider]

The Branch Davidians were David's branch of their Christian sect. Theirs was not liberal theology, but more fundamentalist. They were one of those Christian militias that planned to save us from the New World Order and return us to our rightful Christian Values.

Koresh's rendition of Christianity was no where near what Christ taught in his "Fundamentalist" teachings. Koresh engaged in murder, inappropriate sexual behavior with his congregation, professed to be Christ, and did a lot of other things contrary to Christ's teachings. If anything, that's taking "Liberties" (being liberal) with God's Word, and is therefore more "liberal" than fundamentalist.