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?

[1John2_26]

kiwimac wrote:
I have come to the conclusion that 1_John is in fact suffering from mono-mania, as such I should not expect his comments to have a reason or be logical.

It will not be clones shot in the head. The Gay Agenda, with it's heretic and liberal allies are rapidly doing to Christians precisely what they set out to do. The criminalization of Christianity is a goal just about accomplished by liberals and the homosexualization of society:

Vatican worried about positions on family By MARIA SANMINIATELLI, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 28, 8:04 PM ET



The Vatican is worried its opposition to abortion, embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage could one day land it before an international court of justice, a senior Vatican official said in an interview published Wednesday.

Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, who heads the Pontifical Council for the Family, reiterated traditional Roman Catholic Church positions and criticized some European countries, including Belgium, the Netherlands and France, for giving legal recognition to civil unions.

"We worry especially that, with current laws, speaking in defense of life and the rights of families is becoming in some societies sort of a crime against the state," Lopez Trujillo told the Catholic news magazine Famiglia Cristiana for its issue scheduled to hit the stands Thursday. The remarks were posted online on Wednesday.

"The church is at risk of being brought before some international court if the debate becomes any tenser, if the more radical requests get heard," the cardinal said, speaking ahead of the Roman Catholic Church's World Meeting of Families in Valencia, Spain from July 1-9.

Lopez Trujillo did not comment further about any legal problems the Vatican could face, but his words touched upon a concern among religious organizations everywhere: the right of religious freedom versus countries' anti-discrimination laws.

Chai Feldblum of Georgetown University's Law Center said the chances of the church being punished for stating its beliefs were slim to none, at least in the United States, though its stances could lead to Catholic organizations losing state funding.

"I cannot fathom a religious organization being punished for speaking its belief against abortion or gay marriage," said Feldblum, a veteran gay rights advocate.

"What is illuminating is not the reality of the legal penalties they face, but an acknowledgment that public morality is shifting under their feet," Feldblum said.

In recent years, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada legalized same-sex marriage, while Britain and several other European nations now give such couples the right to form partnerships that entitle them to most of the same tax and pension rights as married couples laws the church is firmly against.

In the interview, Lopez Trujillo reiterated that according to church rules, women who have abortions, the doctors and nurses who help them and the father, if he is going along with it, are excommunicated. The same goes for embryonic stem cell research.

"It's the same thing. Destroying the embryo is equivalent to abortion," Lopez Trujillo said.

He also criticized what he described as a movement to impose new human rights.

"It's happening for abortion, which is a crime, and instead it's becoming a right," the cardinal said.

He also compared gay marriage to "absolute emptiness," saying the only possible couple is made up of a man and a woman.

Earlier this month, the Pontifical Council for the Family issued a 57-page document in which it said that the traditional family has never been so threatened as in today's world. It also lashed out against contraception, abortion, in vitro fertilization and same-sex marriage.

The Vatican's document did not break any new ground, but marked the first sweeping comment on the issues during Pope Benedict XVI's papacy.

[1John2_26]

I have come to the conclusion that 1_John is in fact suffering from mono-mania, as such I should not expect his comments to have a reason or be logical.

Kiwimac

Kiwimac, ol' buddy, ol' pal . . .

Yoked to unbelievers, means you are working with them to plow their fields. Evangelicals (Christians that believe in Christ Jesus the old fashioned way . . .) are not to be yoked to unbelievers to work "for" Christ Jesus. Since unbelievers don't.

I have asked you to provide any evidence "from the Bible" (since you have offered that you are a priest), where sodomy/perderasty-homosexuality-Gay, is celebrated, supported, condoned, promoted, or preached as acceptable, anywhere in the New Testament. I listed the sodomy/pederasty-homosexuality-Gay, to indicate a historical timeframe.

Ad hominem is fun and I myself find it hard to resist, but you will never suffer on this forum for insulting a Christian. The moderators just don't hold anti-Christians to a high standard, and I realize why. Of course.

So insult a faceless cyber-posting writer all day long. Your insults are as meaningless as liberal theology itself. But please show where the Gay Agenda means anything but the altering of normality and morality, and please, please, throw in your theological apologetics/exegesis to support homosexualization of society from "your" Biblical or secular perspective.

Paring up with "SCROTUM," won't get it done sir. "Do what thou wilt, though hurt none," is a Witch proverb. But I notice that liberals and heretics admire the saying too. Literally. Drug addicts and sexually promiscuous persons grasping this style of advice have not faired so well using it. Victims of hypocrite witch-like advice are legion huh? Not too much repentance preaced in witchology. Or, witchianity, or whtever. At least not in main outreach programs. But, the licentiousness harming so many seems intact.

I have asked before that you provide evidence for altering and changing the Bible, "the word of God," and for changing society into "do what thou wilt . . ."

[1John2_26]

See I told you couldnt do it.
Besides circumcision doesnt make you perfect it is a substitute for tossing the child (girls dont count) into the flames. . It seems to have been done by the Egyptians and most likely was picked up some time by the Hebrews. The Hebrew most likely adopted it after they gave up child sacrifices some time after Solomon and David.
Paul even got rid of that in his gospel.

Thank you for validating that I "smashed an atheist" when, as usual, they were wrong on the Bible. Lest we forget, we have people claiming they are Christians in lock step with their anti-Christain co-parts here at DCand R (.com). We'll see the reaction to their wounded comrade I'll bet. Actually, we have huh? You leaped on the hand grenade so valianty.

Quote:
Oh yeah, lest we forget, a circumcised or uncircumcised pen!s does not have any reason (other then sexual deviance) to be in a rectum or mouth. Sperm still comes out of any style pen!s. If we return "man" to a state of perfection, that would eliminate homosexuality.


Notice that circumcision and beating an atheist allowed him an opportunity to use xxx, sexual deviance, rectum, mouth, sperm, and homosexuality all in one sentence while turning his idea of perfection on you for cause to illuminate homosexuals which is his desire not yours.

I cannot address the term: "You are a liar," directly at someone in an individual post because it is against the rules of this forum to do to a non-Christian. But suffice it to "say" I disagree with your description of what I was doing.

My position must accuratley describe "what the deal is." Scrotum went exegisis on the thread topic and he was wrong.

Your position, if really a proclamation, is completely wrong "for whatever reason you saw fit to write it." I illuminate homosexuality and heretical and liberal positions out of presenting reality. Homosexuality is not about inventing a new tennis ball.

Weird isnt it? Think about it. You dont really have a problem he does.

Where have I presented a lie? Please illuminate how, in my descriptions of sex, I am wrong, or purposely meant to write a falsehood? I sometimes get bored "smashing the atheist position," not this time, but sometimes I do.

You dont want to get rid of homosexuals he does.

That is a false statement written by you for whatever reason you did it. I have too many posts that say "they" should start their own religion, or go live out "their" lives and STOP atacking and criminalizing Christians that reject and disapprove of the Gay Agenda and the homosexualization of earth. That would lend itself to "not getting rid" of homosexuals.Just asking them to take their perversion elsewhere.

But somehow your questioning their idea of perfection and "righteousness is reason to get rid of homosexuals. Is that twisted or what?

What is literally twisted, is the means by which homosexuality is forced on society.

Cathar, you really should use logic and reason, and far less emotionalism.

The Catholic Church, of which I am not an active member, sees homosexualization (The Gay Agenda), and lascivious licentiousness and hedonism, it seems, very much as I do. Scrotum and Grumpy and many other anti-Christians would prove that the Vatican has a good point.

Here:

[

b]Vatican worried about positions on family By MARIA SANMINIATELLI, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 28, 8:04 PM ET



The Vatican is worried its opposition to abortion, embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage could one day land it before an international court of justice, a senior Vatican official said in an interview published Wednesday.

Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, who heads the Pontifical Council for the Family, reiterated traditional Roman Catholic Church positions and criticized some European countries, including Belgium, the Netherlands and France, for giving legal recognition to civil unions.

"We worry especially that, with current laws, speaking in defense of life and the rights of families is becoming in some societies sort of a crime against the state," Lopez Trujillo told the Catholic news magazine Famiglia Cristiana for its issue scheduled to hit the stands Thursday. The remarks were posted online on Wednesday.

"The church is at risk of being brought before some international court if the debate becomes any tenser, if the more radical requests get heard," the cardinal said, speaking ahead of the Roman Catholic Church's World Meeting of Families in Valencia, Spain from July 1-9.

Lopez Trujillo did not comment further about any legal problems the Vatican could face, but his words touched upon a concern among religious organizations everywhere: the right of religious freedom versus countries' anti-discrimination laws.

Chai Feldblum of Georgetown University's Law Center said the chances of the church being punished for stating its beliefs were slim to none, at least in the United States, though its stances could lead to Catholic organizations losing state funding.

"I cannot fathom a religious organization being punished for speaking its belief against abortion or gay marriage," said Feldblum, a veteran gay rights advocate.

"What is illuminating is not the reality of the legal penalties they face, but an acknowledgment that public morality is shifting under their feet," Feldblum said.

In recent years, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada legalized same-sex marriage, while Britain and several other European nations now give such couples the right to form partnerships that entitle them to most of the same tax and pension rights as married couples laws the church is firmly against.

In the interview, Lopez Trujillo reiterated that according to church rules, women who have abortions, the doctors and nurses who help them and the father, if he is going along with it, are excommunicated. The same goes for embryonic stem cell research.

"It's the same thing. Destroying the embryo is equivalent to abortion," Lopez Trujillo said.

He also criticized what he described as a movement to impose new human rights.

"It's happening for abortion, which is a crime, and instead it's becoming a right," the cardinal said.

He also compared gay marriage to "absolute emptiness," saying the only possible couple is made up of a man and a woman.

Earlier this month, the Pontifical Council for the Family issued a 57-page document in which it said that the traditional family has never been so threatened as in today's world. It also lashed out against contraception, abortion, in vitro fertilization and same-sex marriage.

The Vatican's document did not break any new ground, but marked the first sweeping comment on the issues during Pope Benedict XVI's papacy.[/b]

[Cathar1950]

Thank you for the irrelevant non-ground breaking Vatican document, twice.
I dont think you smashed anything.
I didnt leap on any hand grenade but you do get emotional.


Me:

You dont want to get rid of homosexuals he does.

You:

That is a false statement written by you for whatever reason you did it. I have too many posts that say "they" should start their own religion, or go live out "their" lives and STOP atacking and criminalizing Christians that reject and disapprove of the Gay Agenda and the homosexualization of earth. That would lend itself to "not getting rid" of homosexuals.Just asking them to take their perversion elsewhere.

I think wanting them to go elsewhere is wanting to get rid of them. What were you thinking?
They are not attacking or criminalizing Christians you are the one that wants to do that to Christians in your church that are against your anti-gay agenda. You have it backwards.

What is literally twisted, is the means by which homosexuality is forced on society.

It is not being forced on society. You said you didnt lie. Society needs to learn to accept homosexuals without prejudice and bigotry. No one wants you to be a homosexual.

Cathar, you really should use logic and reason, and far less emotionalism.

There you go projecting your own failings again and you said you didnt lie.

I have asked you to provide any evidence "from the Bible" (since you have offered that you are a priest), where sodomy/perderasty-homosexuality-Gay, is celebrated, supported, condoned, promoted, or preached as acceptable, anywhere in the New Testament. I listed the sodomy/pederasty-homosexuality-Gay, to indicate a historical timeframe.

No one says that all the unrelated things above are celebrated or supported in the bible.
That is your agenda and lie that they are the homosexual issue.

What you have is 5 or 6 passages taken out of the bible to support your fear and loathing.
Two are from Lev. Written in the 6th century by priests. By the way they were not allowed blemishes either.
The others are taken from Paul that his problems with sex and some even suggest he may have been a closet homosexual but was certainly not promoting Leviticus and the Law.
Gen. and Sodom dont count because it is not about homosexuality.

You admit David and Jonathan might have been lovers but it is ok as long as they marry women and have children. I guess Ruth and Naomi would be in the same class.
When are you going to make sense?

I am off to the caf.

[micatala]

The criminalization of Christianity is a goal just about accomplished by liberals and the homosexualization of society:

I would suggest we take up this question in the Criminalizing Christianity thread.

Again, I disagree with this statement, but would suggest we define our terms and then debate, possibly in a third thread, whether this is the case or not.

Not also that you are claiming that liberals not only are criminalizing Christianity, but have this as a specific goal. This claim would require additional evidence to support it.

I have asked you to provide any evidence "from the Bible" (since you have offered that you are a priest), where sodomy/perderasty-homosexuality-Gay, is celebrated, supported, condoned, promoted, or preached as acceptable, anywhere in the New Testament.

THis is another often-made statement. I am also starting another thread on this particular question here

[melikio]

One problem, is that some try to see in stark black and white, what is (in reality) actually represented in multiple shades.

1John too often assumes to speak for homosexuals as if his interpretation of what he perceives as the "gay agenda" covers the range of view/opinion or beliefs of ALL homosexual people. This offers a distorted view of the actual range of concerns which exist.

All one must do to consistently see 1John's error (intuitively), is zoom out a bit from where he is focusing attention, and use the good common sense which most reasonable people possess.

This guy is pushing fear, hatred and generally BAD religion. It isn't going to solve the problem or condition of homosexuality, and it doesn't even help the people who happen to be gay; not in any way. The only thing which 1John's view offers, is how terrible he THINKS homosexuality is.

This is what many of those who are anti-gay enjoy promoting; a form of propaganda they presume they are obligated to distribute. And while it is understandable that many people generally possess some consternation (of some sort) about "homosexuality", they do not see it as a "poison" that is going to destroy the world, or as some sinister (imaginary) agenda...etc.

Resonable people realize that homosexual people exist; that homosexuality isn't a direct threat to existing families (or those who wish to start them); that majority of the people who are homosexual are "normal" in every way, not sexual criminals who would abuse children and seek to convert others and deliberately undermine the traditional family structure (certainly not anymore than others already have).

1John promotes some tremendous myths which are merely distortions of truth; expressions of his fears. One thing is clear enough: Homosexuality is NOT what 1John believes or says it is (surely not in an all-encompassing sense). I can accept that 1John hold the views which he does, but I have always encouraged others to be completely objective about his claims.

I've never intended to promote homosexuality here (1John would say "celebrate"), but I always intended to encourage people to treat homosexuals humanely as human beings, deserving of basic human rights and freedoms afforded others in this nation (and others). Mistreatment and abuse of homosexual people IS a real problem, which some desire to sweep under the proverbial rug; never intending to deal with the reality of the existence of homosexuality or homosexual people.

In life these "homosexual" people are our friends, family, professionals, leaders and (dare I say it) clergy in most or many cases. Even if homosexuality is seen as sinful by some, for some reason/s it is still allowed to exist or be an affliction; at the very least, I would perceive it to be something which would be massively challenging to the religious views of anyone who merely wishes to write it off as simply being "wrong". There are many more questions and shades of understanding to explore where it concerns homosexuality, despite what any ONE or many individuals may think/believe about it.

My view of the world isn't apocalyptic (it once was), but if it were, I wouldn't count homosexuality as THE reason God would allow such evil to befall the human race. Still, that's just a matter of faith. And in a world where there are certainly millions of perceptions concerning reality (to include normalcy, nature, faith, hope and love), I think it is both reasonable and practical to allow that which does not infringe upon or pull down the rights/freedoms of others. Hurting homosexual people is the express purpose of some; I can't say strongly enough, that such a purpose should be mitigated or checked by all reasonable and compassionate human beings. Allowing the dehumanization fellow human beings (especially in the name of "God" or "religion") will never do mankind any good (and there are myriad examples in history to support what I'm submitting).

-Mel-

[Wyvern]

Where have I presented a lie? Please illuminate how, in my descriptions of sex, I am wrong, or purposely meant to write a falsehood? I sometimes get bored "smashing the atheist position," not this time, but sometimes I do.

Thats easy, you are lying every time you cart out your,"anatomy, physiology and biology show homosexuality is immoral" argument. I even made a post to help you show us this statement is true but you ignored it and as far as I can tell haven't said it since.

[micatala]

While I don't want to be too egregiously off-topic, since 1John has brought it up, I will also note that he also presented an untrue statement here, in post #6

Subsequently, he did make a gracious admission that this was the case, in the second non-quoted paragraph of post 11.

We also had a whole thread devoted to the statement that humanism and evolution are the same or in the mathematical shorthand'humanism = evolution'.

I don't see how this statement can be taken as anything other than untrue, using any standard definitions of these two words. Certainly those posting in that thread all felt this was obviously an untrue statement, and though motivated by specific instances of 1John making this claim, he did not visit the thread.


At any rate, I would encourage all, in order to determine which statements are true or not when it is possible to do so, to define one's terms, present evidence, and use logic and reasoning. Some statements, of course, are not 'truth statements' but matters of opinion, values, etc., and so are not amenable to us determing there absolute truth or falsity.

[Cathar1950]

Some times his statements are just slander.
Things like liberal Christians are not Christians.
Homosexuals are criminalizing Christians.
There are hedonist pedophiles.

I guess we could make a list.

[micatala]

Such a list would not really be appropriate to the thread, nor in keeping with the rules of the forum. Yes, those of us who have been around for a while get to know each other and what our various positions are. However, the forum is really about debating positions, claims, etc. and not about the nature of the positions, the debating tactics, or grading the quality of the posts of individual members of the forum.

Yes, many of us, including myself, are probably guilty of this occasionally. However, we should not give ourselves license to turn debate threads toward such discussions.