Genetics can rule sexuality
Patrick Dunford
>
>
>Fundie wrote:
>>
>> Some people may be genetically predisposed to alcoholism but that does not
>> justify excessive drinking.
>
>What's Alcoholism got to do with the true love of a man for another man?
Nothing, because there isn't any such "true love".
>
>TTFN
>D.
>
>--
>"Fundamentalists give Christians a bad name."
No, fundamentalists are restoring Christianity from the bad name that
liberals have given it.
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
The LORD detests men of perverse heart but he delights in those
whose ways are blameless.
-- Proverbs 11:20
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20001120
=======================================================================
Created by Mail2Sig - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/software/mail2sig/
Julian S Visch
|> No, fundamentalists are restoring Christianity from the bad name that
|> liberals have given it.
If liberals have given it a bad name, I would hate think how bad a name
the fundies will give to it.
David Murray
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:04:33 +1300 AD in nz.soc.queer, David Murray said:
>
> >
> >
> >Fundie wrote:
> >>
> >> Some people may be genetically predisposed to alcoholism but that does not
> >> justify excessive drinking.
> >
> >What's Alcoholism got to do with the true love of a man for another man?
>
> Nothing, because there isn't any such "true love".
Perhaps you do not know what it is like to truly love another man,
Patrick. If you did, then you wouldn't be burbling such nonsense.
TTFN
D.
--
Cardinal Basil Hume: "Love between two persons, whether of the same sex
or of a different sex, is to be treasured and respected. To love
another, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to have
entered the area of richest human experience."
Patrick Dunford
>
>
>Patrick Dunford wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:04:33 +1300 AD in nz.soc.queer, David Murray said:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Fundie wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Some people may be genetically predisposed to alcoholism but that does not
>> >> justify excessive drinking.
>> >
>> >What's Alcoholism got to do with the true love of a man for another man?
>>
>> Nothing, because there isn't any such "true love".
>
>Perhaps you do not know what it is like to truly love another man,
>Patrick. If you did, then you wouldn't be burbling such nonsense.
Perhaps you do not know what it is like to love God with ALL your heart, ALL
your soul, ALL your mind and ALL your strength. If you did then you wouldn't
be burbling yourself. True love, indeed.
David Murray
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> >> Nothing, because there isn't any such "true love".
> >
> >Perhaps you do not know what it is like to truly love another man,
> >Patrick. If you did, then you wouldn't be burbling such nonsense.
>
> Perhaps you do not know what it is like to love God with ALL your heart, ALL
> your soul, ALL your mind and ALL your strength. If you did then you wouldn't
> be burbling yourself. True love, indeed.
You seem to think that a love of God and a love of another human are
mutually exclusive!
They most certainly are not exclusive. They are both wonderfully
life-affirming.
TTFN
D.
--
"Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest,
Nor shall death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou growest;
So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee."
Sonnet No. 18, by W. Shakespeare.1564 - 1615.
Patrick Dunford
>
>
>Patrick Dunford wrote:
>>
>> >> Nothing, because there isn't any such "true love".
>> >
>> >Perhaps you do not know what it is like to truly love another man,
>> >Patrick. If you did, then you wouldn't be burbling such nonsense.
>>
>> Perhaps you do not know what it is like to love God with ALL your heart, ALL
>> your soul, ALL your mind and ALL your strength. If you did then you wouldn't
>> be burbling yourself. True love, indeed.
>
>You seem to think that a love of God and a love of another human are
>mutually exclusive!
No. However it certainly depends on the type of love. Sexual love is
reserved for between a man and a woman.
>
>They most certainly are not exclusive. They are both wonderfully
>life-affirming.
Homosexual "love" is sinful.
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
"Lord," Martha said to Jesus, "if you had been here, my brother
would not have died."
-- John 11:21
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20001121
David Murray
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> Homosexual "love" is sinful.
Patrick dunford is a stupid git who doesn't know what he's talking about
- he's merely spouting the standard Fundamentalist shite that has
nothing to do with real life!
Perhaps for YOU, paddy, sex with a man would be "sinful". But for a
normal well-adjusted gay man, sex with his partner is a perfectly normal
part of an healthy relationship - no different to any other couple - gay
or otherwise!
Now I don't expect you to understand this - as you are a Fundie. You
appear to be unwilling to learn anything about the nature of Love (not
saying "sex" here), and until you do it will be pointless even trying to
have a conversation with you on this matter. The really ironic thing is
that you *think* you are right. We *know* you are wrong!
TTFN
D.
--
Phil Donahue: "Prejudice is fuelled by fear and ignorance ... Gayness is
not a moral issue - The way people behave is! ... Homophobes have to
realize that, without malice, their failure to change creates an
environment in which fascism is nourished and thrives."
Julian S Visch
|> >You seem to think that a love of God and a love of another human are
|> >mutually exclusive!
|>
|> No. However it certainly depends on the type of love. Sexual love is
|> reserved for between a man and a woman.
Or a man and a man or a woman and a woman, or any three some, or four some.
|> >They most certainly are not exclusive. They are both wonderfully
|> >life-affirming.
|>
|> Homosexual "love" is sinful.
Only in your mind.
John Fulton
<47...@my-deja.com> writes:
:>
:>On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 21:26:36 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, David Murray said:
:>
:>
:>>
:>>
:>>Patrick Dunford wrote:
:>>>
:>>> >> Nothing, because there isn't any such "true love".
:>>> >
:>>> >Perhaps you do not know what it is like to truly love another man,
:>>> >Patrick. If you did, then you wouldn't be burbling such nonsense.
:>>>
:>>> Perhaps you do not know what it is like to love God with ALL your heart, ALL
:>>> your soul, ALL your mind and ALL your strength. If you did then you wouldn't
:>>> be burbling yourself. True love, indeed.
:>>
:>>You seem to think that a love of God and a love of another human are
:>>mutually exclusive!
:>
:>No. However it certainly depends on the type of love. Sexual love is
:>reserved for between a man and a woman.
:>>
:>>They most certainly are not exclusive. They are both wonderfully
:>>life-affirming.
:>
:>Homosexual "love" is sinful.
To use the old Holy Thursday Hymn "Ubi Caritas"
God is love and where true love is found,
God himself is there!
You talk such utter nonsense Patrick.
You really do not now what you are talking about.
Please stop being so silly!
Regards to you all
John Fulton
David Murray
Julian S Visch wrote:
>
> In article <MPG.14872e9e8...@news.clear.net.nz>, Patrick Dunford <47...@my-deja.com> writes:
> |> >You seem to think that a love of God and a love of another human are
> |> >mutually exclusive!
> |>
> |> No. However it certainly depends on the type of love. Sexual love is
> |> reserved for between a man and a woman.
>
> Or a man and a man or a woman and a woman, or any three some, or four some.
Err... "threesomes" or "foursomes" are just plain kinky in my books.
When I make love it is with one man only. You can keep your kinky sex -
I don't consider that to be anything like the "Love" that I was
referring to!
TTFN
D.
Julian S Visch
Not neccesarily all at once, I was referring to married groups as other
cultures have.
David Murray
Julian S Visch wrote:
>
> |> > Or a man and a man or a woman and a woman, or any three some, or four some.
> |>
> |> Err... "threesomes" or "foursomes" are just plain kinky in my books.
> |> When I make love it is with one man only. You can keep your kinky sex -
> |> I don't consider that to be anything like the "Love" that I was
> |> referring to!
>
> Not neccesarily all at once, I was referring to married groups as other
> cultures have.
Err... to which cultures are you referring? And where did you learn
this? Please tell us all about these cultures' practise of group
marriage.
And given that you didn't make it plain in your initial statement that
you were referring to foreign and obscure cultures...
TTFN
D.
Julian S Visch
|> Err... to which cultures are you referring? And where did you learn
|> this? Please tell us all about these cultures' practise of group
|> marriage.
Any culture. I learnt this by reading books on different cultures.
|> And given that you didn't make it plain in your initial statement that
|> you were referring to foreign and obscure cultures...
How can they be foreign if some of them live here?
David Murray
Julian S Visch wrote:
>
> In article <3A1DB9C1...@nosuchserver.com>, David Murray <nospa...@nosuchserver.com> writes:
> |> Err... to which cultures are you referring? And where did you learn
> |> this? Please tell us all about these cultures' practise of group
> |> marriage.
>
> Any culture. I learnt this by reading books on different cultures.
Are you suggesting that Group Marriages are a part of EVERY culture?
Funny thing, but I never even have seen *any* descriptions of group
marriages here in NZ!
> |> And given that you didn't make it plain in your initial statement that
> |> you were referring to foreign and obscure cultures...
>
> How can they be foreign if some of them live here?
Really? Do we have legal group marriage here in NZ? Really???
I think that you have confused Love with Kinky sex, Julian. :o)
TTFN
D.
Julian S Visch
|>
|>
|> Julian S Visch wrote:
|> >
|> > In article <3A1DB9C1...@nosuchserver.com>, David Murray <nospa...@nosuchserver.com> writes:
|> > |> Err... to which cultures are you referring? And where did you learn
|> > |> this? Please tell us all about these cultures' practise of group
|> > |> marriage.
|> >
|> > Any culture. I learnt this by reading books on different cultures.
|>
|> Are you suggesting that Group Marriages are a part of EVERY culture?
|> Funny thing, but I never even have seen *any* descriptions of group
|> marriages here in NZ!
Stop acting like an abcederian.
|> > |> And given that you didn't make it plain in your initial statement that
|> > |> you were referring to foreign and obscure cultures...
|> >
|> > How can they be foreign if some of them live here?
|>
|> Really? Do we have legal group marriage here in NZ? Really???
|>
|> I think that you have confused Love with Kinky sex, Julian. :o)
Poor David is confused, group marriages are recognised in New Zealand,
even if they aren't legal because of restrictive laws pushed on us by
Christians.
David Murray
Julian S Visch wrote:
>
> Poor David is confused, group marriages are recognised in New Zealand,
> even if they aren't legal because of restrictive laws pushed on us by
> Christians.
Recognised by whom?
Certainly not our Government!
TTFN
D.
Calum Bennachie
"David Murray" <nospa...@no.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:3A1DFD54...@no.com.invalid...
Muslim marriages conducted overseas to a second or third wife are legally
recognised by legislation in New Zealand. However, a person seeking a
second or third partner cannot legally get married in New Zealand.
Other cultures where they have legally conducted second or later marriages
recognised by the laws in that country are legally recognised in New Zealand
as well.
Calum
Patrick Dunford
>Patrick Dunford wrote:
>>
>> Homosexual "love" is sinful.
>
>Patrick dunford is a stupid git who doesn't know what he's talking about
>- he's merely spouting the standard Fundamentalist shite that has
>nothing to do with real life!
>
>Perhaps for YOU, paddy, sex with a man would be "sinful". But for a
>normal well-adjusted gay man, sex with his partner is a perfectly normal
>part of an healthy relationship - no different to any other couple - gay
>or otherwise!
When that gay person claims to be a Christian they are coming directly into
conflict with God's law.
>
>Now I don't expect you to understand this - as you are a Fundie. You
>appear to be unwilling to learn anything about the nature of Love (not
>saying "sex" here), and until you do it will be pointless even trying to
>have a conversation with you on this matter. The really ironic thing is
>that you *think* you are right. We *know* you are wrong!
How can you be so sure that you know?
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The
Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he
had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is
for you; do this in remembrance of me."
-- 1 Corinthians 11:23-24
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20001123
Patrick Dunford
>In article <MPG.14872e9e8...@news.clear.net.nz>, Patrick Dunford <47...@my-deja.com> writes:
>|> >You seem to think that a love of God and a love of another human are
>|> >mutually exclusive!
>|>
>|> No. However it certainly depends on the type of love. Sexual love is
>|> reserved for between a man and a woman.
>
>Or a man and a man or a woman and a woman, or any three some, or four some.
Not according to God's law.
>|> >They most certainly are not exclusive. They are both wonderfully
>|> >life-affirming.
>|>
>|> Homosexual "love" is sinful.
>
>Only in your mind.
In God's mind
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The
Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he
had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is
for you; do this in remembrance of me."
-- 1 Corinthians 11:23-24
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20001123
Patrick Dunford
>In message <MPG.14872e9e8...@news.clear.net.nz> - Patrick Dunford
><47...@my-deja.com> writes:
>:>
>:>On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 21:26:36 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, David Murray said:
>:>
>:>
>:>>
>:>>
>:>>Patrick Dunford wrote:
>:>>>
>:>>> >> Nothing, because there isn't any such "true love".
>:>>> >
>:>>> >Perhaps you do not know what it is like to truly love another man,
>:>>> >Patrick. If you did, then you wouldn't be burbling such nonsense.
>:>>>
>:>>> Perhaps you do not know what it is like to love God with ALL your heart, ALL
>:>>> your soul, ALL your mind and ALL your strength. If you did then you wouldn't
>:>>> be burbling yourself. True love, indeed.
>:>>
>:>>You seem to think that a love of God and a love of another human are
>:>>mutually exclusive!
>:>
>:>No. However it certainly depends on the type of love. Sexual love is
>:>reserved for between a man and a woman.
>:>>
>:>>They most certainly are not exclusive. They are both wonderfully
>:>>life-affirming.
>:>
>:>Homosexual "love" is sinful.
>
>To use the old Holy Thursday Hymn "Ubi Caritas"
>
>God is love and where true love is found,
>God himself is there!
Define "true love".
>You talk such utter nonsense Patrick.
No, are you claiming that no kind of "love" can ever be wrong? There are a
number of Biblical references to love that is sin, including to homosexual
love.
>You really do not now what you are talking about.
Yes I do.
>Please stop being so silly!
John John John, please stop claiming you belong to the only true church (or
words to that effect)
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The
Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he
had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is
for you; do this in remembrance of me."
-- 1 Corinthians 11:23-24
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20001123
Julian Visch
By one of our government departments.
Julian Visch
> When that gay person claims to be a Christian they are coming directly into
> conflict with God's law.
Dear oh dear, Patrick claiming Godhood.
Julian Visch
>
> On 23 Nov 2000 03:37:17 GMT AD in nz.soc.religion, Julian S Visch said:
>
> >|> >You seem to think that a love of God and a love of another human are
> >|> >mutually exclusive!
> >|>
> >|> No. However it certainly depends on the type of love. Sexual love is
> >|> reserved for between a man and a woman.
> >
> >Or a man and a man or a woman and a woman, or any three some, or four some.
>
>
> >|> >life-affirming.
> >|>
> >|> Homosexual "love" is sinful.
> >
> >Only in your mind.
>
Let me repeat, there are no gods, your bible does not condemn
homosexuality.
So it is all in your perverted mind.
David Murray
Calum Bennachie wrote:
>
> > Recognised by whom?
> > Certainly not our Government!
>
> Muslim marriages conducted overseas to a second or third wife are legally
> recognised by legislation in New Zealand. However, a person seeking a
> second or third partner cannot legally get married in New Zealand.
Yes, your point is well made about islam. But what had mentioned was
"threesomes" and "foursomes" - not polygamy - in response to a
discussion about "Love", I then said that when I had "love" in mind I
was not meaning kinky group sex stuff.
> Other cultures where they have legally conducted second or later marriages
> recognised by the laws in that country are legally recognised in New Zealand
> as well.
And is there more than one man in these marriages? Isn't islamic
polygamy basicly one man with more than one wife?
TTFN
D.
David Murray
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> >Now I don't expect you to understand this - as you are a Fundie. You
> >appear to be unwilling to learn anything about the nature of Love (not
> >saying "sex" here), and until you do it will be pointless even trying to
> >have a conversation with you on this matter. The really ironic thing is
> >that you *think* you are right. We *know* you are wrong!
>
> How can you be so sure that you know?
Patrick, when you are willingly prepared - without hesitation, as I have
been in the past, to put the needs and welfare and safety of another
person before your own - because your principle concern at that time is
protecting your partner from danger and harm, *then* you can say you
know something - just a litle something - about the power of love. If
life with your partner, sharing your day, your successes, your feelings,
your hopes, with your partner to care for and to see him succeed at his
endevours, and vica versa, brings you more satisfaction than anything
else you can do, and if the thought of life without your partner is an
unspeakably dark abyss, *then* you can say you know something about the
power of love to transform and to strengthen your life. Until then...
you don't know what you're burbling about! You're speaking from theory -
not from reality.
This is one reason why I can say I know something on this subject!
So. Are you suitably qualified, Patrick? Or are you speaking from
theory?
TTFN
D.
Patrick Dunford
I know what you are talking about. But you can do all that without having a
sexual relationship with that person, and sexual love for a person of the
same sex is unnatural and sinful in God's eyes.
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The
Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he
had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is
for you; do this in remembrance of me."
-- 1 Corinthians 11:23-24
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20001123
John Fulton
<47...@my-deja.com> writes:
:>
:>On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:54:35 AD in nz.soc.religion, John Fulton said:
:>
Snip...
:>>:>
:>>:>Homosexual "love" is sinful.
:>>
:>>To use the old Holy Thursday Hymn "Ubi Caritas"
:>>
:>>God is love and where true love is found,
:>>God himself is there!
:>
:>Define "true love".
:>
I do not try to define that too closely. When two people tell me that they
have a fulfilling and loving relationship who am I to tell them otherwise?
In the same way the Jesus did not judge the prostitute in John 8 so do I not
judge others relationships.
When David tells me that he has a loving relationship with a man, then who am
I to tell him otherwise?
I am sure that in the same circumstances Our Lord would not judge him!
He might tell him to "Go and sin no more" but he would not get into a long
disserattion about what sin is.
:>>You talk such utter nonsense Patrick.
:>
:>No, are you claiming that no kind of "love" can ever be wrong? There are a
:>number of Biblical references to love that is sin, including to homosexual
:>love.
I am not prepared to talk about "kinds of love" Our Lord did not talk about
kinds of love at all. He just talked about love, and unconditional love at
that. I am not prepared to limit what that might mean.
:>
:>>You really do not now what you are talking about.
:>
:>Yes I do.
You certainly do not give that impression in your writings on this newsgroup.
We may just be misundrstanding you litterary efforts. If so please write more
fully and concisely so that we may understand where exactly you are coming
from.
:>
:>>Please stop being so silly!
:>
:>John John John, please stop claiming you belong to the only true church (or
:>words to that effect)
Why not? You seem to be making the same claim with a much more slender
authority for doing so! I certainly belong to a church that has history and
the Holy Bible on its side, you do not appear to.
:>
David Murray
Well... all the evidence from your one-sentence replies points to the
contrary!
> But you can do all that without having a
> sexual relationship with that person, and sexual love for a person of the
> same sex is unnatural and sinful in God's eyes.
Well, given that a spirit does not have "eyes" - you've made a really
stupid statement!
And given the Church's teaching on the nature of love (a sumary can be
found in 1 corinthians 13) you are again spouting stuff of which you
seem to be totally ignorant!
Are you advocating that people be celebate in marriage? That's what it
sounds like to me - because I am talking of the love that a person has
for their life-partner, their husband/wife/other-half, their soul-mate,
the person to whom one is perpared to be faithful - forsaking all other!
It is clear that you don't know the meaning of the word "love" - or else
you wouldn't be posting the sort of crap that you do!
TTFN
D.
--
"If The President Calls GET HIS NAME!!!"
Brian Tozer
David Murray <nospa...@no.spam.com.invalid> wrote in message
> Patrick Dunford wrote:
> It is clear that you don't know the meaning of the word "love" - or else
> you wouldn't be posting the sort of crap that you do!
You are treating Patrick as if he is a sentient being with free will and
cognitive powers.
This is very obviously not so.
Patrick has completely suppressed any intellectual skills of perception that
he may have been born with, and is nothing more than a roboposter parroting
the fundiedogma that has infected his mind and atrophied his brain.
What other explanation is there for him spewing out the fundie crap that
intelligent enquiring Christians discovered did not fit the reality of the
natural world over 250 years ago.
No intelligent human, with no expertise or knowledge in the natural
sciences, would demonstrate the arrant stupidity of claiming that the bulk
of discovered science is all wrong, and treat the Bible as a scientific
textbook.
But that is what the fundieloonies are doing.
It wouldn't be so bad if Patrick occasionaly came up with a constructive
conribution, but his posts are totally bereft of intelligent comment or
contributions, and are limited to infantile "is so", "is not" totally
predictable responses.
He just makes himself look more and more ridiculous with every post.
Oh, for an intelligent fundie so that we could really look at a creationist
claim rigorously.
Evidently the intelligent fundies are no longer fundies and only the really
stupid and willfully ignorant are left.
Brian Tozer
Calum Bennachie
"Patrick Dunford" <47...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14892715b...@news.clear.net.nz...
So would you accept teachings from the Bhagavad-Gita. Or the Q'uran? Or
the sacred books of any other religion?
Calum
Calum Bennachie
"David Murray" <nospa...@no.com.invalid> wrote in message
>
>
> Calum Bennachie wrote:
> >
> > > Recognised by whom?
> > > Certainly not our Government!
> >
> > Muslim marriages conducted overseas to a second or third wife are
legally
> > recognised by legislation in New Zealand. However, a person seeking a
> > second or third partner cannot legally get married in New Zealand.
>
> Yes, your point is well made about islam. But what had mentioned was
> "threesomes" and "foursomes" - not polygamy - in response to a
> discussion about "Love", I then said that when I had "love" in mind I
> was not meaning kinky group sex stuff.
I read the posting as polygamy, not "kinky group sex stuff".
> > Other cultures where they have legally conducted second or later
marriages
> > recognised by the laws in that country are legally recognised in New
Zealand
> > as well.
>
> And is there more than one man in these marriages? Isn't islamic
> polygamy basicly one man with more than one wife?
>
> TTFN
> D.
Yes, that is true for Islam, but there are other cultures where a woman can
have more than one legal husband, and there are cultures where a woman can
marry a woman- note the divorce between two women that the courts in Kenya
had to deal with last year.
Calum
Calum Bennachie
> On 23 Nov 2000 03:37:17 GMT AD in nz.soc.religion, Julian S Visch said:
>
Dunford <47...@my-deja.com> writes:
> >|> >You seem to think that a love of God and a love of another human are
> >|> >mutually exclusive!
> >|>
> >|> No. However it certainly depends on the type of love. Sexual love is
> >|> reserved for between a man and a woman.
> >
> >Or a man and a man or a woman and a woman, or any three some, or four
some.
>
>
> >|> >life-affirming.
> >|>
> >|> Homosexual "love" is sinful.
> >
> >Only in your mind.
>
>
> --
> =======================================================================
> Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
Would you accept the Q'uran as having authority over your life? Or the
Bhagavad-Gita, or any other sacred text?
Calum
Calum Bennachie
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:25:18 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, David Murray
said:
>
>
> >Patrick Dunford wrote:
> >>
> >> Homosexual "love" is sinful.
> >
> >Patrick dunford is a stupid git who doesn't know what he's talking about
> >- he's merely spouting the standard Fundamentalist shite that has
> >nothing to do with real life!
> >
> >Perhaps for YOU, paddy, sex with a man would be "sinful". But for a
> >normal well-adjusted gay man, sex with his partner is a perfectly normal
> >part of an healthy relationship - no different to any other couple - gay
> >or otherwise!
>
into
> conflict with God's law.
>
> =======================================================================
> Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
And where does it say that in the Bible Patrick? And what parts of God's
Law? No such thing appears in the Ten Commandments. No such thing appears
in the Commandments of Jesus. There is no phrase in the Bible which speaks
of "gay people". That phrase is a modern construct dating from the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century.
Calum
David Murray
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> >It is clear that you don't know the meaning of the word "love" - or else
> >you wouldn't be posting the sort of crap that you do!
>
> It is clear that you don't know what God's standard of love is.
Err... St John 3:16 is God's standard of love!
TTFN
D.
Patrick Dunford
Really. There are many Bible verses that refer to God having eyes and
seeing. Try reading them sometime.
>And given the Church's teaching on the nature of love (a sumary can be
>found in 1 corinthians 13) you are again spouting stuff of which you
>seem to be totally ignorant!
Really. Does it say that all love fits that category?
>Are you advocating that people be celebate in marriage? That's what it
>sounds like to me - because I am talking of the love that a person has
>for their life-partner, their husband/wife/other-half, their soul-mate,
>the person to whom one is perpared to be faithful - forsaking all other!
Marriage is for a man and a woman. Try seeing it that way not twisting it to
perverted gay marriage which has never been God's intent.
>It is clear that you don't know the meaning of the word "love" - or else
>you wouldn't be posting the sort of crap that you do!
It is clear that you don't know what God's standard of love is.
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a
great number of people were brought to the Lord.
-- Acts 11:24
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20001124
Patrick Dunford
said:
You are engaging in selective interpretation, quite trendy in liberal
churches with falling adherency rates.
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a
Patrick Dunford
>In message <MPG.1488ec4ec...@news.clear.net.nz> - Patrick Dunford
><47...@my-deja.com> writes:
>:>
>:>On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:54:35 AD in nz.soc.religion, John Fulton said:
>:>
>Snip...
>
>:>>:>
>:>>:>Homosexual "love" is sinful.
>:>>
>:>>To use the old Holy Thursday Hymn "Ubi Caritas"
>:>>
>:>>God is love and where true love is found,
>:>>God himself is there!
>:>
>:>Define "true love".
>:>
>I do not try to define that too closely. When two people tell me that they
>have a fulfilling and loving relationship who am I to tell them otherwise?
>
>In the same way the Jesus did not judge the prostitute in John 8 so do I not
>judge others relationships.
Jesus judged her sin as is very clear by the statement "Go and sin no more".
>When David tells me that he has a loving relationship with a man, then who am
>I to tell him otherwise?
>
>I am sure that in the same circumstances Our Lord would not judge him!
How can you be so sure?
>He might tell him to "Go and sin no more" but he would not get into a long
>disserattion about what sin is.
It was very clear at least to the woman and Jesus as to what He was
referrring to.
>:>>You talk such utter nonsense Patrick.
>:>
>:>No, are you claiming that no kind of "love" can ever be wrong? There are a
>:>number of Biblical references to love that is sin, including to homosexual
>:>love.
>
>I am not prepared to talk about "kinds of love" Our Lord did not talk about
>kinds of love at all. He just talked about love, and unconditional love at
>that. I am not prepared to limit what that might mean.
Wrong, John. There are quite a number of words in the Greek commonly
translated as "love". But in any verse in which God's love (unconditional or
not) is referred to, one word, agape, is used. That isn't the love of money,
or sexual love, or brotherly love (phileo), as they are all referred to by
different words. We will find from an intelligent study of the New Testament
that Jesus made a number of references to love using different words.
>:>>Please stop being so silly!
>:>
>:>John John John, please stop claiming you belong to the only true church (or
>:>words to that effect)
>
>Why not? You seem to be making the same claim with a much more slender
>authority for doing so! I certainly belong to a church that has history and
>the Holy Bible on its side, you do not appear to.
Is your history and tradition more important than the Bible?
David Murray
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> Is your history and tradition more important than the Bible?
Of course! After all, WE wrote the Christian scriptures, and WE decided
what would be within the Canon now called Biblia Sacra. The tradition
tells us where we have been, and also, where we are heading. Without the
tradition of the Church even the Bible is meaningless - as it is
interpreted in the light of our tradition.
Sola Scriptura is an heresy!
TTFN
D.
--
Jim Shumard: "A literal literalist, as popularly known as the people who
believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, really ought to be reading it in
its original language and attempting to make decisions about which of
the ancient manuscripts is not only the most accurate, but the only
accurate.
A literal literalist, if they were not willing to learn the ancient
languages, would have to decide which translation is the only
translation and look at the translation word by word to decide how each
translator translated the original word.
A literal literalist needs to understand that they are really
traditionalists and that they believe in the historic episcopate, for it
was the Councils of Bishops who decided which books would be considered
Canon. When literalists say they are trusting the Bible, they really
trusting those Councils and those who translated it and trusting those
scholars' choices of ancient manuscripts. And then they are trusting
either their ministers' interpretation of it or their own."
Patrick Dunford
>
>
>Patrick Dunford wrote:
>>
>> Is your history and tradition more important than the Bible?
>
>Of course! After all, WE wrote the Christian scriptures,
Which book did you write David?
>and WE decided
>what would be within the Canon now called Biblia Sacra.
Are you that old?
>The tradition
>tells us where we have been, and also, where we are heading. Without the
>tradition of the Church even the Bible is meaningless - as it is
>interpreted in the light of our tradition.
Your church may make tradition more important than the Bible, but the true
followers of Jesus see this heresy for what it is.
Patrick Dunford
>
>
>Patrick Dunford wrote:
>>
>> >It is clear that you don't know the meaning of the word "love" - or else
>> >you wouldn't be posting the sort of crap that you do!
>>
>> It is clear that you don't know what God's standard of love is.
>
>Err... St John 3:16 is God's standard of love!
Which kind of love is that?
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a
great number of people were brought to the Lord.
-- Acts 11:24
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20001124
Calum Bennachie
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 15:06:38 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, Calum Bennachie
> said:
>
> >
> churches with falling adherency rates.
>
> --
> Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
Then explain "where" the Bible contains the phrase "gay people". Point out,
exactly, where in the Decalogue it says anything about homosexuality. Point
out, exactly, where the three Commandments of Jesus say anything about
homosexuality. Point out, exactly where, Jesus actually said anything about
homosexuality. You failed the last time. You had to refer to Paul and
other writings.
Calum
Patrick Dunford
said:
That's your phrase, not mine.
There are clear references in both the new and old testaments to
homosexuality.
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a
David Murray
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> >> Is your history and tradition more important than the Bible?
> >
> >Of course! After all, WE wrote the Christian scriptures,
>
> Which book did you write David?
Not me myself, Paddy. By "We" I am referring to other, earlier, members
of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
> >and WE decided
> >what would be within the Canon now called Biblia Sacra.
>
> Are you that old?
I have been around a bit. :o)
> >The tradition
> >tells us where we have been, and also, where we are heading. Without the
> >tradition of the Church even the Bible is meaningless - as it is
> >interpreted in the light of our tradition.
>
> Your church may make tradition more important than the Bible, but the true
> followers of Jesus see this heresy for what it is.
LOL - tell us another joke, Paddy.
TTFN
D.
David Murray
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> >> It is clear that you don't know what God's standard of love is.
> >
> >Err... St John 3:16 is God's standard of love!
>
> Which kind of love is that?
It's the kind of love that puts another's welfare before your own - the
kind of love that considers the other before considering self, the kind
of love that is committed to the object of one's affection to the extent
that one is prepared to die if that ensures the safety and security of
one's family/partner/beloved.
Didn't you know that?
TTFN
D.
John Fulton
<47...@my-deja.com>Sat, 25 Nov 2000 22:49:28 +1300 writes:
:>
:>On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:56:03 AD in nz.soc.religion, John Fulton said:
:>
:>>In message <MPG.1488ec4ec...@news.clear.net.nz> - Patrick Dunford
:>><47...@my-deja.com> writes:
:>>:>
:>>:>On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:54:35 AD in nz.soc.religion, John Fulton said:
:>>:>
:>>Snip...
:>>
:>>:>>:>
:>>:>>:>Homosexual "love" is sinful.
:>>:>>
:>>:>>To use the old Holy Thursday Hymn "Ubi Caritas"
:>>:>>
:>>:>>God is love and where true love is found,
:>>:>>God himself is there!
:>>:>
:>>:>Define "true love".
:>>:>
:>>I do not try to define that too closely. When two people tell me that they
:>>have a fulfilling and loving relationship who am I to tell them otherwise?
:>>
:>>In the same way the Jesus did not judge the prostitute in John 8 so do I not
:>>judge others relationships.
:>Jesus judged her sin as is very clear by the statement "Go and sin no more".
You are now making assumptions about what Jesus said. How do you know he was
referring to any specific sin? He never talked about a specific sin in that
encounter did he?
:>
:>>When David tells me that he has a loving relationship with a man, then who am
:>>I to tell him otherwise?
:>>
:>>I am sure that in the same circumstances Our Lord would not judge him!
:>
:>How can you be so sure?
Because of his message of love that he produced repeatedly in the Gospels.
:>
:>>He might tell him to "Go and sin no more" but he would not get into a long
:>>disserattion about what sin is.
:>
:>It was very clear at least to the woman and Jesus as to what He was
:>referrring to.
How do you know what he was referring to? It may well have been clear to
Jesus and the woman, but you are making gross assumptions in assuming that sex
was the sin being referred to!
:>
:>>:>>You talk such utter nonsense Patrick.
:>>:>
:>>:>No, are you claiming that no kind of "love" can ever be wrong? There are a
:>>:>number of Biblical references to love that is sin, including to homosexual
:>>:>love.
:>>
:>>I am not prepared to talk about "kinds of love" Our Lord did not talk about
:>>kinds of love at all. He just talked about love, and unconditional love at
:>>that. I am not prepared to limit what that might mean.
:>
:>Wrong, John. There are quite a number of words in the Greek commonly
:>translated as "love". But in any verse in which God's love (unconditional or
:>not) is referred to, one word, agape, is used. That isn't the love of money,
:>or sexual love, or brotherly love (phileo), as they are all referred to by
:>different words. We will find from an intelligent study of the New Testament
:>that Jesus made a number of references to love using different words.
These have all been recently discussed by others more competent than me on
this newsgroup recently, and none have the meaning that you wish to ascribe to
them.
I repeat that Our Lord never sais that homosexuality was a sin, he never said
that homosexual sex was a sin, he never said that homosexual relationships
were a sin! You are takig the place of God n trying to defing these as sins!
That it would seem to me to be one of the seven deadly sins - that of pride.
:>
:>>:>>Please stop being so silly!
:>>:>
:>>:>John John John, please stop claiming you belong to the only true church (or
:>>:>words to that effect)
:>>
:>>Why not? You seem to be making the same claim with a much more slender
:>>authority for doing so! I certainly belong to a church that has history and
:>>the Holy Bible on its side, you do not appear to.
:>
:>Is your history and tradition more important than the Bible?
No, the bible has equal authority to the history and tradition of the Church -
both are important and one does not surmount the other. I would never say,
and have never said that the bible is unimportant. Please read what I have
said before. You are deliberately misinterpreting the Holy Bible for your own
selfish ends.
John Fulton
<47...@my-deja.com>Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:32:50 +1300 writes:
:>
:>On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:07:11 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, Calum Bennachie
There are NOT. Please clearly show these and how they refer to homosexuality
as a sin.
Regards
John Fulton
Calum Bennachie
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:07:11 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, Calum Bennachie
> said:
>
> >
> >"Patrick Dunford" <47...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.148a50925...@news.clear.net.nz...
> >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 15:06:38 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, Calum
Bennachie
> >> said:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Patrick Dunford" <47...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:MPG.1488ebc2f...@news.clear.net.nz...
> >> >> On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:25:18 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, David
Murray
> >> >said:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Patrick Dunford wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Homosexual "love" is sinful.
No Patrick, the phrase "gay person" was used by you above. Explain where it
appears in the Bible. Where are these "references in both the new and old
testaments to homosexuality"?
Calum
Allistar Melville
Hang on a minute. You have been condeming homosexuality as a sin for
ages, now you are more specific and are condeming sexual relationships
betwen people of the same gender.
Well, which is it that you condemn?
Do you know the difference between the two?
>Patrick Dunford
Allistar.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Allistar Melville (BSc) Home: alli...@ihug.co.nz \_
Software Developer Work: alli...@focussoft.co.nz </'
Auckland, NEW ZEALAND /)
(/`
"Science built the Academy, superstition the inquisition."
[Robert G. Ingersoll]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dunford
>
>
>Patrick Dunford wrote:
>>
>> >> Is your history and tradition more important than the Bible?
>> >
>> >Of course! After all, WE wrote the Christian scriptures,
>>
>> Which book did you write David?
>
>Not me myself, Paddy. By "We" I am referring to other, earlier, members
>of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
That's every Christian, including me. We all belong to Christ's Body, the
church.
Your "church" is a religious institution built of dead bricks, not the
living stones, the people.
>> >The tradition
>> >tells us where we have been, and also, where we are heading. Without the
>> >tradition of the Church even the Bible is meaningless - as it is
>> >interpreted in the light of our tradition.
>>
>> Your church may make tradition more important than the Bible, but the true
>> followers of Jesus see this heresy for what it is.
>
>LOL - tell us another joke, Paddy.
Sure mate, just as soon as you explain why the biggest Anglican churches are
charismatic.
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
"Whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you
believe this?"
-- John 11:26
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20001126
Patrick Dunford
It's called Agape, and is not human in form.
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
"Whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you
believe this?"
-- John 11:26
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20001126
Patrick Dunford
said:
You know perfectly well where they are
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
"Whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you
believe this?"
-- John 11:26
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20001126
Patrick Dunford
>In message <MPG.148a52082...@news.clear.net.nz> - Patrick Dunford
><47...@my-deja.com>Sat, 25 Nov 2000 22:49:28 +1300 writes:
>:>
>:>On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:56:03 AD in nz.soc.religion, John Fulton said:
>:>
>:>>In message <MPG.1488ec4ec...@news.clear.net.nz> - Patrick Dunford
>:>><47...@my-deja.com> writes:
>:>>:>
>:>>:>On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:54:35 AD in nz.soc.religion, John Fulton said:
>:>>:>
>:>>Snip...
>:>>
>:>>:>>:>
>:>>:>>:>Homosexual "love" is sinful.
>:>>:>>
>:>>:>>To use the old Holy Thursday Hymn "Ubi Caritas"
>:>>:>>
>:>>:>>God is love and where true love is found,
>:>>:>>God himself is there!
>:>>:>
>:>>:>Define "true love".
>:>>:>
>:>>I do not try to define that too closely. When two people tell me that they
>:>>have a fulfilling and loving relationship who am I to tell them otherwise?
>:>>
>:>>In the same way the Jesus did not judge the prostitute in John 8 so do I not
>:>>judge others relationships.
>:>
>:>Jesus judged her sin as is very clear by the statement "Go and sin no more".
>
>You are now making assumptions about what Jesus said. How do you know he was
>referring to any specific sin? He never talked about a specific sin in that
>encounter did he?
No, clearly he was referring to all sin, not some.
>:>>When David tells me that he has a loving relationship with a man, then who am
>:>>I to tell him otherwise?
>:>>
>:>>I am sure that in the same circumstances Our Lord would not judge him!
>:>
>:>How can you be so sure?
>
>Because of his message of love that he produced repeatedly in the Gospels.
The same gospels contain messages of judgement. One complements the other.
>:>
>:>>He might tell him to "Go and sin no more" but he would not get into a long
>:>>disserattion about what sin is.
>:>
>:>It was very clear at least to the woman and Jesus as to what He was
>:>referrring to.
>
>How do you know what he was referring to? It may well have been clear to
>Jesus and the woman, but you are making gross assumptions in assuming that sex
>was the sin being referred to!
OK. We assume from your comment that sexual sin does exist. If Jesus
referred in the statement to all sins then that included sexual sin. The
whole context of the passage is a discussion about adultery.
>
>:>
>:>>:>>You talk such utter nonsense Patrick.
>:>>:>
>:>>:>No, are you claiming that no kind of "love" can ever be wrong? There are a
>:>>:>number of Biblical references to love that is sin, including to homosexual
>:>>:>love.
>:>>
>:>>I am not prepared to talk about "kinds of love" Our Lord did not talk about
>:>>kinds of love at all. He just talked about love, and unconditional love at
>:>>that. I am not prepared to limit what that might mean.
>:>
>:>Wrong, John. There are quite a number of words in the Greek commonly
>:>translated as "love". But in any verse in which God's love (unconditional or
>:>not) is referred to, one word, agape, is used. That isn't the love of money,
>:>or sexual love, or brotherly love (phileo), as they are all referred to by
>:>different words. We will find from an intelligent study of the New Testament
>:>that Jesus made a number of references to love using different words.
>
>These have all been recently discussed by others more competent than me on
>this newsgroup recently, and none have the meaning that you wish to ascribe to
>them.
That's not very convincing. Try harder.
>I repeat that Our Lord never sais that homosexuality was a sin, he never said
>that homosexual sex was a sin, he never said that homosexual relationships
>were a sin! You are takig the place of God n trying to defing these as sins!
I am not. God inspired his apostles, prophets and leaders to write elsewhere
about it in the Bible. Jesus referred to those passages.
>:>>:>>Please stop being so silly!
>:>>:>
>:>>:>John John John, please stop claiming you belong to the only true church (or
>:>>:>words to that effect)
>:>>
>:>>Why not? You seem to be making the same claim with a much more slender
>:>>authority for doing so! I certainly belong to a church that has history and
>:>>the Holy Bible on its side, you do not appear to.
>:>
>:>Is your history and tradition more important than the Bible?
>
>No, the bible has equal authority to the history and tradition of the Church -
Why?
>both are important and one does not surmount the other.
Why?
>I would never say,
>and have never said that the bible is unimportant. Please read what I have
>said before. You are deliberately misinterpreting the Holy Bible for your own
>selfish ends.
What selfish ends?
Patrick Dunford
snip
>:>There are clear references in both the new and old testaments to
>:>homosexuality.
>:>
>There are NOT.
Wrong.
> Please clearly show these and how they refer to homosexuality
>as a sin.
Can't you read?
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
"Whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you
believe this?"
-- John 11:26
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20001126
Calum Bennachie
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:19:03 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, Calum Bennachie
> >> >> >"Patrick Dunford" <47...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:MPG.1488ebc2f...@news.clear.net.nz...
> >> >> >> On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:25:18 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, David
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Homosexual "love" is sinful.
<snip>
> >> >> >> When that gay person claims to be a Christian they are coming
directly
> >> >> >> into conflict with God's law.
> ><snip>
> >=======================================================================
> >> >> >> Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ -
http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And where does it say that in the Bible Patrick? And what parts of
God's
> >> >> >Law? No such thing appears in the Ten Commandments. No such thing
> >> >> >appears
> >> >> >in the Commandments of Jesus. There is no phrase in the Bible
which
> >> >> >speaks of "gay people". That phrase is a modern construct dating
from the late
> >> >> >nineteenth and early twentieth century.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are engaging in selective interpretation, quite trendy in
liberal
> >> >> churches with falling adherency rates.
> >> >>
> >> >> Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
> >> >
> >> >Then explain "where" the Bible contains the phrase "gay people".
> >>
> >> That's your phrase, not mine.
> >>
> >> There are clear references in both the new and old testaments to
> >> homosexuality.
> >> Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
> >
> >No Patrick, the phrase "gay person" was used by you above. Explain where
it
> >appears in the Bible. Where are these "references in both the new and
old
> >testaments to homosexuality"?
>
> You know perfectly well where they are
> Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
There is no reference to homosexuality in the Decalogue or in the three
commandments of Jesus. There is no reference to homosexuality as we know it
today in the bible. There are words which have been translated in error to
*mean* homosexuality, but the Greek word, katapugon, that was in use during
the period the New Testament was written that means anything similar to what
we would call homosexuality was never used.
Now, tell me where these presumed references are.
Calum
Patrick Dunford
said:
There are no references in statements Jesus made. The three commandments are
irrelevant because they never purported to be an entire statement of laws
relating to sexual behaviour or anything else.
> There is no reference to homosexuality as we know it
>today in the bible. There are words which have been translated in error to
>*mean* homosexuality, but the Greek word, katapugon, that was in use during
>the period the New Testament was written that means anything similar to what
>we would call homosexuality was never used.
This does not include the Old Testament references, even if it were true,
which I doubt.
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
"Whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you
Julian S Visch
|> >No Patrick, the phrase "gay person" was used by you above. Explain where it
|> >appears in the Bible. Where are these "references in both the new and old
|> >testaments to homosexuality"?
|>
|> You know perfectly well where they are
We know where you think they are.
David Murray
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> >> Your church may make tradition more important than the Bible, but the true
> >> followers of Jesus see this heresy for what it is.
> >
> >LOL - tell us another joke, Paddy.
>
> Sure mate, just as soon as you explain why the biggest Anglican churches are
> charismatic.
Since when!
The two biggest parishes in the Wellignton Diocese (do you know what a
Diocese is?) are All Saints' Palmerson North, and Wellington Cathedral,
Thorndon. Neither of them are "charismatic", in fact far from it! One is
part Traditionalist and part evangelical AND part Liberal, and the other
is staunchly Traditional AND Liberal. I am intimately familiar with both
of those parishes - as I have been associated with one for 5 years, and
the other... since I converted to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church after having been a Pentecostal!
What the hey - I've even had deliverance sessions in my own lounge where
the person being prayed for was wriggling around on the floor, etc.
There is NOTHING to do with the Pentecostal cults that I have not seen
or participated in when I was a Pentecostal. Now that I am a member of
the Catholic (not Roman!) Church I have entered into the fullness of the
Gospel as taught by Jesus.
Also, you claim (spuriously) that you are a part of the Catholic Church.
IF you are, then you would have been baptised in a parish by your
Priest, and most probably confirmed by your Bishop.
Who is your Priest, and Who is your Bishop, and What is the name of your
Parish (name the Diocese as well please) And WHEN were you baptised.
Your name will be in the parish's register and we will be able to prove
conclusively that you are indeed a baptised member of the Catholic
Church!
IF you cannot present this evidence, or if your Priest (or some other
duly recognised officer in your Parish) cannot destify on your behalf,
then it is most doubtful that you be a member of Christ's Body, the
Church! It is certain from your posts that you have little idea (if any)
as to what the Catholic Faith is - or even what the Gospel is!
David Murray
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> >Patrick Dunford wrote:
> >>
> >> >> It is clear that you don't know what God's standard of love is.
> >> >
> >> >Err... St John 3:16 is God's standard of love!
> >>
> >> Which kind of love is that?
> >
> >It's the kind of love that puts another's welfare before your own - the
> >kind of love that considers the other before considering self, the kind
> >of love that is committed to the object of one's affection to the extent
> >that one is prepared to die if that ensures the safety and security of
> >one's family/partner/beloved.
> >
> >Didn't you know that?
>
> It's called Agape, and is not human in form.
LOL!
It is a very human form of love. In fact it is the quintessential
foundation to any committed, long-term same-sex (or opposite-sex)
relationship.
All I've seen is that you may have heard a sermon on the 4 Greek words
that are rendered into English as "Love"! You've possibly proven nothing
other than that!
EVEN I learned *that* information when I became an Anglican about 12 or
so years ago!
TTFN
D.
--
"The relationship between the Welsh and the English is based on trust
and understanding. The Welsh don't trust the English, and the English
don't understand the Welsh."
David Murray
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> >> >Then explain "where" the Bible contains the phrase "gay people".
> >>
> >> That's your phrase, not mine.
> >> There are clear references in both the new and old testaments to
> >> homosexuality.
> >>
> >No Patrick, the phrase "gay person" was used by you above. Explain where it
> >appears in the Bible. Where are these "references in both the new and old
> >testaments to homosexuality"?
>
> You know perfectly well where they are
Well, Paddy doesn't - because IF he did, then he would have cited them!
The fact that no one else can find "gay person" in the Bible is, of
course, inconsequential to him!
TTFN
D.
--
Winston Churchill: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't
change the subject."
David Murray
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> >You are now making assumptions about what Jesus said. How do you know he was
> >referring to any specific sin? He never talked about a specific sin in that
> >encounter did he?
>
> No, clearly he was referring to all sin, not some.
Clearly he was addressing the Pharasees in that sentence - as they were
the ones who were trying to trap Jesus. The poor woman was unfortunately
caught in the middle of their machinations.
> >:>>I am sure that in the same circumstances Our Lord would not judge him!
> >:>
> >:>How can you be so sure?
> >
> >Because of his message of love that he produced repeatedly in the Gospels.
>
> The same gospels contain messages of judgement. One complements the other.
Yes, Patrick. Jesus was very critical of the hypocratical Pharasees. He
was as critical of them as he would be of the Fundies today. After all,
both groups totally misunderstand what God wants of them - and,
interestingly, they've missed the plot in exactly the same way!
TTFN
D.
--
Cardinal Basil Hume: "Love between two persons, whether of the same sex
or of a different sex, is to be treasured and respected. To love
another, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to have
entered the area of richest human experience."
David Murray
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> >:>Is your history and tradition more important than the Bible?
> >
> >No, the bible has equal authority to the history and tradition of the Church -
>
> Why?
>
> >both are important and one does not surmount the other.
>
> Why?
Because the Bible is a collection of historical documents that have
always been interpreted in their historical/traditional context. All the
books/letters in the New Testament were written well after the Church
was founded. We were around for ages before we started writing and
compiling our earliest literature. The various collections of books
known as the Holy Bible contains the texts that the catholic Church
considers to be sacred. We came to this conclusion many years after they
were written. We came to that conclusion via one of the early Ecumenical
Synods - a part of the governing structure of the Traditional Catholic
Church. WE gave the Bible it's authority, WE wrote it, and WE interpret
it via OUR tradition. The Fundies merely serve to ridicule themselves by
their ridiculous attitudes and their hateful retorick.
TTFN
D.
John Fulton
<47...@my-deja.com> writes:
:>
:>On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:19:03 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, Calum Bennachie
You know perfectly well that you are unable to find them to justify your
misinterpretation of Holy Scripture as it as been handed down to us.
John Fulton
<47...@my-deja.com> writes:
:>
:>On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:12:11 AD in nz.soc.religion, John Fulton said:
:>
:>>In message <MPG.148a52082...@news.clear.net.nz> - Patrick Dunford
:>><47...@my-deja.com>Sat, 25 Nov 2000 22:49:28 +1300 writes:
:>>:>
:>>:>On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:56:03 AD in nz.soc.religion, John Fulton said:
:>>:>
:>>:>>In message <MPG.1488ec4ec...@news.clear.net.nz> - Patrick Dunford
:>>:>><47...@my-deja.com> writes:
:>>:>>:>
:>>:>>:>On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:54:35 AD in nz.soc.religion, John Fulton said:
:>>:>>:>
:>>:>>Snip...
:>>:>>
:>>:>>:>>:>
:>>:>>:>>:>Homosexual "love" is sinful.
:>>:>>:>>
:>>:>>:>>To use the old Holy Thursday Hymn "Ubi Caritas"
:>>:>>:>>
:>>:>>:>>God is love and where true love is found,
:>>:>>:>>God himself is there!
:>>:>>:>
:>>:>>:>Define "true love".
:>>:>>:>
:>>:>>I do not try to define that too closely. When two people tell me that they
:>>:>>have a fulfilling and loving relationship who am I to tell them otherwise?
:>>:>>
:>>:>>In the same way the Jesus did not judge the prostitute in John 8 so do I not
:>>:>>judge others relationships.
:>>:>
:>>:>Jesus judged her sin as is very clear by the statement "Go and sin no more".
:>>
:>>You are now making assumptions about what Jesus said. How do you know he was
:>>referring to any specific sin? He never talked about a specific sin in that
:>>encounter did he?
:>
:>No, clearly he was referring to all sin, not some.
No he was not indeed - the point of the story is the sin f those wishing to
throw stones.
He was not clearly pointing to anythoing that the woman did.
Please get you interopretation of the whole story correct! Stop indulguing in
wishful thinking!
:>
:>>:>>When David tells me that he has a loving relationship with a man, then who am
:>>:>>I to tell him otherwise?
:>>:>>
:>>:>>I am sure that in the same circumstances Our Lord would not judge him!
:>>:>
:>>:>How can you be so sure?
:>>
:>>Because of his message of love that he produced repeatedly in the Gospels.
:>
:>The same gospels contain messages of judgement. One complements the other.
Our Lord never judged anyone who was lovig in their attitude. He only ever
got angry with those who "ished to throw stones" or the equivalent false
righteousness! (Oe the sort that you appear to be displaying so well in this
newsgroup!)
:>
:>>:>
:>>:>>He might tell him to "Go and sin no more" but he would not get into a long
:>>:>>disserattion about what sin is.
:>>:>
:>>:>It was very clear at least to the woman and Jesus as to what He was
:>>:>referrring to.
:>>
:>>How do you know what he was referring to? It may well have been clear to
:>>Jesus and the woman, but you are making gross assumptions in assuming that sex
:>>was the sin being referred to!
:>
:>OK. We assume from your comment that sexual sin does exist. If Jesus
:>referred in the statement to all sins then that included sexual sin. The
:>whole context of the passage is a discussion about adultery.
No the passgae is not a discussion about adultery, it s about those sinners
that accused her of adultery, and wished to throw stones - they were the
sinners, they were without love!
Sexual sin does exist when it is not loving and caring. That is domination
and control. It is not the sex that makes the sin, it is the intention, the
love or the lack thereof that makes the sin. That at least is consistent with
what Our Lord taught us!
:>
:>>
:>>:>
:>>:>>:>>You talk such utter nonsense Patrick.
:>>:>>:>
:>>:>>:>No, are you claiming that no kind of "love" can ever be wrong? There are a
:>>:>>:>number of Biblical references to love that is sin, including to homosexual
:>>:>>:>love.
:>>:>>
:>>:>>I am not prepared to talk about "kinds of love" Our Lord did not talk about
:>>:>>kinds of love at all. He just talked about love, and unconditional love at
:>>:>>that. I am not prepared to limit what that might mean.
:>>:>
:>>:>Wrong, John. There are quite a number of words in the Greek commonly
:>>:>translated as "love". But in any verse in which God's love (unconditional or
:>>:>not) is referred to, one word, agape, is used. That isn't the love of money,
:>>:>or sexual love, or brotherly love (phileo), as they are all referred to by
:>>:>different words. We will find from an intelligent study of the New Testament
:>>:>that Jesus made a number of references to love using different words.
:>>
:>>These have all been recently discussed by others more competent than me on
:>>this newsgroup recently, and none have the meaning that you wish to ascribe to
:>>them.
:>
:>That's not very convincing. Try harder.
I am sorry that you do not find them convincing. I find them very convincing,
and in tune with Holy Scripture as it has been handed down to us. It is not
me tha has to try harder - it is you!
:>
:>>I repeat that Our Lord never sais that homosexuality was a sin, he never said
:>>that homosexual sex was a sin, he never said that homosexual relationships
:>>were a sin! You are takig the place of God n trying to defing these as sins!
:>
:>I am not. God inspired his apostles, prophets and leaders to write elsewhere
:>about it in the Bible. Jesus referred to those passages.
:>
You certainly give that impression in your writings. You appear to be trying
to act like God and judge us all for not holding you distorted views!
God certainly inspired those who contributed to Holy Scripture, but thiose
writers were human like us and also were prone to error. They also write in
the contect of their own experience of life the world and everything. Our
life experience is very different from theirs, and our descriptions of the
experience of God will be very different. The fundamentals like love and
faith never change!
:>>:>>:>>Please stop being so silly!
:>>:>>:>
:>>:>>:>John John John, please stop claiming you belong to the only true church (or
:>>:>>:>words to that effect)
:>>:>>
:>>:>>Why not? You seem to be making the same claim with a much more slender
:>>:>>authority for doing so! I certainly belong to a church that has history and
:>>:>>the Holy Bible on its side, you do not appear to.
:>>:>
:>>:>Is your history and tradition more important than the Bible?
:>>
:>>No, the bible has equal authority to the history and tradition of the Church -
:>
:>Why?
Why not. It is up to you to provide a convincing reason why your
interpretation has more authority that the faith that has been handed down
through the Church og God.
:>
:>>both are important and one does not surmount the other.
:>
:>Why?
See above - it is the faith as handed down through the Church
:>
:>
:>>I would never say,
:>>and have never said that the bible is unimportant. Please read what I have
:>>said before. You are deliberately misinterpreting the Holy Bible for your own
:>>selfish ends.
:>
:>What selfish ends?
The selfish ends that you continually display in this newsgroup. I feel sorry
for you if you cannot see them for yourself.
You alwys use "one liners" with no thought about whjat you are saying. You
have never tried to cevelop a convincing and logical discussion. I sometimes
wonder if you have the ability to think clearly and logically and provide a
reasoned arguement, and not just"God said it it must be right"!
John Fulton
<47...@my-deja.com> writes:
:>
:>On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:16:00 AD in nz.soc.religion, John Fulton said:
:>
:>snip
:>
:>>:>There are clear references in both the new and old testaments to
:>>:>homosexuality.
:>>:>
:>>There are NOT.
:>
:>Wrong.
Wrong in the exteeeme!
:>
:>> Please clearly show these and how they refer to homosexuality
:>>as a sin.
:>
:>Can't you read?
I can certainly read, but you have not offered anything that is worth reading
in this line!
Patrick Dunford
No you don't or you wouldn't be asking
Patrick Dunford
>
>
>Patrick Dunford wrote:
>>
>> >> Your church may make tradition more important than the Bible, but the true
>> >> followers of Jesus see this heresy for what it is.
>> >
>> >LOL - tell us another joke, Paddy.
>>
>> Sure mate, just as soon as you explain why the biggest Anglican churches are
>> charismatic.
>
>Since when!
>
>The two biggest parishes in the Wellignton Diocese (do you know what a
>Diocese is?) are All Saints' Palmerson North, and Wellington Cathedral,
>Thorndon. Neither of them are "charismatic", in fact far from it! One is
>part Traditionalist and part evangelical AND part Liberal, and the other
>is staunchly Traditional AND Liberal. I am intimately familiar with both
>of those parishes - as I have been associated with one for 5 years, and
>the other... since I converted to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic
>Church after having been a Pentecostal!
How many people are in each of these churches?
In Christchurch the biggest parishes are charismatic. And I would be
prepared to wager that they are bigger than the two you are referring to in
Wellington, hence the claim stands.
Can you show me where your "one holy catholic and apostolic church" is
referenced in the Bible?
>What the hey - I've even had deliverance sessions in my own lounge where
>the person being prayed for was wriggling around on the floor, etc.
>There is NOTHING to do with the Pentecostal cults that I have not seen
>or participated in when I was a Pentecostal. Now that I am a member of
>the Catholic (not Roman!) Church I have entered into the fullness of the
>Gospel as taught by Jesus.
>Also, you claim (spuriously) that you are a part of the Catholic Church.
>
>IF you are, then you would have been baptised in a parish by your
>Priest, and most probably confirmed by your Bishop.
This is not supported by scripture.
>Who is your Priest, and Who is your Bishop, and What is the name of your
>Parish (name the Diocese as well please) And WHEN were you baptised.
>Your name will be in the parish's register and we will be able to prove
>conclusively that you are indeed a baptised member of the Catholic
>Church!
The Church referred to in the Scriptures is not the quasi-elitist religious
institution you are referring to.
>IF you cannot present this evidence, or if your Priest (or some other
>duly recognised officer in your Parish) cannot destify on your behalf,
>then it is most doubtful that you be a member of Christ's Body, the
>Church! It is certain from your posts that you have little idea (if any)
>as to what the Catholic Faith is - or even what the Gospel is!
It is quite certain that you claim to know better than God, as to who His
church is.
Patrick Dunford
>
>
>Patrick Dunford wrote:
>>
>> >Patrick Dunford wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> It is clear that you don't know what God's standard of love is.
>> >> >
>> >> >Err... St John 3:16 is God's standard of love!
>> >>
>> >> Which kind of love is that?
>> >
>> >It's the kind of love that puts another's welfare before your own - the
>> >kind of love that considers the other before considering self, the kind
>> >of love that is committed to the object of one's affection to the extent
>> >that one is prepared to die if that ensures the safety and security of
>> >one's family/partner/beloved.
>> >
>> >Didn't you know that?
>>
>> It's called Agape, and is not human in form.
>
>LOL!
>
>It is a very human form of love. In fact it is the quintessential
>foundation to any committed, long-term same-sex (or opposite-sex)
>relationship.
Try looking up what Agape is. It is not human.
>
>All I've seen is that you may have heard a sermon on the 4 Greek words
>that are rendered into English as "Love"! You've possibly proven nothing
>other than that!
there are more than four, actually.
>EVEN I learned *that* information when I became an Anglican about 12 or
>so years ago!
Why are you so proud to be denominationalist? Where is that supported in the
Bible?
Patrick Dunford
>
>
>Patrick Dunford wrote:
>>
>> >You are now making assumptions about what Jesus said. How do you know he was
>> >referring to any specific sin? He never talked about a specific sin in that
>> >encounter did he?
>>
>> No, clearly he was referring to all sin, not some.
>
>Clearly he was addressing the Pharasees in that sentence - as they were
>the ones who were trying to trap Jesus. The poor woman was unfortunately
>caught in the middle of their machinations.
>
>
>> >:>>I am sure that in the same circumstances Our Lord would not judge him!
>> >:>
>> >:>How can you be so sure?
>> >
>> >Because of his message of love that he produced repeatedly in the Gospels.
>>
>> The same gospels contain messages of judgement. One complements the other.
>
>Yes, Patrick. Jesus was very critical of the hypocratical Pharasees. He
>was as critical of them as he would be of the Fundies today. After all,
>both groups totally misunderstand what God wants of them - and,
>interestingly, they've missed the plot in exactly the same way!
This is a lie.
Fundamentalists are sincere committed people who are, for the most part, not
hypocritical.
Patrick Dunford
No, you serve to ridicule Christianity by imposing on it the artificial
ungodly divisions invented by men, those of denominationalism (not found in
the Bible).
Furthermore I can't see your attacks on fundamentalists and on myself as
anything less than hateful.
Patrick Dunford
No, I know that you are lying.
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
"Whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you
Patrick Dunford
Absolute rubbish.
He very clearly said to the woman "GO AND SIN NO MORE".
>He was not clearly pointing to anythoing that the woman did.
Absolute rubbish.
>
>Please get you interopretation of the whole story correct! Stop indulguing in
>wishful thinking!
That's what you're doing, quite clearly.
>:>
>:>>:>>When David tells me that he has a loving relationship with a man, then who am
>:>>:>>I to tell him otherwise?
>:>>:>>
>:>>:>>I am sure that in the same circumstances Our Lord would not judge him!
>:>>:>
>:>>:>How can you be so sure?
>:>>
>:>>Because of his message of love that he produced repeatedly in the Gospels.
>:>
>:>The same gospels contain messages of judgement. One complements the other.
>
>Our Lord never judged anyone who was lovig in their attitude. He only ever
>got angry with those who "ished to throw stones" or the equivalent false
>righteousness! (Oe the sort that you appear to be displaying so well in this
>newsgroup!)
Clearly, He judged her sin by the clear statement "GO AND SIN NO MORE".
>:>
>:>>:>
>:>>:>>He might tell him to "Go and sin no more" but he would not get into a long
>:>>:>>disserattion about what sin is.
>:>>:>
>:>>:>It was very clear at least to the woman and Jesus as to what He was
>:>>:>referrring to.
>:>>
>:>>How do you know what he was referring to? It may well have been clear to
>:>>Jesus and the woman, but you are making gross assumptions in assuming that sex
>:>>was the sin being referred to!
>:>
>:>OK. We assume from your comment that sexual sin does exist. If Jesus
>:>referred in the statement to all sins then that included sexual sin. The
>:>whole context of the passage is a discussion about adultery.
>
>No the passgae is not a discussion about adultery, it s about those sinners
>that accused her of adultery, and wished to throw stones - they were the
>sinners, they were without love!
It is a discussion about the sin of adultery that she was caught in. Jesus
said "GO AND SIN NO MORE" to her, a clear reference to the sin she was
accused of.
>Sexual sin does exist when it is not loving and caring. That is domination
>and control. It is not the sex that makes the sin, it is the intention, the
>love or the lack thereof that makes the sin. That at least is consistent with
>what Our Lord taught us!
No, sexual sin exists when a person acts in direct contravention of God's
will e.g. adultery.
>:>>
>:>>:>
>:>>:>>:>>You talk such utter nonsense Patrick.
>:>>:>>:>
>:>>:>>:>No, are you claiming that no kind of "love" can ever be wrong? There are a
>:>>:>>:>number of Biblical references to love that is sin, including to homosexual
>:>>:>>:>love.
>:>>:>>
>:>>:>>I am not prepared to talk about "kinds of love" Our Lord did not talk about
>:>>:>>kinds of love at all. He just talked about love, and unconditional love at
>:>>:>>that. I am not prepared to limit what that might mean.
>:>>:>
>:>>:>Wrong, John. There are quite a number of words in the Greek commonly
>:>>:>translated as "love". But in any verse in which God's love (unconditional or
>:>>:>not) is referred to, one word, agape, is used. That isn't the love of money,
>:>>:>or sexual love, or brotherly love (phileo), as they are all referred to by
>:>>:>different words. We will find from an intelligent study of the New Testament
>:>>:>that Jesus made a number of references to love using different words.
>:>>
>:>>These have all been recently discussed by others more competent than me on
>:>>this newsgroup recently, and none have the meaning that you wish to ascribe to
>:>>them.
>:>
>:>That's not very convincing. Try harder.
>
>I am sorry that you do not find them convincing. I find them very convincing,
>and in tune with Holy Scripture as it has been handed down to us. It is not
>me tha has to try harder - it is you!
When Jesus talked about love, He used different words depending on the
context. These different words are all translated as "love" in English, but
they have quite different meanings.
>:>
>:>>I repeat that Our Lord never sais that homosexuality was a sin, he never said
>:>>that homosexual sex was a sin, he never said that homosexual relationships
>:>>were a sin! You are takig the place of God n trying to defing these as sins!
>:>
>:>I am not. God inspired his apostles, prophets and leaders to write elsewhere
>:>about it in the Bible. Jesus referred to those passages.
>:>
>You certainly give that impression in your writings. You appear to be trying
>to act like God and judge us all for not holding you distorted views!
I am quoting what the Bible says, not following the politicially correct
line of reinterpreting it to avoid offending anyone.
>God certainly inspired those who contributed to Holy Scripture, but thiose
>writers were human like us and also were prone to error. They also write in
>the contect of their own experience of life the world and everything. Our
>life experience is very different from theirs, and our descriptions of the
>experience of God will be very different. The fundamentals like love and
>faith never change!
>
>:>>:>>:>>Please stop being so silly!
>:>>:>>:>
>:>>:>>:>John John John, please stop claiming you belong to the only true church (or
>:>>:>>:>words to that effect)
>:>>:>>
>:>>:>>Why not? You seem to be making the same claim with a much more slender
>:>>:>>authority for doing so! I certainly belong to a church that has history and
>:>>:>>the Holy Bible on its side, you do not appear to.
>:>>:>
>:>>:>Is your history and tradition more important than the Bible?
>:>>
>:>>No, the bible has equal authority to the history and tradition of the Church -
>:>
>:>Why?
>
>
>Why not. It is up to you to provide a convincing reason why your
>interpretation has more authority that the faith that has been handed down
>through the Church og God.
The faith that has been handed down, as you say, has changed over time. It
is no absolute, is it John? So how can you say it is more authorative?
>:>
>:>>both are important and one does not surmount the other.
>:>
>:>Why?
>
>
>See above - it is the faith as handed down through the Church
>
>:>
>:>
>:>>I would never say,
>:>>and have never said that the bible is unimportant. Please read what I have
>:>>said before. You are deliberately misinterpreting the Holy Bible for your own
>:>>selfish ends.
>:>
>:>What selfish ends?
>
>The selfish ends that you continually display in this newsgroup. I feel sorry
>for you if you cannot see them for yourself.
That's because they don't exist.
>
>You alwys use "one liners" with no thought about whjat you are saying. You
>have never tried to cevelop a convincing and logical discussion. I sometimes
>wonder if you have the ability to think clearly and logically and provide a
>reasoned arguement, and not just"God said it it must be right"!
>
TYhe point is, I don't need to repeat myself from previous discussions. The
reason I am not convincing you is that you don't want to be convinced. You
have not deviated one iota from your views in any discussion we have had.
>Regards to you all
>
>John Fulton
>
>
--
Patrick Dunford
>In message <MPG.148c59ea2...@news.clear.net.nz> - Patrick Dunford
><47...@my-deja.com> writes:
>:>
>:>On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:16:00 AD in nz.soc.religion, John Fulton said:
>:>
>:>snip
>:>
>:>>:>There are clear references in both the new and old testaments to
>:>>:>homosexuality.
>:>>:>
>:>>There are NOT.
>:>
>:>Wrong.
>
>
>Wrong in the exteeeme!
Nope. There are a number of verses in Leviticus, Romans and 1 Corinthians
among others.
>
>:>
>:>> Please clearly show these and how they refer to homosexuality
>:>>as a sin.
>:>
>:>Can't you read?
>
>I can certainly read, but you have not offered anything that is worth reading
>in this line!
Read the verses in the Bible that refer to homosexuality.
>
>Regards to you all
>
>John Fulton
>
>
>
--
Brian Tozer
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:12:34 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, David Murray
said:
> >All I've seen is that you may have heard a sermon on the 4 Greek words
> >that are rendered into English as "Love"! You've possibly proven nothing
> >other than that!
> there are more than four, actually.
I am only familiar with 4.
Agape, Philea, Storge, and Eros.
What others did you have in mind?
Brian Tozer
natalieart.com
John Fulton
<47...@my-deja.com> writes:
:>
:>On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:54:43 AD in nz.soc.religion, John Fulton said:
:>
:>>In message <MPG.148c587ec...@news.clear.net.nz> - Patrick Dunford
:>No, I know that you are lying.
No Paddy it is you who are the LIAR!
Allistar Melville
<47...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 19:10:21 AD in nz.soc.religion, John Fulton said:
>
>>In message <MPG.148c59ea2...@news.clear.net.nz> - Patrick Dunford
>><47...@my-deja.com> writes:
>>:>
>>:>On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:16:00 AD in nz.soc.religion, John Fulton said:
>>:>
>>:>snip
>>:>
>>:>>:>There are clear references in both the new and old testaments to
>>:>>:>homosexuality.
>>:>>:>
>>:>>There are NOT.
>>:>
>>:>Wrong.
>>
>>
>>Wrong in the exteeeme!
>
>Nope. There are a number of verses in Leviticus, Romans and 1 Corinthians
>among others.
>
>>
>>:>
>>:>> Please clearly show these and how they refer to homosexuality
>>:>>as a sin.
>>:>
>>:>Can't you read?
>>
>>I can certainly read, but you have not offered anything that is worth reading
>>in this line!
>
>Read the verses in the Bible that refer to homosexuality.
The whole point though Patrick is that there are no such verses. I'm
sure you good point out verses that speak against temple prostitution,
but I dare you to present any verses that mention homosexuality (oh,
and please use the original languages, not some Chinese whispers
version you may have).
>>Regards to you all
>>
>>John Fulton
Allistar.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Allistar Melville (BSc) Home: alli...@ihug.co.nz \_
Software Developer Work: alli...@focussoft.co.nz </'
Auckland, NEW ZEALAND /)
(/`
"Science built the Academy, superstition the inquisition."
[Robert G. Ingersoll]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Calum Bennachie
"Brian Tozer" <bria...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:8vtb77$g2v$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...> news:MPG.148ce6a5e...@news.clear.net.nz...
> > On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:12:34 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, David Murray
> said:
>
> > >All I've seen is that you may have heard a sermon on the 4 Greek words
> > >that are rendered into English as "Love"! You've possibly proven
nothing
> > >other than that!
>
>
> I am only familiar with 4.
> Agape, Philea, Storge, and Eros.
>
> What others did you have in mind?
>
> Brian Tozer
> natalieart.com
He probably also means all the declensions, etc., as well, without realising
they all come from the same four root words. Erotikos seems to be rare in
the New Testament, but it does appear in the Old Testament. I cannot
remember storge appearing in either, but I'm sure I could find it if I
looked. The most commonly named forms of love in the NT are agapo and
philos. Agapo can mean love for another human being, that is not erotic,
affectionate or brotherly, and also the love of God. However, philos is
also used in a couple of places to describe the love of God.
It would appear Patrick would be have philarchia, and demonstrate a fear of
phileleutherismos, or even a fear of philosophia.
Calum
Calum Bennachie
Indeed it does include the Septuagint Patrick. Go look it up. I'm sure
they will have a copy of the Septuagint in the Polytech library. If not, I
know they have a copy at Canterbury University. Do what you tell everyone
else to do, go and look it up.
And, btw, are you saying the Commandments of Jesus are irrelevant? Why? Is
not "The First of all the Commandments is: 'The Lord our God is one Lord;
and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your
soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first
and greatest Commandment'" a summation of the Decalogue and relevant to
"anything else"? If it is not relevant to "anything else", why did Jesus
say it was the First of all Commandments?
Calum
Calum Bennachie
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:25:29 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, David Murray
said:
>
>
> >
> >
> >Patrick Dunford wrote:
> >>
> >> >You are now making assumptions about what Jesus said. How do you know
he was
> >> >referring to any specific sin? He never talked about a specific sin
in that
> >> >encounter did he?
> >>
> >> No, clearly he was referring to all sin, not some.
> >
> >Clearly he was addressing the Pharasees in that sentence - as they were
> >the ones who were trying to trap Jesus. The poor woman was unfortunately
> >caught in the middle of their machinations.
> >
> >
> >> >:>>I am sure that in the same circumstances Our Lord would not judge
him!
> >> >:>
> >> >:>How can you be so sure?
> >> >
> >> >Because of his message of love that he produced repeatedly in the
Gospels.
> >>
> >> The same gospels contain messages of judgement. One complements the
other.
> >
> >Yes, Patrick. Jesus was very critical of the hypocratical Pharasees. He
> >was as critical of them as he would be of the Fundies today. After all,
> >both groups totally misunderstand what God wants of them - and,
> >interestingly, they've missed the plot in exactly the same way!
>
>
> Fundamentalists are sincere committed people who are, for the most part,
not
> hypocritical.
>
> =======================================================================
> Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
So were the Pharisees.
Calum
David Murray
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> >The two biggest parishes in the Wellignton Diocese (do you know what a
> >Diocese is?) are All Saints' Palmerson North, and Wellington Cathedral,
> >Thorndon. Neither of them are "charismatic", in fact far from it! One is
> >part Traditionalist and part evangelical AND part Liberal, and the other
> >is staunchly Traditional AND Liberal. I am intimately familiar with both
> >of those parishes - as I have been associated with one for 5 years, and
> >the other... since I converted to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic
> >Church after having been a Pentecostal!
>
> How many people are in each of these churches?
I do not know exactly how many people are on the roles of those
parishes.
> In Christchurch the biggest parishes are charismatic.
Name them!
> And I would be
> prepared to wager that they are bigger than the two you are referring to in
> Wellington, hence the claim stands.
Name them!
> Can you show me where your "one holy catholic and apostolic church" is
> referenced in the Bible?
"Upon this rock I shall build my Church"
> >Also, you claim (spuriously) that you are a part of the Catholic Church.
> >
> >IF you are, then you would have been baptised in a parish by your
> >Priest, and most probably confirmed by your Bishop.
>
> This is not supported by scripture.
ROTFL - tell us some more nonsense, Paddy!
> >Who is your Priest, and Who is your Bishop, and What is the name of your
> >Parish (name the Diocese as well please) And WHEN were you baptised.
> >Your name will be in the parish's register and we will be able to prove
> >conclusively that you are indeed a baptised member of the Catholic
> >Church!
>
> The Church referred to in the Scriptures is not the quasi-elitist religious
> institution you are referring to.
Hmmm. It seems that you are unable to answer the questions. Mind due,
this is not surprising, because you are not a member of the Catholic
(not Roman) Church!
> >IF you cannot present this evidence, or if your Priest (or some other
> >duly recognised officer in your Parish) cannot destify on your behalf,
> >then it is most doubtful that you be a member of Christ's Body, the
> >Church! It is certain from your posts that you have little idea (if any)
> >as to what the Catholic Faith is - or even what the Gospel is!
>
> It is quite certain that you claim to know better than God, as to who His
> church is.
Of course a member of God's Church will know other members - and will
recognise the tears amongst the wheat.
TTFN
D.
David Murray
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> >Because the Bible is a collection of historical documents that have
> >always been interpreted in their historical/traditional context. All the
> >books/letters in the New Testament were written well after the Church
> >was founded. We were around for ages before we started writing and
> >compiling our earliest literature. The various collections of books
> >known as the Holy Bible contains the texts that the catholic Church
> >considers to be sacred. We came to this conclusion many years after they
> >were written. We came to that conclusion via one of the early Ecumenical
> >Synods - a part of the governing structure of the Traditional Catholic
> >Church. WE gave the Bible it's authority, WE wrote it, and WE interpret
> >it via OUR tradition. The Fundies merely serve to ridicule themselves by
> >their ridiculous attitudes and their hateful retorick.
>
> No, you serve to ridicule Christianity by imposing on it the artificial
> ungodly divisions invented by men, those of denominationalism (not found in
> the Bible).
Mentioning that early Ecumenical synod of the Catholic Church is hardly
imposing a division on God's Church.
> Furthermore I can't see your attacks on fundamentalists and on myself as
> anything less than hateful.
Well, the blind don't see much, do they, Pattrick!
TTFN
D.
David Murray
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> >EVEN I learned *that* information when I became an Anglican about 12 or
> >so years ago!
>
> Why are you so proud to be denominationalist? Where is that supported in the
> Bible?
Because the Anglican church is a part of the One Holy Catholic and
Apostolic Church, and the pentecostalite cults are no different from
mormonism!
TTFN
D.
David Murray
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> >> The same gospels contain messages of judgement. One complements the other.
> >
> >Yes, Patrick. Jesus was very critical of the hypocratical Pharasees. He
> >was as critical of them as he would be of the Fundies today. After all,
> >both groups totally misunderstand what God wants of them - and,
> >interestingly, they've missed the plot in exactly the same way!
>
> This is a lie.
>
> Fundamentalists are sincere committed people who are, for the most part, not
> hypocritical.
They MAY be sincere, Patrick, But they are sincerely wrong. They MAY be
committed, but they are committed to the wrong thing - they are
committed to their interpretation of a collection of books. People who
believe the Catholic Faith are committed to God him/herself and to our
Lord Jesus Christ.
Also, it is cristal clear that Fundies say one thing whilest doing
another. This is an essential part of their bibliolitry.
TTFN
D.
TTFN
D.
David Murray
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> >:>>No Patrick, the phrase "gay person" was used by you above. Explain where it
> >:>>appears in the Bible. Where are these "references in both the new and old
> >:>>testaments to homosexuality"?
> >:>
> >:>You know perfectly well where they are
> >
> >You know perfectly well that you are unable to find them to justify your
> >misinterpretation of Holy Scripture as it as been handed down to us.
>
> No, I know that you are lying.
Patrick, you obviously do not know your bible 0 or you would not be
denegrating John in this way. He is quite correct when he says that
Biblia Sacra does not have any references to "gay persons"
TTFN
D.
David Murray
way it is not possible to teach the Faith and the right interpretation
of Biblia Sacra to Patrick - he is unteachable.
It is futile discussing the Faith with him until he is ready to listen -
and there is no sign of that being any time soon.
So... it's a waste of time and energy replying to his posts and I for
one am now going to ignore his nonsense.
TTFN
D.
==
John Fulton
<davidr...@iname.com> writes:
:>
:>It is not possible to describe colours to a blind person. In the same
:>way it is not possible to teach the Faith and the right interpretation
:>of Biblia Sacra to Patrick - he is unteachable.
:>
:>It is futile discussing the Faith with him until he is ready to listen -
:>and there is no sign of that being any time soon.
:>
:>So... it's a waste of time and energy replying to his posts and I for
:>one am now going to ignore his nonsense.
:>
:>TTFN
:>D.
:>==
:>
:>
:>Patrick Dunford wrote:
Snip...
:>> >:>>:>Is your history and tradition more important than the Bible?
:>> >:>>
:>> >:>>No, the bible has equal authority to the history and tradition of the Church -
:>> >:>
:>> >:>Why?
:>> >
:>> >
:>> >Why not. It is up to you to provide a convincing reason why your
:>> >interpretation has more authority that the faith that has been handed down
:>> >through the Church og God.
:>>
:>> The faith that has been handed down, as you say, has changed over time. It
:>> is no absolute, is it John? So how can you say it is more authorative?
:>>
There are no absolutes other than death and taxes. One must accept
Christianity on faith. Of course I may be wrong, but I do not believe so.
To use the Holy Bible as an infallible document is to break the first
commandment "Thou shall have no other Gods before me." Further on God says,
"I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."
The above of course must be taken with a grain of salt, as it is contradictory
to the Commandments of Our Lord. He did not teach that God is unloving, quite
the contrary, he taught of a loving God. This is the point of the "new
covenant".
I have snipped a lot of your other silly babble, but in the quote above you
seem to be getting close to the knubb of the matter!
I am glad to see that you accept that the faith has changed over the years.
That is something that all of us have been trying to get you to admit for some
time.
What you seem to be saying is that as the faith matures it will slowing change
to reflect the society in which it is believed. Hooray - I do believe that
you have at last got it!
This is why the tradition of the Catholic Church is important. This is why
the Holy Bible and the Church's teaching are both important, and it is why the
Catholic Faith (the universal faith) is important. This is why the faith as
handed down through the Church is important.
The Church has always taught that Our Lord's commands are the most important
ones, and that all of the other stuff is in support of these.
I would have thought that all of this is plain enough from what we have been
saying.
These are some of the reasons why I say that it is more authoritative.
However like David Murray I am getting tired of the nonsense that you talk,
AND THE PATENTLY DISHONEST WAY THAT YOU ARGUE, and as a result, I will no
longer be contributing to this thread.
You do talk such utter silliness and nonsense.
Peace and Love be to you in the Lord's Name.
Patrick Dunford
said:
So you allege. I don't believe you.
>And, btw, are you saying the Commandments of Jesus are irrelevant? Why? Is
>not "The First of all the Commandments is: 'The Lord our God is one Lord;
>and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your
>soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first
>and greatest Commandment'" a summation of the Decalogue and relevant to
>"anything else"? If it is not relevant to "anything else", why did Jesus
>say it was the First of all Commandments?
That isn't what I said. The three commandments as you refer to them are a
summary. The minuteia are covered elsewhere in the New Testament.
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows
the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the
Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. "Come to me,
all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.
-- Matthew 11:27-28
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20001127
Patrick Dunford
said:
>
Not correct, you haven't read what I wrote.
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows
Patrick Dunford
>
>
>Patrick Dunford wrote:
>>
>> >The two biggest parishes in the Wellignton Diocese (do you know what a
>> >Diocese is?) are All Saints' Palmerson North, and Wellington Cathedral,
>> >Thorndon. Neither of them are "charismatic", in fact far from it! One is
>> >part Traditionalist and part evangelical AND part Liberal, and the other
>> >is staunchly Traditional AND Liberal. I am intimately familiar with both
>> >of those parishes - as I have been associated with one for 5 years, and
>> >the other... since I converted to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic
>> >Church after having been a Pentecostal!
>>
>> How many people are in each of these churches?
>
>I do not know exactly how many people are on the roles of those
>parishes.
>
>
>> In Christchurch the biggest parishes are charismatic.
>
>Name them!
St Christophers, the Anglican one in the northwest, which just keeps on
growing. St Timothys, also in the northwest.
>> And I would be
>> prepared to wager that they are bigger than the two you are referring to in
>> Wellington, hence the claim stands.
>
>Name them!
Have done so.
>
>
>> Can you show me where your "one holy catholic and apostolic church" is
>> referenced in the Bible?
>
>"Upon this rock I shall build my Church"
Not very convincing. A few words extracted out of a verse and misused.
For your information, Jesus was not referring to Peter when He made that
statement. He used two different Greek words - Peter is referred to as
petros, or a pebble, rock as petra. Now why would He use two different words
if He was referring supposedly to the same thing? Obviously He wasn't.
>
>> >Also, you claim (spuriously) that you are a part of the Catholic Church.
>> >
>> >IF you are, then you would have been baptised in a parish by your
>> >Priest, and most probably confirmed by your Bishop.
>>
>> This is not supported by scripture.
>
>ROTFL - tell us some more nonsense, Paddy!
Confirmation is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
>> >Who is your Priest, and Who is your Bishop, and What is the name of your
>> >Parish (name the Diocese as well please) And WHEN were you baptised.
>> >Your name will be in the parish's register and we will be able to prove
>> >conclusively that you are indeed a baptised member of the Catholic
>> >Church!
>>
>> The Church referred to in the Scriptures is not the quasi-elitist religious
>> institution you are referring to.
>
>Hmmm. It seems that you are unable to answer the questions. Mind due,
>this is not surprising, because you are not a member of the Catholic
>(not Roman) Church!
I am a member of Jesus's Body, the Church.
>> >IF you cannot present this evidence, or if your Priest (or some other
>> >duly recognised officer in your Parish) cannot destify on your behalf,
>> >then it is most doubtful that you be a member of Christ's Body, the
>> >Church! It is certain from your posts that you have little idea (if any)
>> >as to what the Catholic Faith is - or even what the Gospel is!
>>
>> It is quite certain that you claim to know better than God, as to who His
>> church is.
>
>Of course a member of God's Church will know other members - and will
>recognise the tears amongst the wheat.
You haven't proved that you are such a member.
Patrick Dunford
>
>
>Patrick Dunford wrote:
>>
>> >Because the Bible is a collection of historical documents that have
>> >always been interpreted in their historical/traditional context. All the
>> >books/letters in the New Testament were written well after the Church
>> >was founded. We were around for ages before we started writing and
>> >compiling our earliest literature. The various collections of books
>> >known as the Holy Bible contains the texts that the catholic Church
>> >considers to be sacred. We came to this conclusion many years after they
>> >were written. We came to that conclusion via one of the early Ecumenical
>> >Synods - a part of the governing structure of the Traditional Catholic
>> >Church. WE gave the Bible it's authority, WE wrote it, and WE interpret
>> >it via OUR tradition. The Fundies merely serve to ridicule themselves by
>> >their ridiculous attitudes and their hateful retorick.
>>
>> No, you serve to ridicule Christianity by imposing on it the artificial
>> ungodly divisions invented by men, those of denominationalism (not found in
>> the Bible).
>
>Mentioning that early Ecumenical synod of the Catholic Church is hardly
>imposing a division on God's Church.
You claim that your denomination is the true church. You talk about being an
Anglican. Those are denominational divisions that aren't mentioned in the
Bible.
What box did you tick in the Census? Christian, or Anglican?
Patrick Dunford
>
>
>Patrick Dunford wrote:
>>
>> >EVEN I learned *that* information when I became an Anglican about 12 or
>> >so years ago!
>>
>> Why are you so proud to be denominationalist? Where is that supported in the
>> Bible?
>
>Because the Anglican church is a part of the One Holy Catholic and
>Apostolic Church,
Which is a denominational concept not supported in scripture.
Patrick Dunford
>
>
>Patrick Dunford wrote:
>>
>> >> The same gospels contain messages of judgement. One complements the other.
>> >
>> >Yes, Patrick. Jesus was very critical of the hypocratical Pharasees. He
>> >was as critical of them as he would be of the Fundies today. After all,
>> >both groups totally misunderstand what God wants of them - and,
>> >interestingly, they've missed the plot in exactly the same way!
>>
>> This is a lie.
>>
>> Fundamentalists are sincere committed people who are, for the most part, not
>> hypocritical.
>
>They MAY be sincere, Patrick, But they are sincerely wrong.
Nope.
>They MAY be
>committed, but they are committed to the wrong thing - they are
>committed to their interpretation of a collection of books. People who
>believe the Catholic Faith are committed to God him/herself and to our
>Lord Jesus Christ.
No, you are committed to your interpretation, just as you claim that I am.
Your claim of being the one faith is based on mistaken interpreting of a
single verse of scripture.
>Also, it is cristal clear that Fundies say one thing whilest doing
>another.
Absolute rubbish. Evidence?
Patrick Dunford
It references homosexuals, whom are now often referred to today as gay
persons.
Patrick Dunford
>It is not possible to describe colours to a blind person. In the same
>way it is not possible to teach the Faith and the right interpretation
>of Biblia Sacra to Patrick - he is unteachable.
What makes you unteachable, David?
>It is futile discussing the Faith with him until he is ready to listen -
>and there is no sign of that being any time soon.
What makes you unwilling to listen, David
>So... it's a waste of time and energy replying to his posts and I for
>one am now going to ignore his nonsense.
Why are you never wrong, David?
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows
the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the
Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. "Come to me,
all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.
-- Matthew 11:27-28
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20001127
Patrick Dunford
That's a very interesting interpretation, but misguided. The Word of God is
Jesus, as mentioned in John and in Revelation. The Bible is the Word of God.
>Further on God says,
>"I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
>upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."
>
>The above of course must be taken with a grain of salt, as it is contradictory
>to the Commandments of Our Lord.
Not!!!
>He did not teach that God is unloving, quite
>the contrary, he taught of a loving God. This is the point of the "new
>covenant".
He also taught of a God who judges sin. One cannot pretend that is not found
in the Gospels and spoken by Jesus.
>I have snipped a lot of your other silly babble, but in the quote above you
>seem to be getting close to the knubb of the matter!
>
>I am glad to see that you accept that the faith has changed over the years.
Yours has.
>That is something that all of us have been trying to get you to admit for some
>time.
>
>What you seem to be saying is that as the faith matures it will slowing change
>to reflect the society in which it is believed. Hooray - I do believe that
>you have at last got it!
That's your interpretation, not mine.
>This is why the tradition of the Catholic Church is important. This is why
>the Holy Bible and the Church's teaching are both important, and it is why the
>Catholic Faith (the universal faith) is important. This is why the faith as
>handed down through the Church is important.
You haven't been able to explain why the church expects people to believe
that which is not Biblical - for example, a very recent doctrine, the
Assumption.
>However like David Murray I am getting tired of the nonsense that you talk,
>AND THE PATENTLY DISHONEST WAY THAT YOU ARGUE, and as a result, I will no
>longer be contributing to this thread.
>
>You do talk such utter silliness and nonsense.
John, John, John, you have not ever managed to do anything other than
continually parrot dogma at me without backing it up.
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows
the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the
Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. "Come to me,
all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.
-- Matthew 11:27-28
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20001127
Patrick Dunford
>In message <MPG.148ce7687...@news.clear.net.nz> - Patrick Dunford
><47...@my-deja.com> writes:
>:>
>:>On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:54:43 AD in nz.soc.religion, John Fulton said:
>:>
>:>>In message <MPG.148c587ec...@news.clear.net.nz> - Patrick Dunford
>:>><47...@my-deja.com> writes:
>:>>:>
>:>>:>On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:19:03 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, Calum Bennachie
>:>>:>said:
>:>>:>
>:>>:>>
>:>>:>>"Patrick Dunford" <47...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>:>>:>>news:MPG.148a6a8c9...@news.clear.net.nz...
>:>>:>>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:07:11 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, Calum Bennachie
>:>>:>>> said:
>:>>:>>>
>:>>:>>> >
>:>>:>>> >"Patrick Dunford" <47...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>:>>:>>> >news:MPG.148a50925...@news.clear.net.nz...
>:>>:>>> >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 15:06:38 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, Calum
>:>>:>>Bennachie
>:>>:>>> >> said:
>:>>:>>> >>
>:>>:>>> >> >
>:>>:>>> >> >"Patrick Dunford" <47...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>:>>:>>> >> >news:MPG.1488ebc2f...@news.clear.net.nz...
>:>>:>>> >> >> On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:25:18 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, David
>:>>:>>Murray
>:>>:>>> >> >said:
>:>>:>>> >> >>
>:>>:>>> >> >>
>:>>:>>> >> >> >Patrick Dunford wrote:
>:>>:>>> >> >> >>
>:>>:>>> >> >> >> Homosexual "love" is sinful.
>:>>:>><snip>
>:>>:>>> >> >> When that gay person claims to be a Christian they are coming
>:>>:>>directly
>:>>:>>> >> >into
>:>>:>>> >> >> conflict with God's law.
>:>>:>><snip>
>:>>:>>> >> >>
>:>>:>>=======================================================================
>:>>:>>> >> >> Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
>:>>:>>> >> >
>:>>:>>> >> >And where does it say that in the Bible Patrick? And what parts of
>:>>:>>God's
>:>>:>>> >> >Law? No such thing appears in the Ten Commandments. No such thing
>:>>:>>> >appears
>:>>:>>> >> >in the Commandments of Jesus. There is no phrase in the Bible which
>:>>:>>> >speaks
>:>>:>>> >> >of "gay people". That phrase is a modern construct dating from the
>:>>:>>late
>:>>:>>> >> >nineteenth and early twentieth century.
>:>>:>>> >>
>:>>:>>> >> You are engaging in selective interpretation, quite trendy in liberal
>:>>:>>> >> churches with falling adherency rates.
>:>>:>>> >>
>:>>:>>> >> --
>:>>:>>> >> =======================================================================
>:>>:>>> >> Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
>:>>:>>> >
>:>>:>>> >Then explain "where" the Bible contains the phrase "gay people".
>:>>:>>>
>:>>:>>> That's your phrase, not mine.
>:>>:>>>
>:>>:>>> There are clear references in both the new and old testaments to
>:>>:>>> homosexuality.
>:>>:>>>
>:>>:>>> --
>:>>:>>> =======================================================================
>:>>:>>> Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
>:>>:>>
>:>>:>>No Patrick, the phrase "gay person" was used by you above. Explain where it
>:>>:>>appears in the Bible. Where are these "references in both the new and old
>:>>:>>testaments to homosexuality"?
>:>>:>
>:>>:>You know perfectly well where they are
>:>>
>:>>You know perfectly well that you are unable to find them to justify your
>:>>misinterpretation of Holy Scripture as it as been handed down to us.
>:>
>:>No, I know that you are lying.
>
>No Paddy it is you who are the LIAR!
You are making God out to be a liar are you? Homosexuality is mentioned in
at least three places: Leviticus, Romans and 1 Corinthinas.
Have a nice day :)
Julian S Visch
|> On 27 Nov 2000 00:10:12 GMT AD in nz.soc.religion, Julian S Visch said:
|> >In article <MPG.148c587ec...@news.clear.net.nz>, Patrick Dunford <47...@my-deja.com> writes:
|> >|> >No Patrick, the phrase "gay person" was used by you above. Explain where it
|> >|> >appears in the Bible. Where are these "references in both the new and old
|> >|> >testaments to homosexuality"?
|> >|>
|> >|> You know perfectly well where they are
|> >
|>
|> No you don't or you wouldn't be asking
I do know, but we have pointed out on numerous occassions why you are wrong.
But you never listen.
Julian S Visch
|> Read the verses in the Bible that refer to homosexuality.
There are none.
Calum Bennachie
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:25:29 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, Calum Bennachie
And you snipped my piece of advice so you could check yourself: "Go look it
up. I'm sure they will have a copy of the Septuagint in the Polytech
library. If not, I know they have a copy at Canterbury University. Do what
you tell everyone
else to do, go and look it up."
Or are you too scared to look it up?
> >And, btw, are you saying the Commandments of Jesus are irrelevant? Why?
Is
> >not "The First of all the Commandments is: 'The Lord our God is one Lord;
> >and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all
your
> >soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the
first
> >and greatest Commandment'" a summation of the Decalogue and relevant to
> >"anything else"? If it is not relevant to "anything else", why did Jesus
> >say it was the First of all Commandments?
>
> That isn't what I said. The three commandments as you refer to them are a
> summary. The minuteia are covered elsewhere in the New Testament.
> =======================================================================
> Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
Then please explain why you said "The three commandments [of Jesus] are
irrelevant because they never purported to be an entire statement of laws
relating to sexual behaviour ***or anything else***.
Are you really that afraid of the Septuagint that you had to snip my advice?
Calum
Calum Bennachie
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:58:50 AD in nz.soc.religion, John Fulton said:
>
> >In message <MPG.148ce7687...@news.clear.net.nz> - Patrick
Dunford
> ><47...@my-deja.com> writes:
> >:>>:>>No Patrick, the phrase "gay person" was used by you above. Explain
where it
> >:>>:>>appears in the Bible. Where are these "references in both the new
and old
> >:>>:>>testaments to homosexuality"?
> >:>>:>
> >:>>:>You know perfectly well where they are
> >:>>
> >:>>You know perfectly well that you are unable to find them to justify
your
> >:>>misinterpretation of Holy Scripture as it as been handed down to us.
> >:>
> >:>No, I know that you are lying.
> >
> >No Paddy it is you who are the LIAR!
>
> You are making God out to be a liar are you? Homosexuality is mentioned in
> at least three places: Leviticus, Romans and 1 Corinthinas.
>
> Have a nice day :)
>
> --
> =======================================================================
> Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
As we said Patrick, the Bible contains no reference to "gay persons", the
phrase you used. What does it say, in the original Hebrew, in Leviticus?
What does it say, in the original Greek, in Romans and in 1 Corinthians?
Why does Paul invent a word not used elsewhere, when he could have used a
word that was in use at the time scripture was being written that more
accurately describes what we now call homosexuality?
Calum
Calum Bennachie
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:55:38 +1300 AD in nz.soc.religion, David Murray
said:
> For your information, Jesus was not referring to Peter when He made that
> statement. He used two different Greek words - Peter is referred to as
> petros, or a pebble, rock as petra. Now why would He use two different
words
> if He was referring supposedly to the same thing? Obviously He wasn't.
> =======================================================================
> Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
The difference between "petros" and "petra" is the same as between "rock"
and "rock".
Learn Greek Patrick
Calum