Leviticus: the Truth, or, "Porking the Torah"
*The* Didaskalos
Royce Buehler <fig...@earthlink.net> wrote to and
alt.politics.homosexuality:
== Though most of Al's analysis is sound, its attempt to connect
== the cult prostitutes specifically with Molech was an unwarranted
== leap.
== == *The* Didaskalos wrote:
== > == In 1 Kings 14:21, we're told that Solomon's son Reheboam began to rule
== > == in Judah, and that his mother was an Ammonite. We may be sure that
== > == Reheboam was well steeped in the Molech religion of his mother, and
== > == that he no doubt implemented it to a far greater degree than Solomon.
== > ==
== > == It is at this point, 1 Kings 14:24, that we read "There were also cult
== > == prostitutes in the land..."
==
== The problem is that 1 Kings 14 also lists a slew of other idolatrous
== practices. There isn't any particular reason to link the cult
== prostitutes to the idol Molech rather than some other. And there
== are two reasons not to make that link.
==
== The first is that there is a much tighter connection between
== the cult prostitutes and the cult of Asherah; Kings says that the
== two did business at the same place in the Jerusalem temple. And
== Asherah was one of the consorts of Baal - a Canaanite rather than
== Ammonite goddess.
First, there is Asherah, S842, and there is Ashtaroth, S6252. Spiros
Zodhiates, in his Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible cross-references
Ashtaroth under Ahserah, but only with a question mark, suggesting
that the association is not conclusive. Actually, I believe the
question mark is due to John R. Kohlenberger, III and James Swanson,
whose "A Concise Dictionary of the Hebrew" is appended to the Key
Study Bible. They identify Asherah not as Ashtaroth, but only as
"Asherah (pagan god); Asherah pole."
Asherah is translated by KJV as "grove," and NIV uses "Asherah pole"
though it might use other things -- I don't have a concordance for
NIV.
1 King 15 associates the Asherah pole specifically with King Asa's
Grandmother, Maacah. Interestingly, KJV and Strong's list her as Asa's
"mother."
2 Chr 11 says that Maacah was Rehoboam's favorite wife.
Is it too great a leap to say that Rehoboam might have honored his
mother's religion by setting up Molech cult prostitutes and also
honored his favorite wife's religion by setting up Asherah poles?
Why is there a need to connect cult prostitutes with Asherah poles as
being of the same religion?
Asherah poles are connected with Baal, as in Judges 6:25-30 and 1 King
31-33. But they're not connected with Baal everywhere they're
mentioned, and it might be rash to conclude that they are part of the
same religion.
You will please note 2 Kings 17:16f NIV.
"They forsook all the commands of the Lord their God and made for
themselves two idols cast in the shape of calves, and an Asherah pole.
They bowed down to all the starry hosts, and they worshiped Baal. They
sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire."
At this place "fire" is S784, and the word is in the Hebrew, whereas
it is not in the similar passage in Leviticus 18 or 20.
What of the above passage in 2 Kings? Do we conclude that "passing
through the fire" was practices by both Baal and Molech religions? Are
the "starry hosts" associated with Baal? Or are we to conclude that
the above is a list of practices of various religions rather than just
a single one? In that case, why should it be unusual to mention Molech
and Baal practices together (shrine prostitutes and Asherah poles)?
Follow 2 Kings 17 a little further to verse 31:
The Sepharvites burned their children in the fire as sacrifices to
Adrammelech and Anammelech. Are these related to "Molech" or is this
just the word for "king," so that these are yet other religious cults
using burnt sacrifice of chidren? It would seem then that 2 King
17:16f is indeed a conflation of the practices of different religions.
In this case, it seems unwarranted to jump to conclusions that cult
prostitutes and Asherah poles are both associated *only* with Baal
just because they are mentioned in proximity in the text -- even if
they are in the temple together.
But note also that the Hebrew verbs used here are very different from
the words in Lev 18 and 20. Here the actual word "fire" is in the
Hebrew. In Lev 18 and 20 there is no "fire," but it is supplied by
some translators. The Hebrew word in 18 and 20 is simply "abar"
=S5674, "pass through."
In Lev 20:3, the Hebrew "nathan" =S5414 is used to refer to this
giving of children to Molech: "for by giving his children to Molech,
he has defiled my sanctuary"NIV. Interestingly, S5411 is Nathuwn,
"Temple-servants." Wouldn't this better fit living children working as
prostitutes than ones "burned up"?
Note also "defiled my sanctuary"? Defiled my sanctuary by setting up
in it the houses of the male prostitutes of Molech?
The strongest association of shrine prostitutes with Asherah is in 2
Kings 23:4-7, where Baal and Asherah are mentioned together regarding
desecrations in the temple, and quarters for shrine prostitutes are
also mentioned.
This refers to actions in the reign of Josiah, over 300 years later
than Reheboam (maybe I've miscounted). Did the same situations and
practices in the various religions necessarily remain fixed during
that period?
Refer once more to 2 Kings 17:16f NIV.
"They forsook all the commands of the Lord their God and made for
themselves two idols cast in the shape of calves, and an Asherah pole.
They bowed down to all the starry hosts, and they worshiped Baal. They
sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire."
Is this a conflation of various practices of different religions, or
did Baal and Molech BOTH sacrifice their children in fire? Is it not
possible that Baal and Molech BOTH had shrine prostitutes? (Or, to
repeat, are these passages conflations of rites of a number of
different religions?)
Finally, is it possible that Baal could have displaced Molech but
retained the financially rewarding institution of shrine prostitutes?
This might have started already in the reign of Reheboam. Molech was
the god of his mother, Ball the god of his favorite wife. The wife
would presumably have outlived the mother and her influence prevailed.
This doesn't prove that the shrine prostitutes of Reheboam's time or
any other time were of the Molech religion, but their proximity to
Baal in the temple over 300 years later doesn't prove that they were
actually part of the Baal religion and certainly doesn't prove that
they weren't associated with Molech.
The above isn't a well-organized argument, since it's composed here,
and I'm used to working with printed material, but I think it should
make some points that ought to be considered.
Finally on this, my Columbia Encyclopedia give the following:
Asherah (or Ashtaroth): Canaanite fertility goddess and the wooden
cult symbol that represented her. She is the consort of El in the
Ugaritic texts. Several passages in the Hebrew Bible may refer to the
planting of a tree as a symbol of Asherah, or the setting up of a
wooden object as an asherah--the Hebrew words for "tree" and "wood"
are the same. [Hmmmm. Very interesting in the light of all the
"planting trees for Israel" stuff that goes on in modern times.]
Molech: Canaanite god of fire to whom children were offered in
sacrifice; he is also known as an Assyrian god.... [no relationship
with El mentioned].
Baal: name used throughout the Hebrew Bible for the chief deity or for
deities of Canaal...originally...applied to...Hadad. Technically, Baal
was subordinate to El....The practice of sacred prostitution seems to
have been associated with the worship of Baal....
I presume the association of cult prostitution with Baal mentioned
just above comes from the passage in 2 Kings 23 which mentions
together Baal, Asherah, and shrine prostitutes, so this really adds no
new fuel to the fire, but merely shows that people understandable have
interpreted 2 Kings 23 in the same way.
None of this excludes Molech from having shrine prostitutes, nor is
the issue of where the 2 Kings 23 passage might be a list of abuses
from different religions rather than just the single one of Baal.
== The second is that, although Al makes a valid point about the
== "sacrifice" to Molech quite possibly being a "dedication", the
== Tanach refers to the practice several times as "making your
== children pass through the fire." If this wasn't child sacrifice,
== it was some sort of required initiatory ordeal. This fits poorly
== with the notion that it could also have been a voluntary entry
== into the sex trade.
What specific references are in the Tanaim? Do they use the fire
terminology to refer to Lev 18 and Lev 20, as KJV does? If so, they're
adding "fire" which isn't in the text.
It's rather interesting to me that Baruch A. Levine, who wrote the JPS
Torah Commentary of Leviticus wasn't influenced by the Tanaim to
translate Lev 18 and Lev 20 using "fire." And he believes that the
Molech cult did involve burnt sacrifice of children (and that other
cults might have done likewise).
But in Lev 18 and 20, Levine did not insert a non-existent "fire" into
his translation. In fact the best he can say is "The ambiguity of such
verbs as natan, "to offer, devote," and he'evir, "to hand over, pass
through," cannot be construed to mean that child sacrifice was *not*
the target of the Levitical prohibitions of chapters 18 and 20." [The
*not* in italics is Levine's emphasis.]
So, there's no conclusive proof that Lev 18 and 20 refer to fire
sacrifice, but that can't be ruled out according to Levine.
My major objections to traditional analyses such as these:
1. There is no reason to believe that the Molech religion had only one
practice that was objectionable. It could well have had both shrine
prostitution and child sacrifice.
2. If seen only as refering to burnt sacrifice of children, the Lev 18
Molech verse is EGREGIOUSLY out of place in a chapter devoted to sex
acts. I haven't seen any commentary that addresses this.
On the other hand, if cult prostitutes are associated with Baal, and
if we assume animal-human sexual fertility rites associated with Baal,
then the Leviticus verses are still associated with religious cult
practices -- just that Baal isn't mentioned specifically. In this case
the Molech verse of Lev 18, where the sins are defined, still forms a
bridging passage to the sexual topic of pagan religious sex practices.
You mention the possibility of initiation rite. It could well be that
cult prostitution was an alternative to child sacrifice, and might
have displaced it or might have been presented to people as a less
terrible alternative to burning up their children. (Compare the child
sacrifice story of Isaac, where a more palatable ritual using a goat
instead of a child was instituted.)
If you don't want to burn your child up in actual sacrifice, you can
dedicate your child to be a shrine prostitute. In recognition of the
obligations of the original sacrifice, the ritual involves passing
your child through a fire. (Passing through a holy fire in this
symbolic way could be done in such a way that no damage was done to
the child. And people used to mutilating their children in
circumcision would think nothing if some small pain occurred during
the ritual of passing through the fire.)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Our thought for the day, a lesson from history:
The conservative Christians who founded Adolf Hitler's
Nazi Party expressed their faith in point 24 of the
party program:
24) We demand freedom for all religious creeds
in the State, in so far as they do not endanger
its existence or offend against the moral or
ethical sense of the Germanic race.
The party as such represents the standpoint
of positive Christianity without binding itself
to any one particular confession.
Are you a political or religious Conservative?
Remember this: those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Royce Buehler
and study than I was giving you credit for. Thanks for an
intriguing post, with a lot of new material for me to ponder. I've
printed it off for my permanent files - not something I often do.
*The* Didaskalos wrote:
>
> Royce Buehler <fig...@earthlink.net> wrote to and
> alt.politics.homosexuality:
> == The problem is that 1 Kings 14 also lists a slew of other idolatrous
> == practices. There isn't any particular reason to link the cult
> == prostitutes to the idol Molech rather than some other. And there
> == are two reasons not to make that link.
Neither knowledge nor bandwidth permit me to make a detailed
response to your points. I'd just summarize my reaction as:
(1) I still see no particular connection to Molech. And (2) I
now understand that you have good reason not to believe that either
of my "two reasons" are conclusive for linking temple prostitution
to Baal rather than Molech. But I still think both my reasons are at
least indicative.
> == The first is that there is a much tighter connection between
> == the cult prostitutes and the cult of Asherah; Kings says that the
> == two did business at the same place in the Jerusalem temple. And
> == Asherah was one of the consorts of Baal - a Canaanite rather than
> == Ammonite goddess.
>
> First, there is Asherah, S842, and there is Ashtaroth, S6252. Spiros
> Zodhiates, in his Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible cross-references
> Ashtaroth under Ahserah, but only with a question mark, suggesting
> that the association is not conclusive.
According to my Britannica, Asherah and Ashtaroth are named
separately in an Ugaritic list of deities.
> What of the above passage in 2 Kings? Do we conclude that "passing
> through the fire" was practices by both Baal and Molech religions? Are
> the "starry hosts" associated with Baal? Or are we to conclude that
> the above is a list of practices of various religions rather than just
> a single one? In that case, why should it be unusual to mention Molech
> and Baal practices together (shrine prostitutes and Asherah poles)?
I always assumed that it was a catch-all list of practices associated
with various religions. I wasn't using this passage as a basis
for linking shrine prostitutes with Baal.
> In Lev 20:3, the Hebrew "nathan" =S5414 is used to refer to this
> giving of children to Molech: "for by giving his children to Molech,
> he has defiled my sanctuary"NIV. Interestingly, S5411 is Nathuwn,
> "Temple-servants." Wouldn't this better fit living children working as
> prostitutes than ones "burned up"?
This was perhaps your most telling point.
> This refers to actions in the reign of Josiah, over 300 years later
> than Reheboam (maybe I've miscounted). Did the same situations and
> practices in the various religions necessarily remain fixed during
> that period?
I think that's the proper default assumption. That is, any given
aspect of the practices is more likely to have remained fixed
than it is to have changed in a specific undocumented way. All
of this is of course probabilistic reasoning, as historical
reasoning must perforce be.
> == The second is that, although Al makes a valid point about the
> == "sacrifice" to Molech quite possibly being a "dedication", the
> == Tanach refers to the practice several times as "making your
> == children pass through the fire." If this wasn't child sacrifice,
> == it was some sort of required initiatory ordeal. This fits poorly
> == with the notion that it could also have been a voluntary entry
> == into the sex trade.
>
> What specific references are in the Tanaim?
As a born-again Christian, I don't spend much time browsing the
sayings of the Tanaim. :-) Since they're far less contemporary
with events than biblical or archaeological sources, I'd give them
correspondingly less weight; but if you turn up something, it's
certainly going to be relevant, so please pass it on.
> Do they use the fire
> terminology to refer to Lev 18 and Lev 20, as KJV does? If so, they're
> adding "fire" which isn't in the text.
A worthwhile question, and I don't know the answer. Thanks for
reminding me about the absence of "fire" in the Leviticus text.
I'd noticed it before (The KJV is very good about using italics
to denote its insertions for grammar or clarity), but forgotten about
it again.
> My major objections to traditional analyses such as these:
>
> 1. There is no reason to believe that the Molech religion had only one
> practice that was objectionable. It could well have had both shrine
> prostitution and child sacrifice.
True; but we only have definite evidence of one of those.
> 2. If seen only as refering to burnt sacrifice of children, the Lev 18
> Molech verse is EGREGIOUSLY out of place in a chapter devoted to sex
> acts. I haven't seen any commentary that addresses this.
(Your following paragraph may indicate that you agree with me in
being somewhat skeptical of the notion that Lev 18 is "devoted to
sex acts.")
> You mention the possibility of initiation rite. It could well be that
> cult prostitution was an alternative to child sacrifice, and might
> have displaced it or might have been presented to people as a less
> terrible alternative to burning up their children. (Compare the child
> sacrifice story of Isaac, where a more palatable ritual using a goat
> instead of a child was instituted.)
>
> If you don't want to burn your child up in actual sacrifice, you can
> dedicate your child to be a shrine prostitute. In recognition of the
> obligations of the original sacrifice, the ritual involves passing
> your child through a fire. (Passing through a holy fire in this
> symbolic way could be done in such a way that no damage was done to
> the child. And people used to mutilating their children in
> circumcision would think nothing if some small pain occurred during
> the ritual of passing through the fire.)
That's ingenious, as well as plausible. I don't know of any reason
to think it's probable.
I had been thinking more of an initiation by ordeal, rather than
a passing through fire as a symbolic sacrifice. I do agree that
the latter would have more natural analogues in Semitic cultures,
such as the Israelite sacrifice which redeems the firstborn.
Royce Buehler
[long and interesting things]
An intriguing post, much of which I agree with. I had not previously
noticed the near/far principle of organization in Leviticus 18,
but you make a very good case for it. (It isn't clear to me,
though, how the Molech prohibition fits that pattern particularly,
even if your thesis is correct. Wouldn't your thesis make it
redundant with the "lying with a man" verse?)
My own sense of things is that the central concern of Lev. 18 and
20 is idolatrous practices. Since the primary local cults were
fertility cults, it wouldn't be unnatural if this wound up being
phrased in terms of the sexual rites promoted therein. Nor would
it be surprising if the resulting collection drew in additional
sexual prohibitions by association.
The opening of Leviticus 18 contrasts doing according to the LORD's
ordinances with doing according to the statutes of the nations -
both Egypt and Canaan. So what's being forbidden would seem to be
things done "by statute", rather than things done in accordance
with private desires. Egypt is mentioned; then Canaan. Royal
brother/sister incest was a feature of the Egyptian state religion;
so incest laws lead off the list. Then come idolatrous rites of
the Canaanites - Molech, then adultery (as in the feast to Baal-Peor
in Numbers), then male temple prostitution, then (presumably) some
fertility rite involving bestiality.
All of this is corroborated by the statement in Deuteronomy 12:31:
"For every abomination which the LORD hates they have done FOR
THEIR GODS." (Emphasis mine.)
However, I must admit that my scheme doesn't show the elegant
progression that yours does. Gratifyingly, the two interpretations
don't exclude one another.
Cliff Hammond
My own sense of things is that the central concern of Lev. 18 and
20 is idolatrous practices. Since the primary local cults were
fertility cults, it wouldn't be unnatural if this wound up being
phrased in terms of the sexual rites promoted therein. Nor would
it be surprising if the resulting collection drew in additional
sexual prohibitions by association.
The opening of Leviticus 18 contrasts doing according to the LORD's
ordinances with doing according to the statutes of the nations -
both Egypt and Canaan. So what's being forbidden would seem to be
things done "by statute", rather than things done in accordance
with private desires. Egypt is mentioned; then Canaan. Royal
brother/sister incest was a feature of the Egyptian state religion;
so incest laws lead off the list.
Royce, I can't remember if we discussed this last year. Just as incest leads the list, St. Paul seems to follow the outline as translated in the LXX, which was used by Christians in Corinth, in his 1st Letter to the Corinthians. This passage in Leviticus holds the key to understanding the Greek word, "arsenokoitai," thought to be coined by Paul or one of his contemporaries and used by him in 1Cor 6. And just as in Leviticus (at the end) the reason for its writing is spelled out - that the Israelites could be separated out form their idolatrous neighbor nations as the "Nation of Israel" - Paul, famous for insisting on "freedom from the law," nevertheless assesses that the Corinthians are not ready for the "adult food" of the Spirit and announces to them his regret that they should be fed with "baby food" of the Law - that law being outlined in Leviticus which Paul applied toward the separation of the Corinthian Christian community as the "Kingdom of God."
In the light of Paul's use of Leviticus as analogous to the situation at Corinth and given the Corinthians infamy as devotes of the fertility goddess, Aphrodite Pandamous, who *also* used male temple prostitutes, it fits that 1 Cor 6 refers also to idolatry rather than the context of "gay lifestyle" ("homosexual offenders," "defilers of themselves with mankind," "perverts" and other mistranslations of arsenokoitai) given it by fundamentalist who disregard the historical context and those who were just negligent in scholarship.
Then come idolatrous rites of
the Canaanites - Molech, then adultery (as in the feast to Baal-Peor
in Numbers), then male temple prostitution, then (presumably) some
fertility rite involving bestiality.All of this is corroborated by the statement in Deuteronomy 12:31:
"For every abomination which the LORD hates they have done FOR
THEIR GODS." (Emphasis mine.)
The theme of idolatry is repeated in Romans, though with a much more mature discussion of the Spirit's precedence over the Law.
Please do not feel compelled to answer in great detail. I recognize
that this thread concerns Leviticus; however, Leviticus is referenced in
1 Cor and then Tim references the list in 1 Cor. So Leviticus is quite
important in understanding the others.
-cliff
"It's not the name of the thing that matters,
it's what the name of the thing is called."
--Humpty Dumpty
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/cliffhammond/index.thml
wycliffe [at] swbell [dot] net
Satan
Junior
wrote:
>the Bible is a lie. Don't believe it.
>
>
Especially the part about the never ending bottle of beer or Sangria.
*The* Didaskalos
alt.politics.homosexuality:
==
== Some of the biblical evidence of Molech appears to merge or confuse Molech with
== another god, Milcom (I Kings 11:7). Often scholars battle over what vowels to
== insert.
And Molech has sometimes been confused with Melech (king) as in the
Septuagint.
*The* Didaskalos
alt.politics.homosexuality:
== *The* Didaskalos wrote:
== [long and interesting things]
==
== An intriguing post, much of which I agree with. I had not previously
== noticed the near/far principle of organization in Leviticus 18,
== but you make a very good case for it. (It isn't clear to me,
== though, how the Molech prohibition fits that pattern particularly,
== even if your thesis is correct. Wouldn't your thesis make it
== redundant with the "lying with a man" verse?)
==
No, because the Molech verse forbids dedicating children to serve as
prostitutes, which is different from an adult male using the services
of those prostitutes, forbidden in the following verse.
Why children for prostitutes? We've heard stories from east Asia about
young girls as prostitutes, because of the desirability of virgins.
This ancient prostitution was a heterosexual affair, possibly using
males for reasons or ritual, but very possibly using them because of a
shortage of females. (Women always seem to be in short supply in the
Old Testament.)
A desirable male prostitute would then be one as close to a woman as
could be achieved. Philo of Alexandria describes a "malakoi," the
effeminate male prostitute St. Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 6:9, and
Philo seems to be more upset by the effeminization than by the sex.
In India, there's a class of religious prostitutes who are boys
mutilated at an early age. This is an ancient custom.
*The* Didaskalos
alt.politics.homosexuality:
== *The* Didaskalos wrote:
== [long and interesting things]
==
== An intriguing post, much of which I agree with. I had not previously
== noticed the near/far principle of organization in Leviticus 18,
== but you make a very good case for it. (It isn't clear to me,
== though, how the Molech prohibition fits that pattern particularly,
== even if your thesis is correct. Wouldn't your thesis make it
== redundant with the "lying with a man" verse?)
==
== My own sense of things is that the central concern of Lev. 18 and
== 20 is idolatrous practices. Since the primary local cults were
== fertility cults, it wouldn't be unnatural if this wound up being
== phrased in terms of the sexual rites promoted therein. Nor would
== it be surprising if the resulting collection drew in additional
== sexual prohibitions by association.
==
== The opening of Leviticus 18 contrasts doing according to the LORD's
== ordinances with doing according to the statutes of the nations -
== both Egypt and Canaan. So what's being forbidden would seem to be
== things done "by statute", rather than things done in accordance
== with private desires. Egypt is mentioned; then Canaan. Royal
== brother/sister incest was a feature of the Egyptian state religion;
== so incest laws lead off the list. Then come idolatrous rites of
== the Canaanites - Molech, then adultery (as in the feast to Baal-Peor
== in Numbers), then male temple prostitution, then (presumably) some
== fertility rite involving bestiality.
==
== All of this is corroborated by the statement in Deuteronomy 12:31:
== "For every abomination which the LORD hates they have done FOR
== THEIR GODS." (Emphasis mine.)
==
== However, I must admit that my scheme doesn't show the elegant
== progression that yours does. Gratifyingly, the two interpretations
== don't exclude one another.
One thing overlooked by many people about Lev 18 and 20 is that the
prohibitions are not general points of sin, but are specifically tied
to one thing: Israel's right to stay in its new territory.
The punishment for not doing these things is not hellfire, but
expulsion form the land of Israel. (Lev 18:28, 20:22)
*The* Didaskalos
alt.politics.homosexuality:
== Royce, I can't remember if we discussed this last year. Just as incest
== leads the list, St. Paul seems to follow the outline as translated in
== the LXX, which was used by Christians in Corinth, in his 1st Letter to
== the Corinthians. This passage in Leviticus holds the key to
== understanding the Greek word, "arsenokoitai," thought to be coined by
== Paul or one of his contemporaries and used by him in 1Cor 6.
LXX also presents an interesting perspective on the Molech verse of
Lev 18.
The Septuagint Greek translation of about 250BC we find confusion on
the meaning of this. The Septuagint, as translated by Brenton into
English, reads: "And thou shalt not give of thy seed to serve a ruler;
and thou shalt not profane my holy name; I *am* the Lord." [*am* not
in the original text, but added by Brenton]
The Jews who translated Lev into Greek clearly thought the Hebrew
(nathan) meant dedication to service, not sacrifice in a fire. Perhaps
influenced by that, they misunderstood "melech" (melekh?) or "king"
instead of "Molech," the god.
JayTeeFL
Besenbruch) writes:
>What is Molech?
>
*snip*
and here i thought molech was just a really cool demon character on buffy the
vampire slayer...
prince jace <---- watches buffy religiously
http://members.aol.com/jayteefl/ <---the dead live. read all about it.
Junior
thedid...@TAKEMEOUTTOTHEBALLGAMEhotmail.com (*The* Didaskalos)
wrote:
>Royce Buehler <fig...@earthlink.net> wrote to and
>alt.politics.homosexuality:
>
>== *The* Didaskalos wrote:
>== [long and interesting things]
>==
>== An intriguing post, much of which I agree with. I had not previously
>== noticed the near/far principle of organization in Leviticus 18,
>== but you make a very good case for it. (It isn't clear to me,
>== though, how the Molech prohibition fits that pattern particularly,
>== even if your thesis is correct. Wouldn't your thesis make it
>== redundant with the "lying with a man" verse?)
>==
>No, because the Molech verse forbids dedicating children to serve as
>prostitutes, which is different from an adult male using the services
>of those prostitutes, forbidden in the following verse.
>
>Why children for prostitutes? We've heard stories from east Asia about
>young girls as prostitutes, because of the desirability of virgins.
Virgins suck! And sometimes...nevermind.
>
>This ancient prostitution was a heterosexual affair, possibly using
>males for reasons or ritual, but very possibly using them because of a
>shortage of females. (Women always seem to be in short supply in the
>Old Testament.)
>
>A desirable male prostitute would then be one as close to a woman as
>could be achieved. Philo of Alexandria describes a "malakoi," the
>effeminate male prostitute St. Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 6:9, and
>Philo seems to be more upset by the effeminization than by the sex.
Six of one....
>
>In India, there's a class of religious prostitutes who are boys
>mutilated at an early age. This is an ancient custom.
In India they do all kinds of stupid shit. I hear they wear polka dot
ties with striped shirts. And pose for pictures in white tuxedoes.
*The* Didaskalos
Recently there's been a controversy over whether people are born with
homosexual desires or choose to be that way. Why anyone would choose
to bring such disapproval on themselves voluntarily is beyond my
understanding, but apparently some people think that is the case.
Those who think homosexuality is a choice must agree that if sexual
orientation is a choice, then heterosexuality must also be something
that a person has chosen. I wonder how many heterosexuals can point to
a time when they made a choice to be heterosexual.
This issue was briefly investigated on Milwaukee television station
Channel 58. Though brief, the presentation was unusually fair in
representing both sides of the controversy, and Channel 58 is to be
commended for its coverage, and for being an example from which some
other television stations could learn.
Making the case that homosexuals can change was Mr. David Griffith. He
told Channel 58 that he had left his homosexual life and remained
heterosexual for some 25 years after finding. Jesus. That by itself
would seem like a pretty convincing demonstration that at least some
homosexuals can change.
But there was more to Mr. Griffith's story that wasn't explored in the
report. It turned out that he had been living a homosexual life for
only 6 years before he found Jesus and became heterosexual. And, even
more interesting than that, it appears that Mr. Griffith started life
as a heterosexual, for it was stated that he was married and had a
child, and then divorced his wife and joined the homosexual life.
There was one rather obvious question that was not pursued in Channel
58's report: why did Mr. Griffith apparently "choose" to change from
heterosexual to homosexual in the first place? If Jesus had appeared
to him 6 years later to bring him back to heterosexuality, had the
devil appeared to him to take him from his original heterosexuality
into homosexuality?
Far more interesting than hearing about Mr. Griffith finding Jesus and
turning back to heterosexuality would have been an extended
investigation of why he abandoned heterosexuality in the first place.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Our thought for the day, a lesson from history:
"All members of the SS and police must be in the forefront of
the fight to eliminate homosexuality from the German people."
-- Heinrich Himmler, March 7, 1942 Memorandum.
(Imperial War Museum, London, H/6/165)
James Doemer
*The* Didaskalos wrote in message <36072486...@news.alpha.net>...
:
:Recently there's been a controversy over whether people are born with
:homosexual desires or choose to be that way.
The only controversy I see is why we continue to associate "nature vs.
nurture"
in relation to human rights. It's irrelevant....
T. J. Stiel
Heterosexuality is a lifestyle not an identity. As a Christian one of these
is sinful when acted out and the other when acted out outside of marriage is
sinful.
tj
*The* Didaskalos wrote in message <36072486...@news.alpha.net>...
>
>Recently there's been a controversy over whether people are born with
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>Our thought for the day, a lesson from history:
>
>"All members of the SS and police must be in the forefront of
>the fight to eliminate homosexuality from the German people."
>
> -- Heinrich Himmler, March 7, 1942 Memorandum.
> (Imperial War Museum, London, H/6/165)
>
Fenris
<tjs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Um....you realize...Homosexual is a lifestyle not an identity. Just as
> Heterosexuality is a lifestyle not an identity.
[Header trimmed to reduce crossposting]
What do you know about it, aside from your religious need to believe this
is the case? Quit hatemongering in the name of Christ. Here's a statement
from the American Psychological Association:
An American Psychological Association Statement on Homosexuality
The following is an excerpt from a published statement, January 26, 1990,
by Bryant Welch, J.D., Ph.D., Executive Director for Professional Practice
with the American Psychological Association. Prior to joining APA, Dr.
Welch practiced in the mental health delivery system for 15 years.
The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is
neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a
minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study
after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies
of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational
adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well
as heterosexuals.
Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests
that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle,
possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the
population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures,
irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular
culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a
population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social
mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to
repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in
psychological accoutrements.
All targets of discrimination, be they blacks, women, handicapped, or
religious sects, have a uniquely horrible dimension to their suffering.
This is true for gay men and lesbians as well. Psychologically, sexuality
and sexual orientation represent life forces which form the most sensitive
bedrock of our being. They not only shape our attitudes and ourpassions,
but they are so fundamental to our personality structure that they, in
large part, determine our sense of personal cohesiveness and our level of
comfort in the world. They are the driving force with which we love,work,
and create.
For patients (in psychotherapy), the societal assumption that
homosexuality (is) sick and/or immoral creates(s) an emotional, sensual,
and spiritual prison where self-expression, love, and the deepest forms of
human connectedness (are) stultified though anguishing guilt and
self-loathing. For those of us in psychology who have had this kind of
experience working with gay men and lesbians, the impact has been quite
profound. For over two decades now, the American Psychological
Association has advocated the elimination of discrimination against
gay men and lesbians.
Finally, if one thinks about the vast real problems confronting our
society and attacking our family structure--problems such as family
violence, divorce, drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, homelessness, and
isolation, it becomes clear that individuals who are obsessed with how a
minority of our citizens express love and sexuality have, indeed,
established a most peculiar set of priorities, both for themselves andfor
others.
Healthy and secure heterosexuals do not feel threatened by
homosexuality. Healthy heterosexuals don't need to oppress homosexuals.
Healthy heterosexuals donšt need to repair homosexuals.
The real issue confronting our society today is not why people seek
love and understanding as they do, but why some seem so unable to love and
understand at all.
--
To e-mail me replace "spamsucks" with "azstarnet.com"
Scruffy van Piebles
wrote:
>Um....you realize...Homosexual is a lifestyle not an identity. Just as
>Heterosexuality is a lifestyle not an identity. As a Christian one of these
>is sinful when acted out and the other when acted out outside of marriage is
>sinful.
>
Um....you realize...Christianity is a lifestyle not an identity.
Further, it is a chosen lifestyle, you are not born with it.
Scruffy
Nicole Lasher
> Um....you realize...Christianity is a lifestyle not an identity.
> Further, it is a chosen lifestyle, you are not born with it.
>
> Scruffy
I don't know if this is true, but some would argue that being ardently
religious, in and of itself, is a sign of low intelligence...That some
people *need* to believe in an all-powerful entity with an actual
"personality" in order to conceptualize the universe, and that they need
to feel that this entity favors them in order to feel confident.
::shrug:: So, they might be born with it...
~Niki
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>Um....you realize...Homosexual is a lifestyle not an identity. Just as
>Heterosexuality is a lifestyle not an identity. As a Christian one of these
>is sinful when acted out and the other when acted out outside of marriage is
>sinful.
>
>tj
So you say TJ -- need I remind you that I am neither Christian not Jew
and that YOUR notions of what is and what is not "sinful" are nothing
to me, meaningless twaddle!
ward
----------------------------------------------------
"Public media should not contain explicit or implied
descriptions of sexacts. Our society should be purged
of the perverts who provide the media with pornographic
material while pretending it has some redeeming social
value under the public's 'right to know.'
Pornography is pornography, regardless of the source."
-Kenneth Starr, 1987, - 60 minutes
----------------------------------------------------
James Doemer
Nicole Lasher wrote in message <360869FD...@netvision.net.il>...
:Scruffy van Piebles wrote:
:
:> Um....you realize...Christianity is a lifestyle not an identity.
:> Further, it is a chosen lifestyle, you are not born with it.
:>
:> Scruffy
:
:I don't know if this is true, but some would argue that being ardently
:religious, in and of itself, is a sign of low intelligence...That some
:people *need* to believe in an all-powerful entity with an actual
:"personality" in order to conceptualize the universe, and that they
need
:to feel that this entity favors them in order to feel confident.
:::shrug:: So, they might be born with it...
:
:~Niki
Being ardently religious, and/or of low intelligence is no crime in and
of itself. What they do or don't need to believe to build their self
worth is certainly none of my business. They cross the line when
they attempt to force their crap on people who do not wish to
believe that way. For example, during the 70's there was a rather
large influx of Korean, Vietnamese, Indian, and Chinese immigrants
into this area of SE Michigan. Generally hard working folks who
are simply a delight to have around. They represented a number
of religious beliefs from Buddhists, Hindu, Taoist, Muslim and others
I'm
sure I don't know. They built various churches and temples,
generally attractive buildings, with an eye for preserving as much
of the local flora and fauna as possible. Christians, on the other
hand, build a church by plowing flat, asphalting over, and then, if
they choose, planting one or two trees. Also, in all the last 20+
years that the above peoples have been in my area, I have yet to
have one come to my door at 7:00 on a sunday morning and start
preaching at me, and clutching for my "immortal soul". Christians
think nothing of performing this rudeness. Wait, what's my point
here?? Oh yeah, the Hindu, Taoists, etc.. are every bit as fervent
in their religious beliefs, but are not at all pushy, like Christians.
John De Salvio
<tjs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Um....you realize...Homosexual is a lifestyle not an identity. Just as
> Heterosexuality is a lifestyle not an identity. As a Christian one of these
> is sinful when acted out and the other when acted out outside of marriage is
> sinful.
Um.... what we REALIZE .... is that you can't seem to separate beliefs
and dogma from fact.
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
desalvio["AT" SYMBOL]monitor.net
T. J. Stiel
tj
Scruffy van Piebles wrote in message
<36244916...@news.supernews.com>...
>On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:51:05 -0500, "T. J. Stiel" <tjs...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Um....you realize...Homosexual is a lifestyle not an identity. Just as
>>Heterosexuality is a lifestyle not an identity. As a Christian one of
these
>>is sinful when acted out and the other when acted out outside of marriage
is
>>sinful.
>>
>
>Um....you realize...Christianity is a lifestyle not an identity.
T. J. Stiel
the right to voice my opinion. Unless you live by 2 standards my respect of
your rights is not misplaced;
tj
Ward Stewart wrote in message <36096283...@news.hi.net>...
>On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:51:05 -0500, "T. J. Stiel" <tjs...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Um....you realize...Homosexual is a lifestyle not an identity. Just as
>>Heterosexuality is a lifestyle not an identity. As a Christian one of
these
>>is sinful when acted out and the other when acted out outside of marriage
is
>>sinful.
>>
T. J. Stiel
is a lifestyle not an identity, I have also ack'd that Christianity is also
a lifestyle decision.
There is NO scientific basis, conjecture maybe agendas definitely, but no
true evidence other than lifestyle decisions. At this point in our
understanding, factual evidence does not exist to the contrary.
Anyone who, at this point in time, views this in any other light is simply
practicing wishful thinking. Please try not to muddie the facts with your
hopes.
tj
John De Salvio wrote in message ...
>In article <3607c...@news.primary.net>, "T. J. Stiel"
><tjs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Um....you realize...Homosexual is a lifestyle not an identity. Just as
>> Heterosexuality is a lifestyle not an identity. As a Christian one of
these
>> is sinful when acted out and the other when acted out outside of marriage
is
>> sinful.
>
Fenris
<tjs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I sir, do not have that problem. I have stated factually that homo or hetro
> is a lifestyle not an identity, I have also ack'd that Christianity is also
> a lifestyle decision.
>
> There is NO scientific basis, conjecture maybe agendas definitely, but no
> true evidence other than lifestyle decisions. At this point in our
> understanding, factual evidence does not exist to the contrary.
>
> Anyone who, at this point in time, views this in any other light is simply
> practicing wishful thinking. Please try not to muddie the facts with your
> hopes.
[NGs trimmed]
What nonsense. Sexual orientation does not change as a result of
abstinence. Get help.
John De Salvio
> I sir, do not have that problem. I have stated factually that homo or hetro
> is a lifestyle not an identity, I have also ack'd that Christianity is also
> a lifestyle decision.
Now put up some verifiable cites to back this "fact" as being anything more
than your own opinion.
>
> There is NO scientific basis, conjecture maybe agendas definitely,
Much like belief in God, eh?
> but no
> true evidence other than lifestyle decisions.
Better do some more research.
Just what is your professional authority on what you expound?
It is definitely NOT in human sexuality.
> At this point in our
> understanding, factual evidence does not exist to the contrary.
>
> Anyone who, at this point in time, views this in any other light is simply
> practicing wishful thinking. Please try not to muddie the facts with your
> hopes.
No, I most certainly do not wish to copy you.
Ron Burdette
today, even our vocabulary. The word 'gay' previously had connotations of joy
and frivolity, innocence and a truly clean demeanor of charm and happiness.
But as the time for all of mankind draws near to the end, Satan is tightening
the strangle hold that he has on his current followers and he is recruiting
thousands daily for his cause.
Born Gay? No, there are none that are born homosexual, it is a preference.
The same preference as to whether you want to be a child of God or a supporter
of the god of this world. Those that choose abnormal or odd sexual
preferences were in the past wrongly called queers. Instead they should have
been called
'Lost Queers', because that is exactly that which they are. They willfully go
against the laws of God and nature and misuse their bodies sexually. But
should they hear the Word of God, and repent of their sins and stop their
sinful ways, then they are no longer queers, they are normal men. This
disproves the theory of being born a homosexual, it is a learned sexual
preference, and can be stopped as any other sin against God.
No one is born to be a queer, it is desired and pervertedly brought to
fruition by Satan, because the Holy Spirit is not there to stop him.
><>...Ron
Nicole Lasher
> Being ardently religious, and/or of low intelligence is no crime in and
> of itself.
<some rather accurate and good observations snipped only to save space>
>the Hindu, Taoists, etc.. are every bit as fervent
> in their religious beliefs, but are not at all pushy, like Christians.
This is true in the U.S. but, at least with Hindus and Muslims, there
are as many, or more sects or denominations, as there are in xianity.
So, there are some extremists who make things pretty bad for people of
different beliefs. Perhaps it's more about an individual's culture,
upbringing, and religion together, instead of just the religion itself.
~Niki
John De Salvio
Go visit your local banker, sit down and list all your assets, negotiate
the biggest loan you can handle, and BUY YOURSELF A CLUE!
Tom Hawk
Ron Burdette wrote:
>
> The abominable sin of homosexuality has tainted and degraded many things
> today, even our vocabulary. The word 'gay' previously had connotations of joy
> and frivolity, innocence and a truly clean demeanor of charm and happiness.
> But as the time for all of mankind draws near to the end, Satan is tightening
> the strangle hold that he has on his current followers and he is recruiting
> thousands daily for his cause.
> Born Gay? No, there are none that are born homosexual, it is a preference.
> The same preference as to whether you want to be a child of God or a supporter
> of the god of this world. Those that choose abnormal or odd sexual
> preferences were in the past wrongly called queers. Instead they should have
> been called
> 'Lost Queers', because that is exactly that which they are. They willfully go
> against the laws of God and nature and misuse their bodies sexually. But
> should they hear the Word of God, and repent of their sins and stop their
> sinful ways, then they are no longer queers, they are normal men. This
> disproves the theory of being born a homosexual, it is a learned sexual
> preference, and can be stopped as any other sin against God.
> No one is born to be a queer, it is desired and pervertedly brought to
> fruition by Satan, because the Holy Spirit is not there to stop him.
>
> ><>...Ron
You seem to have a problem that doesn't concern me. Would you be
terribly upset if I ask you to take your silly-assed problem down the
hall?
Tom
Allen James
<yammering idiocy snipped>
> ><>...Ron
Blah blah blah yackety schmackety. Why should I, a homosexual and an
avowed non-christian, give a good dogdamn about the silly, arbitrary rules
of your religion?
Tell ya what- I'LL stop demanding the same rights as you the day YOUR
churches start paying TAXES. Deal? Seriously, if that lot of drag queens
over at the Vatican wants to run things, they oughta foot the damn
bill....
Allen James
--
%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%
"To judge by the notions expounded by most theologians,
one must conclude that God created most men simply with
a view to crowding Hell."
Marquis de Sade
Thomas Hall
James Doemer wrote in message <3608f...@news.provide.net>...>:> Um....you realize...Christianity is a lifestyle not an identity.
>:> Further, it is a chosen lifestyle, you are not born with it.
>:>
>:> Scruffy
>:I don't know if this is true, but some would argue that being ardently
>:religious, in and of itself, is a sign of low intelligence...That some
>:people *need* to believe in an all-powerful entity with an actual
>:"personality" in order to conceptualize the universe, and that they
>need
>:to feel that this entity favors them in order to feel confident.
>:::shrug:: So, they might be born with it...
>:
>:~Niki
>
>worth is certainly none of my business. They cross the line when
>they attempt to force their crap on people who do not wish to
>believe that way. For example, during the 70's there was a rather
>large influx of Korean, Vietnamese, Indian, and Chinese immigrants
>into this area of SE Michigan. Generally hard working folks who
>are simply a delight to have around. They represented a number
>of religious beliefs from Buddhists, Hindu, Taoist, Muslim and others
>I'm
>sure I don't know. They built various churches and temples,
>generally attractive buildings, with an eye for preserving as much
>of the local flora and fauna as possible. Christians, on the other
>hand, build a church by plowing flat, asphalting over, and then, if
>they choose, planting one or two trees. Also, in all the last 20+
>years that the above peoples have been in my area, I have yet to
>have one come to my door at 7:00 on a sunday morning and start
>preaching at me, and clutching for my "immortal soul". Christians
>think nothing of performing this rudeness. Wait, what's my point
The Saint
Black and the White, Positive and Negative, God and Devil....
Been heterosexual is not a choice is the law of the universe, been
anything
else is a choice! (regardless of the law).
Chris
The Saint
James Doemer
Bravo Girlfriend!! And this debate on "nature vs. Nurture" is
entirely irrelevant to the political issues.
Girlfriend wrote in message <6uckgo$h...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
:I am a 41 year young woman who has been a lesbian all my life. And I
:have no idea if gayness is simply a preference for one gender over the
:other or hard wired. (I feel attracted to women overwhelmingly and I
:chose to act on it. Just as straights feel overwhelmingly attracted to
:the opposite sex, and chose to act on it.) But whether or not there is
:a scientific reason, doesn't really matter does it? There's nothing
:wrong with being gay... "even by choice." <G>
:
:Personally, I'm happy and proud to "CHOSE" to be gay. And if someone
:offered me something to change my sexual preference, I certainly
:wouldn't do it. I like who I am, who I love, and how I love. I like my
:female identity, coupled with another female identity. It is a unique
:and powerful experience. I'm sure gay men and hetero couples feel the
:same way about their own lifestyles.
:
:(Note: I trimmed the headers , just because I don't c/p much)
:
:
:
:
:
James Doemer
Thomas Hall wrote in message <6ucul7$9p8$1...@news.hal-pc.org>...
:Born gay is a gift from God.
Which God? If that is the way in which you choose to believe, then
more power to you, however it is totally irrelevant to the political
issues
involved.
:>Being ardently religious, and/or of low intelligence is no crime in
:>
:>
:
:
John De Salvio
> You won't know there is light if it was no darkness, the same goes for
> Black and the White, Positive and Negative, God and Devil....
> Been heterosexual is not a choice is the law of the universe, been
> anything
> else is a choice! (regardless of the law).
Does this statement become comprehensible anytime before the
next millennium?
Just curious....
Joseph P.
quoted, then we have "truth". Otherwise, you will be constantly swayed by
the "world's opinion" and not the "Word". The word of God says in Romans
chapter 1 that homosexuality is not from the true God. It comes from Satan.
Homosexuality is a lust for "MORE" than enough. God set up sex between a man
and woman(Can't we just read the Word of God to see this logical pattern?).
Lust begins where need ceases. If you want more than this, it starts into
the category of lust. You choose lust. God chose what need is. And sex with
the opposite is need, not lust(unless you can't control that either-i.e.
Bill C.) The mind controls the body, not the other way around. "Casting down
imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge
of God(like channel 58, the world, etc..) and bringing into captivity every
thought to the obedience of Christ"(II Cor. 10:5). We put our mind and body
into subjection. We do it. No on can do it for us. That's why "I was born
that way" is a copout of an undisciplined mind. The Word of God has all the
answers!
Joseph
Fenris
Robert Curran
Joseph P.
Amen and Amen, The Bible is God's Word to Man.
Read it, Study it, and Apply it.
it doesn't matter if you believe the Bible, it is still true, whether you
believe it or not.
God Bless you Joseph for standing up for God's Word.
Ruth Atnip
At the risk of being 'heckled' and 'mentally abused',
I will try to help my friend 'the Saint', (which I hope and pray he really
is!).
For 'the Saint':
Dear 'Saint',
If you will allow me, I will compose your statement so that John can
'comprehend' it before the next
'millennium'.
I understand it perfectly, despite a few 'grammatical' errors, of which we
are all 'guilty'
occasionally.
John may be one of those who has never made a grammatical error or
had a grammatical typo, but I know there have been some in mine!
Here it is as you wrote it:
> > You won't know there is light if it was no darkness, the same goes for
> > Black and the White, Positive and Negative, God and Devil....
> > Been heterosexual is not a choice is the law of the universe, been
> > anything
> > else is a choice! (regardless of the law).
Here it is with a few 'grammatical errors' fixed:
"You wouldn't know there is light if there were no darkness,
the same goes for Black and White, Positive and Negative, God and the
Devil....
Being heterosexual is not a choice; it is the law of the universe.
Being anything else is a choice (regardless of the law of our country)!"
And I agree, totally.
Also to add to that;
it is the choice of every human being,
along with all the results and consequences of that choice.
Sincerely,
Ruth
a Christian mother and grandmother
____________________________end of
message______________________________________
John De Salvio <des...@monitor.net> wrote in article
<desalvo-2409...@rp46.pm3.monitor.net>...
Woofle
Salvio) wrote:
>In article <360A25CC...@com.net>, "*-><><>*-<> *" <">-"> wrote:
>
>> You won't know there is light if it was no darkness, the same goes for
>> Black and the White, Positive and Negative, God and Devil....
>> Been heterosexual is not a choice is the law of the universe, been
>> anything
>> else is a choice! (regardless of the law).
>
>Does this statement become comprehensible anytime before the
>next millennium?
>
>Just curious....
>
Doesn't make sense to me, either. I've tried to parse "Saint"'s
post a dozen times to Sunday and it doesn't make any more sense
now than when I began. Probably, the core idea
behind it is so idiotic that only an idiot could
make sense of it. I'm not sure, but this sort of idiocy
may be an undesirable side-effect of hanging around in the
alt.christnet heirarchy too much.
Fenris
<che...@gte.net> wrote:
> Being heterosexual is not a choice; it is the law of the universe.
Says who? Better study some biology. You might begin with "Patterns of
Sexual Behavior" by Ford & Beach.
Fenris
<bobc...@integrityonline7.com> crossposted over half the universe:
[numerous NGs deleted]
> Joseph P.
>
> Amen and Amen, The Bible is God's Word to Man.
Prove it--without tautological refereces to Scripture.
> Read it, Study it, and Apply it.
Stuff it.
> it doesn't matter if you believe the Bible, it is still true, whether you
> believe it or not.
And elephants fly.
> God Bless you Joseph for standing up for God's Word.
As if God's Word would need anyone to stick up for it.
Rasmus Neikes
alt.bible,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.politics.homosexuality due to
DejaNews crossposting policies ***
*** Followup-To:alt.politics.homosexuality ***
In article <6udvp7$ffh$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>,
"Ruth Atnip" <che...@gte.net> wrote:
> Dear John,
>
> At the risk of being 'heckled' and 'mentally abused',
> I will try to help my friend 'the Saint', (which I hope and pray he really
> is!).
>
Forgive my nitpicking, but aren't peolpe 'declared' Saints?
> For 'the Saint':
>
> Dear 'Saint',
>
> If you will allow me, I will compose your statement so that John can
> 'comprehend' it before the next
> 'millennium'.
> I understand it perfectly, despite a few 'grammatical' errors, of which we
> are all 'guilty'
> occasionally.
> John may be one of those who has never made a grammatical error or
> had a grammatical typo, but I know there have been some in mine!
>
> Here it is as you wrote it:
>
> > > You won't know there is light if it was no darkness, the same goes for
> > > Black and the White, Positive and Negative, God and Devil....
> > > Been heterosexual is not a choice is the law of the universe, been
> > > anything
> > > else is a choice! (regardless of the law).
>
> Here it is with a few 'grammatical errors' fixed:
>
> "You wouldn't know there is light if there were no darkness,
> the same goes for Black and White, Positive and Negative, God and the
> Devil....
Saying that one would state that Giod would _need_ the Devil in order for
people to be able to belive in him. Some omnipotent being I must say!
Wouldn't this suggest that evil only exists because otherwise the good would
lack a certain level of recognition? Also, doesn't it contradict the
Christian idea of a 'paradise' where people would live happily by God's side?
After all it would still take a Devil, right...
> Being heterosexual is not a choice; it is the law of the universe.
> Being anything else is a choice (regardless of the law of our country)!"
>
> And I agree, totally.
So you're not making much sense, either... *g* I'll spare you from listing all
those examples that show that heterosexuality is NOT the 'law of the Universe'
(can't you peolpe be honest enough to say that gays are unnatural, at least?)
How can one chose to do one thing, if doing the opposite is not a choice as
well...??? How can you claim that going to work is a choice, but staying at
home wouldn't?
Moreover, when did you _decide_ to be heterosexual? (Since people tend to not
give an answer to this question: I'd really like to know!)
>
> Also to add to that;
> it is the choice of every human being,
> along with all the results and consequences of that choice.
Now, is it a choice, or is it not? *lost* Do you feel you 'chose' your
sexuality?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ruth
> a Christian mother and grandmother
Rasmus.
ps: The statement is still not any more comprehensible than it was before! And
suggesting that John was complaining about poor grammar seems unjustified...
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>> Far more interesting than hearing about Mr. Griffith finding Jesus and
>> turning back to heterosexuality would have been an extended
>> investigation of why he abandoned heterosexuality in the first place.
He was clearly bisexual, and that's that.
---
Q. How many heteros does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. I don't know, they're still trying to breed enough brains
for the challenge!
---
The Final Testament, a Bible by and for Gays only:
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
GodHates...@HetBeGone.com
---
Charles Schulz's lawyers are after my ass
for my gay-rights parody of Peanuts!
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>When we go to The Word of God for answers and not channel 58 that you
>quoted, then we have "truth". Otherwise, you will be constantly swayed by
>the "world's opinion" and not the "Word". The word of God says in Romans
>chapter 1 that homosexuality is not from the true God. It comes from Satan.
>Homosexuality is a lust for "MORE" than enough. God set up sex between a man
>and woman(Can't we just read the Word of God to see this logical pattern?).
You are terribly wrong in your conclusions. There is no evidence
anywhere, in either the Old or New Testament, that specifically
condemns homosexuality when performed by two, mutually consenting
adults. I now quote from a Biblical scholar, whose study in this
matter is contained in a paper he wrote, and contributed to my
website. The entire document can be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Stonewall/8944/dave.htm
Now, here are quotes from his work, regarding the issue at hand:
---begin quotes
There are only 4 scriptures that are taken to say
anything about homosexuality; the Leviticus laws, I Cor 6:9,
Romans 1:26-27, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah - and none
address loving, consenting homosexual acts as we know them
today....
Romans 1:26-27 mentions homosexual acts performed by
people who are clearly described as heterosexual. The men in
the NT patriarchal culture exerted dominance not only over
women, but over younger males as well. The nature of
homosexual acts in the Bible are so very different from what
we know as homosexuality today that the passages have no
application to today's homosexuality. Such practices as in NT
times simply no longer exist....
Study Of Romans 1 "Unnatural Acts"
Paul is warning that many were guilty of worshipping man
instead of God and therefore was becoming an idol. The love
for that idol is an unnatural love called lust. Some men and
women allowed sex to become their god (vile affections) and
the result is turning the natural love for sex into something
unnatural (verse 26). Paul does not specify what that
unnatural sexual conduct is, but it is something not natural
for those that have made sex their God. He could have been
talking about both the male and female sex goddess prostitutes
in the Temple like he was clearly discussing in 1 Cor. For
homosexuals this part of the passage should not apply. To a
Christian, God is first in their lives and not sex so they
would not fall under this condemnation.
HOWEVER, the issue is that Paul describes men as
naturally preferring women. For men whose natural preference
is for women, to have sex with a man would violate this, as in
the case of pederasty. It is also interesting to note that
these men must "katergazomai" the act of sex with other man.
In Greek this means extreme energy is required to accomplish
the deed referred to. This would also support the view that
it was heterosexual males having anal intercourse with
heterosexual males such as to degrade those captured in battle
which was a common practice under pederasty. For a gay male,
clearly this extreme energy is not required so it does not
appear to have that meaning. Many heterosexual couples also
enjoy anal sex, which is naturally enjoyable to them, not just
to homosexuals.
From this same understanding of Paul's use of the term
"natural" there are many churches who would condemn a man
whose hair is too long, based on 1 Cor 11:14. Or "natural" can
mean what is customarily observed (cp. Romans 11:24).
Certainly in Paul's day the usual preference of people was for
the opposite sex. It appears more and more that homosexuality
is a redundant characteristic of birth just as is being
left-handed. If heterosexuality is the norm, that doesn't
mean those naturally born homosexual are any less blessed by
God.
The Importance Of Romans 2
To read Romans 1 without Romans 2 is a great error, for
Paul goes on to say that we are not to judge each other! He
points out the self-righteousness of those who have judged the
pagans just described in Romans 1. Then he reiterates Jesus'
command of the Golden Rule in his own words: "to those who by
patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality,
he will give eternal life (2:6)".
So what's happened between Romans 1 and 2? Paul is using
an "attention grabbing" technique like any good writer or
speaker. In this letter, he is concerned with trying to
bridge the gaps between Jewish Christians and Greek Christians
who were judging each other and putting each other down.
Paul starts by talking about those "awful pagans" -- a
group which both Jew and Greek Christians felt superior to.
He gives a laundry list of "sins" and the Christians are
probably going "yeh, yeh, those bad people, we are better".
Then, after having caught them in their judgementalism, he
says "by judging, you pass judgement on yourself." By using a
pagan example of sins, he could then go on to say, in
effect-GOTCHA! Do not judge! He said, "God shows no
partiality" (2:11).
Romans 1 is being misused today to bash homosexuality
much as the Jewish and Greek Christians were bashing each
other in his day. He did not write Chapter 1 to be used apart
from Chapter 2. His point was not to reinforce judgementalism
but to say stop judging.
Historical Reasons For False Teaching About Against Nature
The idea of "against nature" had anything to do with
homosexuality only occurred with the increasing emphasis of
Hellenistic Jewish and Christian moralists on sexual purity
gave rise in late Jewish apocrypha and early Christian
writings.
In the intellectual environment vehemently opposed to the
casual hedonism of the Hellenistic world, many issues which
had not been specifically sexual became so; this was the case
with marital questions such as adultery, onanism and
homosexuality. This was done by just slightly altering the
greek words!
The Judaeo-Platonist schools such is in Alexandria,
greatly influenced some early Christians, since they combined
the authority of classical learning with a tradition of Old
Testament scholarship (responsible for the Septuagint
translation which most Christians used).
For Christians, The Alexandrian rule had great influence
in what was considered "natural". In the third century Clement
of Alexandria asserted that "to have sex for any purpose other
than to produce children is to violate nature."
This concept was also taught by Philo to Platonist Jews.
Any use of human sexuality, potential or actual, which did not
produce legitimate offspring violated "nature": all moral
issues were subordinate to the primary duty of males to
procreate. Celibacy was as unnatural as homosexuality,
failure to divorce a barren wife was "unnatural" as was
masturbation.
Unfortunately Church tradition bought us these twistings
of scripture and ignores true biblical research to find the
truths of scripture. But many Christians and ministers just
think they know it all and many are totally unaware of the
background of some of their false teachings. That is why some
of today's Christianity is such a travesty. But it need not
be, if it taught more of Christ's teachings of love and
acceptance rather than legalisms that have had their meanings
twisted and were redefined by no other than Christ himself!
Pederasty Was Against Nature Not Today's Homosexuality
Many biblical scholars show that the Bible says nothing
about today's homosexuality. In the new testament, a greek
word study clearly indicates that Paul was discussing the
Greek-Roman practice of pederasty or male prostitution.
The practice of pederasty falls into three distinct
styles. First is the voluntary relationship between an older
man and a young boy. Second is the practice of slave
prostitutes. Third is that of the effeminate "call boy" or
prostitute. Other homosexual practices included a
heterosexual male degrading another heterosexual male by anal
intercourse after capturing them in battle.
Pederasty including young boys acting as prostitutes for
older males. In the greek, "Erastes" and "paiderastes" are the
terms which describe the older adult who takes an active role
in pederasty. "Eromenos" and "paidika" are the terms for the
younger passive partner. There are two sub classifications
"pais" means a boy before puberty, and "meirakion" means a
youth past puberty. The noun "charis" and the verb
"charidesthai" refer to the granting of sexual favors, as in
the younger partner granting favor to the older man. There is
no evidence of any references to same-age, same-sex, equal
loving relationships in the Bible.
---end quotes
Ezekiel Krahlin
<big...@provide.net> wrote:
>
>Thomas Hall wrote in message <6ucul7$9p8$1...@news.hal-pc.org>...
>
>:Born gay is a gift from God.
>
>Which God?
It's a gift no matter how you look at it. If one does not believe in a
god or gods, then one might say it's a gift from nature.
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>Why should I, a homosexual and an
>avowed non-christian, give a good dogdamn about the silly, arbitrary rules
>of your religion?
You shouldn't...and I'm saying this as a Christian (and gay) myself.
There is nothing important Christ ever said, that has not been said
before, and after. The only important lessons are the ones shared by
most every other belief system, including atheism...and that is: be
good to yourself and others. There is nothing of my religion, to
justify regarding other religions and world views as inferior to
mine...in fact, no exuse to regard them as *other than equal to mine,
and deserving of mutual respect. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" was
never meant to be applied only among Christians.
>Tell ya what- I'LL stop demanding the same rights as you the day YOUR
>churches start paying TAXES.
I sure wish we'd start taxing our churches...this would go a long way
to dis-empower their influence in politics. What happened to the idea
of separation of church and state? Religious beliefs should *never be
part of state policies...and a *good Christian (alas, too few!) would
be all for this separation.
Personally, I do not find churches very amenable to my style of
worship. Even the best (gay-friendly) are too coformist for my taste.
My own church is the world, with the starry heavens for its roof.
>Deal? Seriously, if that lot of drag queens over at the Vatican wants
>to run things, they oughta foot the damn
Oh, the Pope, now. Anyone who walks around encrusted in priceless
jewels while millions of people continue to live in misery...should
not be taken seriously. In fact, they should be too ashamed to let him
even go beyond the borders of the Vatican.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Permission granted by author for anyone to distribute this
writing free of charge (including translation into any
language)...under condition that no profit is made therefrom,
and that it remain intact and complete, including title and
credit to the original author.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
ezek...@iname.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
THE SEVEN FORBIDDEN NUMBERS
(a parable for the 21st century)
Š 1997 by Ezekiel Krahlin
(Jehovah's Queer Witness)
The Seven Forbidden Numbers have long been held secret in a
dark, locked chamber of The Vatican Library. The Pope alone
possesses a key to The Dark Chamber, but The Door has only
been open once...and that was to accept the guardianship of
the papyrus containing The Seven Numbers, some time in the
year 404 A.D. The Door has, since then, remained tightly shut
in the shadow of seven guards, seven lambs, and seven seals.
The Seven Forbidden Numbers are also sometimes referred to by
Trustees as "The Sinister Seven," "The Forty-Nine Lies," and
(rarely) "The Blasphemous Sesseract."
As the serviceman for their dehumidifier system, I was not, of
course, permitted anywhere near The Dark Chamber, to do my
necessary and usual maintenance on the air ducts. (I was not
even supposed to have any knowledge of The Dark Chamber.) But
over many years I have managed to eliminate all obstructions
between a restroom vent, and the one that opens to The Dark
Chamber. Among the many steel plates connecting one duct to
another, there now exist a number of false plates through
which a little Italian could crawl around The Labyrinth to
find refuge in The Black Room.
I say unto you: there are many, many wondrous things in
There, in addition to the Seven Forbidden Numbers! Yea, I was
but a humble laborer of modest birth and modest name (Luigi
Unicorno) with a fourth-grade education, until I stumbled into
The Room and onto The Books! The simplest Book, and therefore
the first one I studied, was called "Dick and Dick," which
taught me how to Read. Though I am known across the valley for
my prowess with the boys and ladies, I fainted many times over
its fiendish illustrations, and climaxed over each pretentious
tale.
Seven years have passed since I read the Last Book and, during
that time, have risen from novice to apprentice to master to
slave to pervert. There is no Higher in this world or the
next world, than I! Yea, though there is much Golden Lore in
The Books, not one surpasses the Eternal Wisdom expressed in a
single sheet of papyrus that I found laying at the Foot of The
Lamb! And I, the Chosen, care not to keep The Seven Forbidden
Numbers secret any more...though I lose all I have gained,
including my soul!
(Warning! This is your chance to back out now. Do not, I
repeat, do not scroll down beyond this warning unless you
place no value on your immortal destiny!)
descending into
the abyss
of no
return
:( .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
yahh! oh god no!
!!! HERE THEY ARE, FOLKS !!!
THE SEVEN FORBIDDEN NUMBERS
Want to know what it's like to have a unicorn rest its head on
your shoulder? Dial 976-UNIC. (recorded)
Discover the joy of 666! Dial 976-6SIX. (recorded)
Visit the Bedroom Of The Gods (video screen required)! Dial
976-PEEP. (recorded)
Safe sex with the Devil! Dial 976-TAIL. (live)
Steal the Family Jewels from the Halls of Valhalla! Dial
976-GRAB. (recorded)
Watch Greek soldiers and boys prepare for the Battle of
Armageddon (video screen required)! Dial 976-TROY. (live)
Learn Jesus's and Circe's secret of turning men into pigs!
Dial 976-OINK. (recorded)
---end of tale, and your innocence-------------------
Rev. Billy
>When we go to The Word of God for answers and not channel 58 that you
>quoted, then we have "truth". Otherwise, you will be constantly swayed by
>the "world's opinion" and not the "Word". The word of God says in Romans
>chapter 1 that homosexuality is not from the true God.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Romans 1:22
Risqilly - http://www.risqilly.org/
John De Salvio
> When we go to The Word of God for answers and not channel 58 that you
> quoted, then we have "truth". Otherwise, you will be constantly swayed by
> the "world's opinion" and not the "Word".
"The Word" is a part of the "world's opinion from almost 2,000 years ago.
> The word of God says in Romans
> chapter 1
Romans was written by a man named Paul. He was never God, never even met
Jesus, and Jesus' own family (James) found him preaching a whole different
religion than what Jesus taught.
> that homosexuality is not from the true God. It comes from Satan.
Homosexuality (true homosexuality) is not mentioned or dealt with anywhere
in the Bible, inspite of your "beliefs".
> Homosexuality is a lust for "MORE" than enough. God set up sex between a man
> and woman(Can't we just read the Word of God to see this logical pattern?).
God has never written a word in the series of books collectively known as
the Bible.
Believe what you want; but that doesn't alter FACT.
> Lust begins where need ceases. If you want more than this, it starts into
> the category of lust.
And you have an abysmally poor knowledge of human sexuality.
> You choose lust. God chose what need is. And sex with
> the opposite is need, not lust (unless you can't control that either-i.e.
> Bill C.) The mind controls the body, not the other way around. "Casting down
> imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge
> of God(like channel 58, the world, etc..) and bringing into captivity every
> thought to the obedience of Christ"(II Cor. 10:5). We put our mind and body
> into subjection. We do it. No on can do it for us. That's why "I was born
> that way" is a copout of an undisciplined mind. The Word of God has all the
> answers!
So why should heterosexuals have joy, and homosexuals be forced
to be celibate and alone? Or worse, make an additional person's life a horror
by living a lie in a sham marriage?
Your "god" is quite the sadistic practical joker.
BTW, keep your preaching off alt.POLITICS.homosexuality.
This is NOT your pulpit.
John De Salvio
> Dear John,
>
> At the risk of being 'heckled' and 'mentally abused',
> I will try to help my friend 'the Saint', (which I hope and pray he really
> is!).
>
> For 'the Saint':
>
> Dear 'Saint',
>
> If you will allow me, I will compose your statement so that John can
> 'comprehend' it before the next
> 'millennium'.
> I understand it perfectly, despite a few 'grammatical' errors, of which we
> are all 'guilty'
> occasionally.
> John may be one of those who has never made a grammatical error or
> had a grammatical typo, but I know there have been some in mine!
>
> Here it is as you wrote it:
>
> > > You won't know there is light if it was no darkness, the same goes for
> > > Black and the White, Positive and Negative, God and Devil....
> > > Been heterosexual is not a choice is the law of the universe, been
> > > anything
> > > else is a choice! (regardless of the law).
>
> Here it is with a few 'grammatical errors' fixed:
>
> "You wouldn't know there is light if there were no darkness,
> the same goes for Black and White, Positive and Negative, God and the
> Devil....
> Being heterosexual is not a choice; it is the law of the universe.
> Being anything else is a choice (regardless of the law of our country)!"
>
> And I agree, totally.
>
> Also to add to that;
> it is the choice of every human being,
> along with all the results and consequences of that choice.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ruth
> a Christian mother and grandmother
Would you do me the honor of reading "Prayers for Bobby: a
Mother Coming to Terms with the Suicide of her Gay Son" by
Leroy Aarons (1995, HarperCollins).
It is about another very loving Christian mother, Mary Griffith.
Get back to me when you have read it.
If you wish, I can also introduce you to Mary Griffith.
As to the "corrected" statement, I was not criticizing grammar,
I was criticizing content. It demonstrated a very limited knowledge
about the "law of the universe."
John
(Dom John Francis, Order of St. Benedict (Ret.)
Fenris
> Hey - I was agreeing with you.
No, you were dragging Clinton into the discussion. If you are so desperate
to talk about Clinton, find or create a thread for that purpose.
> The Church claims to be . . The Church, not a Church. It's the other
> denominations that split off or went into schism. The Catholic Church
> _does_ claim to be God's Church. You should understand that.
I do. First it needs to prove there is a God; then it needs to establish
that it is somehow in touch with and speaking on behalf of that deity.
> >Poor babies!
>
> So when some redneck shouts slurs at some 'gay-looking' guy in SF,
> your advice to the 'gay-looking' guy is - poor baby?
Sorry, I do not see Catholic Conservatives as being persecuted. Are they
routinely harassed, beaten, and murdered in the U.S. for being who they
are?
> See, I'm trying
> to suggest to you that your bigotry is far worse than that of any
> southern redneck - who also may hate Catholics, just btw.
I don't hate Catholics. I have Catholic friends. They are good Christians,
enlgihtened people, who do not find it necessary to cast moral stones at
others.
Love the deluded, not their religious delusions.
> >> >and it is very easy to have opinions about other people, people
> >> >who are not like oneself.
>
> >> Sure is. Now what does the 'gay activist' have to say about Catholic
> >> teaching on this?
>
> >Ask one. Or why don't you tell us? The Bible says not to judge those of
> >other religions.
>
> It says not to judge a man's soul. You sure as heck can judge the
> guy's religion as wanting.
If it's about me? You bet.
> >I would assume that includes athiests; although atheism
> >is not a religion.
>
> Then it's a cult.
You better do some research on the definition of "cult."
> >There is nothing PC about Jews replying to Nazis
>
> Sure there is. You've got messages even on these ngs from people
> essentially accusing the Catholic Church of practically building the
> death camps. Really. It seems the further we get from Hitler's Final
> Solution, the more PC the complaints become. And _that_ trivializes
> the memory of those who were murdered, or were traumatized.
Your church's record with regard to WWII is not a happy one, but it's
pretty inconsequential compared to the rest of Church history. I find it
difficult to understand why anyone would want to be called a Christian. If
there were a God, I should think He would have incinerated the planet for
the atrocities committed in the very name of Jesus.
> >bigots; there is nothing PC about homosexuals responding to religious
> >delusionals.
>
> Sure there is. They ain't delusional. The 'gay activist' is.
Not according to the American Psychological Association. Meanwhile, I
suggest you read up on religious addiction. It can be treated.
> Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree?
Oh, you don't think it's reasonable to expect that I will share your
judgement of me?
> >> Read what I write. Read twice, if it goes over your head, the first
> >> time.
>
> >Take your own advice. You do a lot of projecting.
>
> Just read what's there. When I say, read what I write - it means, read
> what I write. Don't waste my time arguing with straw men of your own
> making.
If you don't like what I wwrite, don't read it.
> >They tend to be a pretty outspoken bunch.
>
> Here's what I wrote - it's there for you to . . . read.
>
> For some - not duped. Scared. Intimidated. Coerced. That's PC. That's
> how it works. You seem to assume that all the pointy heads see
> themselves as independent in their opinions, and given to straight
> talk, and the like. Many aren't like that. Many just want to walk the
> halls without getting a 'wedgie'. They just want to do their job, make
> some money, and not draw any real attention to themselves.
>
> For others - sure, it's activism. And they're activists. And they
> aren't going to let the evidence get in their way. The cause is all.
>
> For others - well, read Satinover.
You read it; I'm not interested. You are the one who needs to believe
there is something wrong with homosexuals and that any opinion to the
contrary is mere PC.
> >I repeat, your own church is very clear that sexual orientation is not a
> >matter of choice.
>
> Read what I write. Read it again, if you don't understand the first
> time.
This presumption-of-superiority tactic of yours is boring and infantile.
> Alrighty Mr. atheist. There's no God you say. Where do we go when we
> die? (I know you won't follow this up, but . . . it's an opportunity
> for ya to show up the Catholic, here)
Why would I not reply? You die, and you decompose or are cremated. End of
story. If you believe otherwise, please provide any evidence of an
afterlife or of the persistance of identity after death. If you need to
believe otherwise, that is your problem, and I could care less.
> >> Don't ya know what's meant by - libral?
>
> >I can only guess.
>
> Don't have ta. Read what I write. I gave you the start of a list o
> librals. Again, Clinton, co-Pres Hillary, the late Molly Yard, Barney
> Frank, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Gloria Allred (some name),
> Geraldo Rivera, Paul Begalla, James Carville, Anne Lewis, Eleanor
> Clift, Lawrence Tribe, and so on. Quite a gallery.
I suppose you were merely being cute with your spelling, and I was left to
wonder if it were ignorance, which, given the rest of your writing, is not
an unfair assumption.
> >Please explain how you propose reconciling conflicting religious moral
> >absolutes in a free, democratic society, dedicated to life, liberty, and
> >the pursuit of happiness.
>
> You forget that while there was no officially sanctioned state church,
> and so no officially santioned state execution for heresy, as in
> 'jolly ole' England under the Prot, the nation's people were
> religious, generally Prot (many 'dissenters', so-called), and the name
> God, and religious sentiment was often mentioned in official speeches
> and documents, from Presidents on down. It's only been recently that
> this 'Jeffersonian separation' has been discovered by liberal Courts,
> and God was taken out of the schoolhouse.
And you do not answer the question, unless your answer is that there
should be no attempt to reconcile religious absolutes and that yours
should prevail.
Jefferson knew that we would be a long time sorting it out. He was not
alone among the Founding Fathers in his desire to avoid religious warfare
in our new nation.
> >Guess I must be. Please try explaining why, if one accepts that there are
> >passages in the so-called Old Testament which refer to homosexuality one
> >should not also accept the passages which would seem to call for
> >homosexuals to be put to death.
>
> We aren't under the penalties, laws, observances of the OT, as it
> were. We're under the new covenant. The old covenants are void. But
> the truth behind the covenants, remains. It was true, then. It's true
> now. The Ten Commandments are still the Ten Commandments, are still
> binding, but applied to the new covenant.
I have it on rabbinical authority that nothing in the sc-called OT applies
to Christians. I believe Christ's highest commandment is to love, and I do
not find that manifested in anything you write.
> >Neither are you a Constitutional Conservative. You are a Social
> >Conservative, who wants to dictate the consensual behavior of others.
>
> But _I'm_ not pushing for 'gay marriage' laws. I'm not importing _my_
> beliefs into the gubment [sic.] schools. Look in the mirror, here. Who's
> dictating what?
And how do same-sex unions affect anyone else?
How does teaching tolerance of homosexuals harm anyone?
> >> >In our cultural history homosexuals have been a target for
> >> >scapegoating--along with Jews, Moslems, witches, and heretics--since the
> >> >late Middle Ages.
>
> >> _This_ is a pretty stupid statement, as well.
>
> >The Inquisition is a notorious example. Take a history class.
>
> I'd rather think, thank you. You can study PC, if you want.
Ah, I see, deny history.
> > period/phenomeonon is also discussed by Marvin Harris in "Cows, Pigs,
> >Wars, and Witches."
> I'm sure he's quite the scholar. I think it's been looked into by a
> few others, too. Belloc comes to mind. Nickerson wrote on the
> 'inquisition'. Warren Carrol must have something on it in the first 3
> of his volumes on the History of Christendom. I'm sure there are
> others. I could probably mention a few. But I'd doubt you'd even be
> able to get them through interlibrary loan, these days.
Your point being?
> >A Yale historian who researched original manuscripts in seventeen
> >languages and received an American Book Award for History? Right.
>
> No . . wrong. Maybe old Bos was wrong. Maybe you couldn't . . . well -
> just read what I write.
I do, and I find it wanting.
> >Yeh, they are in grave danger, poor persecuted babies. Homosexuals are
> >routinely assaulted and murdered.
>
> By their 'gay lovers', you mean? What are the figures for domestic
> abuse among gays living in sin, as they once called it?
Don't have a clue. How do they compare with heterosexual domestic violence?
> This is just
> _one_ of the things people wonder about in the whole 'gay marriage'
> propaganda blitz. Or were you referring to something else?
What an asshole. Again, try some honesty.
> >Try some honesty.
>
> Try morality. You can't be honest, if you don't respect morality.
Bullshit. Morality is relative to culture/religion. One man's morality is
another's immorality.
> This is just what we see with regard to Clinton - is it not?
Discuss Clinton in the appropriate thread.
> >> >Your own church teaches that homosexuality (sexual orientation) is NOT a
> >> >choice and that compassion is required;
>
> >> But the behavior isn't required.
>
> >I have never claimed it is.
>
> Oh? Not *%^(^* likely.
Why should it be any harder for homosexuals to remain abstinent and
celibate than for heterosexuals? The question is why they should. Since
you are the one who believes there is a moral basis which requires us to,
it behooves you to prove that basis, beginning with proving the existence
of your God.
> >> >a position which does nothing to abate the
> >> >suicide rate of young Gays and Lesbians.
>
> >> You seem so sure of how to read minds.
>
> >I have no idea to what you refer. If you want to know what it's like for a
> >Gay kid reared with religious dogma like yours, I suggest you read
> >"Prayers for Bobbie." He killed himself, laving a diary. At the very least
> >it might foster some of the compassion called for by your own church. If
> >you want an emotional sense
>
> Clinton is getting by on an 'emotional sense'. There are other ways of
> thinking. Compassion is one.
> Reason is not to be forgotten. Neither is
> morality - a dirty word to you, perhaps.
I am extremely moral; I do not share your morality.
> And honesty is something I
> think you might want to work at, as well. The 'religious right' are
> _not_ Nazis, just for one. You're far more likely to find your
> tyrannts among the libral establishment sort.
The Religious Right has declared jihad on homosexuals and demonizes them
for political and financial purposes.
> Now why would they [homosexuals] hide? The very culture discourages
criticism > of the 'gay lifestyle'.
> You're just not being honest to deny it.
Now why do you suppose anyone might be afraid of being thought homosexual?
Do you want to be thought homosexual? You are either very dense or
extremely dishonest--probably both.
There is no such thing as a homosexual "lifestyle."
> Sometimes it takes a while for these things to show up. You probably
> want a second opinion, though.
Had plenty of opinions of my skill, from my teachers and students.
> >I thought perhaps you might be capable of distinguishing between people's
> >consensual sex and anything else that might qualify as morality.
>
> Morality is morality.
Take some anthro. classes; get an education. If you think that you and
your church enjoy some kind of superiority with regard to morality and
religious truth, you need to demonstrate it, beginning with a proof that
your God exists.
> >More projection. You claim knowledge of and alliegance to Christ, but all
> >you do is throw stones in the name of Christ. Your religion is about other
> >people's morals; it is toxic.
>
> Because I suggest you open your heart to Him?
Nope. I don't think you know anything about Jesus. You do not communicate
lovingly or honestly.
> >> >I am Gay.
>
> >> It's what you've chosen to do.
>
> >No, it is who I am. Abstinence and celibacy do not change sexual
> >orientation. Your own church states that; it accepts the identity.
>
> It suggests something innate, some 'nature', but remains vague about
> it. It suggests a predisposition to a certain vice. It doesn't
> "identify" one with such a predisposition.
Last I heard it did.
> _You_ prefer to do that.
> Try and be honest. Don't be backwards.
More projection. I have seldom encountered anyone as dishonest as you. Get
psychiatric help.
> >What a total fraud. As if you are really interested in peace with me or
> >anyone else. Peace is not likely to be found when people insist on
> >inflicting their religious delusions on others.
>
> But again, _I'm_ not pushing 'gay marriage'. I'm not taking my cause
> into the gubment schools, in front of a captive audience. I don't
> promote an unholy agenda on network sitcoms. Again, find a mirror. See
> who's inflicting what.
Again, please explain how anyone else affected by same-sex unions or the
teaching of tolerance for homosexuals.
> >consensual behavior is nobody's business.
>
> It's the people's business. It's the nation's business.
When they make it so, they violate the spirit of our Constition and the nation.
> Peace.
Bullshit.
Kevin FitzPatrick
the Sinner, hate the sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Period. You are not born
gay, you choose to be gay. If this were not true then you would never have
an ex-gay person. A white person cannot choose to be an ex-white.
Kevin F.
Woofle wrote in message <360a81bc...@usenet.cisco.com>...
>On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 06:59:18 -0700, des...@monitor.net (John De
>Salvio) wrote:
>
>>In article <360A25CC...@com.net>, "*-><><>*-<> *" <">-"> wrote:
>>
>>> You won't know there is light if it was no darkness, the same goes for
>>> Black and the White, Positive and Negative, God and Devil....
>>> Been heterosexual is not a choice is the law of the universe, been
>>> anything
>>> else is a choice! (regardless of the law).
>>
>>Does this statement become comprehensible anytime before the
>>next millennium?
>>
>>Just curious....
>>
>
>Doesn't make sense to me, either. I've tried to parse "Saint"'s
>post a dozen times to Sunday and it doesn't make any more sense
>now than when I began. Probably, the core idea
>behind it is so idiotic that only an idiot could
>make sense of it. I'm not sure, but this sort of idiocy
>may be an undesirable side-effect of hanging around in the
>alt.christnet heirarchy too much.
>
>
T. J. Stiel
I never said it was a lifestyle so I am not obligated to prove anything, you
presented the radical thought now defend it, show your proof.
tj
John De Salvio wrote in message ...
>In article <36092...@news.primary.net>, "T. J. Stiel"
><tjs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I sir, do not have that problem. I have stated factually that homo or
hetro
>> is a lifestyle not an identity, I have also ack'd that Christianity is
also
>> a lifestyle decision.
>
>Now put up some verifiable cites to back this "fact" as being anything more
>than your own opinion.
>
>>
>> There is NO scientific basis, conjecture maybe agendas definitely,
>
>Much like belief in God, eh?
>
>> but no
>> true evidence other than lifestyle decisions.
>
>Better do some more research.
>
>Just what is your professional authority on what you expound?
>
>It is definitely NOT in human sexuality.
>
>> At this point in our
>> understanding, factual evidence does not exist to the contrary.
>>
>> Anyone who, at this point in time, views this in any other light is
simply
>> practicing wishful thinking. Please try not to muddie the facts with
your
>> hopes.
>
>No, I most certainly do not wish to copy you.
T. J. Stiel
I have put not only my lifestyle but my beliefs as choices.
You still contend other wise, since I lumped it all in one Choices category
I am not saying my way is right I am saying my way as yours is a choice and
nothing more. IF you intend to get either of us out of this boat you will
need to provide credible medical proof.
You are the one what challenged me in my belief, so prove me wrong, go ahead
make my day. I am not being snotty, I just want real proof of your
position.
I will even go one further, if you can't prove it, by credible medical
evidence not conjecture, you drop the identity stance and call it a
lifestyle choice and if I can't support my position I will call it genetic
disposition just like alchoholism is.
You up to it??
tj
Fenris wrote in message ...
>In article <3607c...@news.primary.net>, "T. J. Stiel"
><tjs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Um....you realize...Homosexual is a lifestyle not an identity. Just as
>> Heterosexuality is a lifestyle not an identity.
>
>[Header trimmed to reduce crossposting]
>
>What do you know about it, aside from your religious need to believe this
>is the case? Quit hatemongering in the name of Christ. Here's a statement
>from the American Psychological Association:
>
> An American Psychological Association Statement on Homosexuality
>
>The following is an excerpt from a published statement, January 26, 1990,
>by Bryant Welch, J.D., Ph.D., Executive Director for Professional Practice
>with the American Psychological Association. Prior to joining APA, Dr.
>Welch practiced in the mental health delivery system for 15 years.
>
> The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is
>neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a
>minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study
>after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies
>of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational
>adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well
>as heterosexuals.
>
> Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests
>that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle,
>possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the
>population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures,
>irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular
>culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a
>population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social
>mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to
>repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in
>psychological accoutrements.
>
>All targets of discrimination, be they blacks, women, handicapped, or
>religious sects, have a uniquely horrible dimension to their suffering.
>This is true for gay men and lesbians as well. Psychologically, sexuality
>and sexual orientation represent life forces which form the most sensitive
>bedrock of our being. They not only shape our attitudes and ourpassions,
>but they are so fundamental to our personality structure that they, in
>large part, determine our sense of personal cohesiveness and our level of
>comfort in the world. They are the driving force with which we love,work,
>and create.
>
>For patients (in psychotherapy), the societal assumption that
>homosexuality (is) sick and/or immoral creates(s) an emotional, sensual,
>and spiritual prison where self-expression, love, and the deepest forms of
>human connectedness (are) stultified though anguishing guilt and
>self-loathing. For those of us in psychology who have had this kind of
>experience working with gay men and lesbians, the impact has been quite
>profound. For over two decades now, the American Psychological
>Association has advocated the elimination of discrimination against
>gay men and lesbians.
>
>Finally, if one thinks about the vast real problems confronting our
>society and attacking our family structure--problems such as family
>violence, divorce, drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, homelessness, and
>isolation, it becomes clear that individuals who are obsessed with how a
>minority of our citizens express love and sexuality have, indeed,
>established a most peculiar set of priorities, both for themselves andfor
>others.
>
> Healthy and secure heterosexuals do not feel threatened by
>homosexuality. Healthy heterosexuals don't need to oppress homosexuals.
>Healthy heterosexuals donšt need to repair homosexuals.
>
> The real issue confronting our society today is not why people seek
>love and understanding as they do, but why some seem so unable to love and
>understand at all.
T. J. Stiel
alcoholism doesn't change from not doing it but if you are a alcoholic then
it is a good idea to avoid it.
tj
Fenris wrote in message ...
>In article <36092...@news.primary.net>, "T. J. Stiel"
><tjs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I sir, do not have that problem. I have stated factually that homo or
hetro
>> is a lifestyle not an identity, I have also ack'd that Christianity is
also
>> a lifestyle decision.
>>
>> There is NO scientific basis, conjecture maybe agendas definitely, but no
>> true evidence other than lifestyle decisions. At this point in our
>> understanding, factual evidence does not exist to the contrary.
>>
>> Anyone who, at this point in time, views this in any other light is
simply
>> practicing wishful thinking. Please try not to muddie the facts with
your
>> hopes.
>
>[NGs trimmed]
>
>What nonsense. Sexual orientation does not change as a result of
>abstinence. Get help.
J. Northwood
<bobc...@integrityonline7.com> wrote:
>Amen and Amen, The Bible is God's Word to Man.
"Immorality, perversion, infidelity, cannibalism,
etc., are unassailable by church and civic league
if you dress them up in the togas and talliths
of the Good Book."
Ben Hecht
>Read it, Study it, and Apply it.
Gott mit uns.
>it doesn't matter if you believe the Bible, it is still true, whether you
>believe it or not.
The creation myth reads much better in the original Sumerian.
T'Pring AKA Darthi7 of Borg
Krahlin) wrote an extremely sensible, incredibly clarifying
explanation of the Bible in relation to homosexuality.
THANK YOU, ZEKE!!!!!!!
We really needed that. There's been so much drugged-out, irrational
bible thumping in here (referring to APH, and no offense intended to
those of you who use the bible as a set of guidelines) that I nearly
puked. Spock'd give you a standing ovation for that awe-inspiring
logic, and I'm doing the internet equivalent -- this well-deserved
praise and I'm keeping the post.
Amen!
--Darthi
SPOCK: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/5883/
Locutus: http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/tpringspace/
Gay Rights: http://members.tripod.com/~HeteroGirl4GayRights/
KTSL: http://www.freetown.com/Hollywood/HollywoodBlvd/1024/ (Kill The Scream League)
----------------------
"And to all others in this story profound shooms of lipmusic brrrrrr. And they can kiss my sharries."
----------------------
hmmm. I wonder what you should remove from this email address?
wo...@interlog.com
<rebur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>'Lost Queers', because that is exactly that which they are. They willfully go
>against the laws of God and nature and misuse their bodies sexually. But
>should they hear the Word of God, and repent of their sins and stop their
>sinful ways, then they are no longer queers, they are normal men. This
>disproves the theory of being born a homosexual,
Disproves? Suure it does. <snicker>
>t is a learned sexual
>preference, and can be stopped as any other sin against God.
>No one is born to be a queer, it is desired and pervertedly brought to
>fruition by Satan, because the Holy Spirit is not there to stop him.
Pretty useless excuse for a holy spirit then, isn't it?
Allen
wrote:
>I sir, do not have that problem. I have stated factually that homo or hetro
>is a lifestyle not an identity
Factually? Then you must have cites from credible, peer-reviewed
research journals.
>There is NO scientific basis, conjecture maybe agendas definitely, but no
>true evidence other than lifestyle decisions. At this point in our
>understanding, factual evidence does not exist to the contrary.
You can prove this? I'm waiting to see your bibliography.
>Anyone who, at this point in time, views this in any other light is simply
>practicing wishful thinking. Please try not to muddie the facts with your
>hopes.
Life-long experiences of millions don't count? Does this mean that
since Christianity is nothing more than a lifestyle choice, I can use
any sources I choose to demonstrate that Christianity is a terrible
evil and my research will therefore be factual?
Allen
---------------------------
afb...@HATESPAMhotmail.com
Address fudged to foil spam-bots. Take out the HATESPAM for correct address.
Allen
>You won't know there is light if it was no darkness
Visible light is only a small part of the spectrum of radiation. What
are radio, gamma, x-rays, ultraviolet and the slew of others?
>the same goes for
>Black and the White
What is gray, light gray, dark gray and the color spectrum?
>Positive and Negative
What are neutrons, gluons, top and bottom quarks?
>God and Devil....
What are all the other gods and goddesses that exist in human
religions?
>Been heterosexual is not a choice is the law of the universe, been
>anything
>else is a choice! (regardless of the law).
"Heterosexual people think the whole universe is heterosexual.
Everything that happens in the universe... is the result of two
opposite qualities, masculine and feminine, interacting with each
other....That's a level of arrogance for which there are no words to
describe." --Greg Flood
That about sums you up.
Allen
wrote:
>I am a 41 year young woman who has been a lesbian all my life. And I
>have no idea if gayness is simply a preference for one gender over the
>other or hard wired. (I feel attracted to women overwhelmingly and I
>chose to act on it. Just as straights feel overwhelmingly attracted to
>the opposite sex, and chose to act on it.) But whether or not there is
>a scientific reason, doesn't really matter does it? There's nothing
>wrong with being gay... "even by choice." <G>
>
>Personally, I'm happy and proud to "CHOSE" to be gay. And if someone
>offered me something to change my sexual preference, I certainly
>wouldn't do it. I like who I am, who I love, and how I love. I like my
>female identity, coupled with another female identity. It is a unique
>and powerful experience. I'm sure gay men and hetero couples feel the
>same way about their own lifestyles.
You bring up a very interesting question. One that might be
worthwhile to ask the condemning religious types who waltz through
here....
"If it is indeed chosen and homosexuality wasn't a sin according to
your religion, would you choose to become homosexual?"
Allen
>Here it is with a few 'grammatical errors' fixed:
>
>"You wouldn't know there is light if there were no darkness,
Visible light is only a small part of the spectrum of radiation. What
are radio, gamma, x-rays, ultraviolet and the slew of others?
>the same goes for Black and White,
What is gray, light gray, dark gray and the color spectrum?
>Positive and Negative,
What are neutrons, gluons, top and bottom quarks?
>God and the
>Devil....
What are all the other gods and goddesses that exist in human
religions? Furthermore, how then did God (or maybe we should ask
GOOD) exist before the Devil (EVIL) came into being if you can't have
one without the other?
>Being heterosexual is not a choice; it is the law of the universe.
>Being anything else is a choice (regardless of the law of our country)!"
>
>And I agree, totally.
>Also to add to that;
>it is the choice of every human being,
>along with all the results and consequences of that choice.
"Heterosexual people think the whole universe is heterosexual.
Everything that happens in the universe... is the result of two
opposite qualities, masculine and feminine, interacting with each
other....That's a level of arrogance for which there are no words to
describe." --Greg Flood
'Bout sums you up.
Allen
wrote:
>This "universe" (that you believe your God made), is almost certainly
>more wondrous than you give it credit for
Truer words were never said. It's amazing just how intricate,
wonderful, beautiful, and surprising the universe actually is when
freed of the confining definitions of religious dogma.
About two years ago I was reading some nut yapping about how no other
planets had been found orbiting other stars and we never would find
any because God(tm) intended our solar system to be unique and of
prime importance in the Divine Plan(tm).
Two weeks later, two astronomers announced the discovery of three
planets circling other stars -- undoubtedly a piece of cake for an
Omnipotent Being. But if we'd all been listening to that yapping
religious nut, we would have never looked in the first place.
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>You won't know there is light if it was no darkness, the same goes for
>Black and the White, Positive and Negative, God and Devil....
>Been heterosexual is not a choice is the law of the universe, been
>anything else is a choice! (regardless of the law).
>
>Chris
>
Being heterosexual is THE LAW OF THE UNIVERSE??
Oh Wow! Now that you have explained it with such incisive clarity
it's time to give ol' George the heave-ho and get with the program.
ward
----------------------------------------------------
"Public media should not contain explicit or implied
descriptions of sexacts. Our society should be purged
of the perverts who provide the media with pornographic
material while pretending it has some redeeming social
value under the public's 'right to know.'
Pornography is pornography, regardless of the source."
-Kenneth Starr, 1987, - 60 minutes
----------------------------------------------------
Ward Stewart
<rebur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>The abominable sin of homosexuality has tainted and degraded many things
>today, even our vocabulary. The word 'gay' previously had connotations of joy
>and frivolity, innocence and a truly clean demeanor of charm and happiness.
>But as the time for all of mankind draws near to the end, Satan is tightening
>the strangle hold that he has on his current followers and he is recruiting
>thousands daily for his cause.
>Born Gay? No, there are none that are born homosexual, it is a preference.
>The same preference as to whether you want to be a child of God or a supporter
>of the god of this world. Those that choose abnormal or odd sexual
>preferences were in the past wrongly called queers. Instead they should have
>been called
>'Lost Queers', because that is exactly that which they are. They willfully go
>against the laws of God and nature and misuse their bodies sexually. But
>should they hear the Word of God, and repent of their sins and stop their
>sinful ways, then they are no longer queers, they are normal men. This
>disproves the theory of being born a homosexual, it is a learned sexual
>preference, and can be stopped as any other sin against God.
>No one is born to be a queer, it is desired and pervertedly brought to
>fruition by Satan, because the Holy Spirit is not there to stop him.
>
>><>...Ron
Aloha Ron,
This is to thank you for your impassioned post. It is my frequent
contention that those who would seek to deprive me of my human right,
my civil right to live my life as I see fit are narrow minded,
unimaginative bigots and bible thumpers. --- people blinded by their
religious excitements and delusions to so grievous an extent that they
have sacrificed their brains and missed the whole point of
christianity.
Your little tirade demonstrates these manifest deficits very nicely
indeed, do not suppose that i am not grateful!
thank you
Ward Stewart
Salvio) wrote:
>In article <360A25CC...@com.net>, "*-><><>*-<> *" <">-"> wrote:
>
>> You won't know there is light if it was no darkness, the same goes for
>> Black and the White, Positive and Negative, God and Devil....
>> Been heterosexual is not a choice is the law of the universe, been
>> anything
>> else is a choice! (regardless of the law).
>
>Does this statement become comprehensible anytime before the
>next millennium?
>
>Just curious....
Whassa Matta John -- you didn't understand the part about the LAW OF
THE UNIVERSE?
J. Northwood
wrote:
>In article <360a973...@news.pacbell.net>,
>1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
< EMERGENCY SNIP >
Fenris, if you're going to "debate" with Mr. Logic, please keep it out
of a.p.h. You'll never change his mind, he's not that well thought of
in a.r.c.r-c (AFAIR), he's proven time and again he'll say or do
anything to prove his point, including misquoting and outright lying
-- this is the Mark Johnson we know and loathe.
Please, we're trying to keep the stench _down_ in the group. Let's
not drag Mr. "The Pope may have spoken ex cathedra but . . . he was
wrong" in here, please.
< shudder >
Followups set.
JayTeeFL
In article <360ae2e3...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
star7cy...@ecch.spam.lycosmail.com (T'Pring AKA Darthi7 of Borg) writes:
>THANK YOU, ZEKE!!!!!!!
please don't encourage him.
*sigh*
prince jace <---- plans to leave this space blank *doh!*
http://members.aol.com/jayteefl/
"we're one, but we're not the same...we get to carry each other..."
JayTeeFL
In article <360aca58...@usenet.psinet.com>, Spee...@ZXhotmailX.com
(Speedbyrd) writes:
>How do you figure? Can't have it your way all the time.
casey the wonder kitty seems to, but then, he's a cat.
prince jace <---- loves casey twk, but often wishes he wasn't stuck in an
apartment so he could get a dog and maybe another horse or two.
JayTeeFL
In article <6ueajn$21o$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Rasmus
Neikes<rasmus...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>Forgive my nitpicking, but aren't peolpe 'declared' Saints?
yup...there's jill st. john, yves st. laurent, and my personal favorite, val
kilmer.
prince jace <--- understands that was completely non-sequitur
JayTeeFL
In article <360a6...@205.238.18.7>, "Robert Curran"
<bobc...@integrityonline7.com> writes:
>it doesn't matter if you believe the Bible, it is still true, whether you
>believe it or not.
just like c.s. lewis' "chronicles of narnia."
prince jace <--- suddenly wonders if his niece has a set of that series...
JayTeeFL
>Amen and Amen, The Bible is God's Word to Man.
matthew broderick said it well in a film called "ladyhawke:"
"no offense, but i talk to g-d everyday...and he has never even once mentioned
your name."
prince jace <--- has been a matthew broderick fan since "the return of max
dugan"
JayTeeFL
>You won't know there is light if it was no darkness, the same goes for
>Black and the White, Positive and Negative, God and Devil....
>Been heterosexual is not a choice is the law of the universe, been
>anything
>else is a choice! (regardless of the law).
does anyone have an idiot(tm)-to-english dictionary they can loan me?
prince jace <--- couldn't make head or tail out of that nonsense
JayTeeFL
In article <360a4...@news.provide.net>, "James Doemer" <big...@provide.net>
writes:
>Which God?
clapton.
prince jace <--- accepts no subsitutes. okay, satriani on a good day, maybe
slash playing spanish classical, but THAT'S IT.
JayTeeFL
In article <shrapnel-230...@azathoth-5.d.enteract.com>,
shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen James) addresses some xtian idiot:
>Blah blah blah yackety schmackety. Why should I, a homosexual and an
>avowed non-christian, give a good dogdamn about the silly, arbitrary rules
>of your religion?
fresh, minty flavor?
prince jace <---- child of the television age
Allen James
jayt...@aol.com (JayTeeFL) wrote:
> In article <shrapnel-230...@azathoth-5.d.enteract.com>,
> shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen James) addresses some xtian idiot:
>
> >Blah blah blah yackety schmackety. Why should I, a homosexual and an
> >avowed non-christian, give a good dogdamn about the silly, arbitrary rules
> >of your religion?
>
> fresh, minty flavor?
>
> prince jace <---- child of the television age
It's a floor polish! It's a dessert topping!
--
%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%
"To judge by the notions expounded by most theologians,
one must conclude that God created most men simply with
a view to crowding Hell."
Marquis de Sade
Garth Billington
They chose, are conditioned to behave in a heterosexual manner. I will cite
articles and studies if necessary.
That you love or hate any aspect of me is your prerogative, and not
essestial to law or my day to day life.
What is sin is irrelevant. the US and many country are based in law, its
principles, and non-theocracies -- so, so what? Besides it is sin to abort,
but under double effect, and a difference in Church opinion over two
centuries some abortions -- life-threatening, chemotherapy, and teens under
16 -- are forgivable and unpunished by the Catholic Church.
Kevin FitzPatrick wrote in message <360ae...@ns1.thenew.net>...
>Well I am not sure how is taking up what sides, but the fact is this. Love
>the Sinner, hate the sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Period. You are not born
>gay, you choose to be gay. If this were not true then you would never have
>an ex-gay person. A white person cannot choose to be an ex-white.
>
>Kevin F.
>
>
>
>Woofle wrote in message <360a81bc...@usenet.cisco.com>...
>>On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 06:59:18 -0700, des...@monitor.net (John De
>>Salvio) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <360A25CC...@com.net>, "*-><><>*-<> *" <">-"> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You won't know there is light if it was no darkness, the same goes for
>>>> Black and the White, Positive and Negative, God and Devil....
>>>> Been heterosexual is not a choice is the law of the universe, been
>>>> anything
>>>> else is a choice! (regardless of the law).
>>>
>>>Does this statement become comprehensible anytime before the
>>>next millennium?
>>>
>>>Just curious....
>>>
>>
>>Doesn't make sense to me, either. I've tried to parse "Saint"'s
>>post a dozen times to Sunday and it doesn't make any more sense
>>now than when I began. Probably, the core idea
>>behind it is so idiotic that only an idiot could
>>make sense of it. I'm not sure, but this sort of idiocy
>>may be an undesirable side-effect of hanging around in the
>>alt.christnet heirarchy too much.
>>
>>
Ezekiel Krahlin
>At the risk of being 'heckled' and 'mentally abused',
>I will try to help my friend 'the Saint', (which I hope and pray he really
>is!).
You're a brainwashed, dried up old prune of a heterocentric hag. Get
behind me, Ms. Satan!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Permission granted by author for anyone to distribute this
writing free of charge (including translation into any
language)...under condition that no profit is made therefrom,
and that it remain intact and complete, including title and
credit to the original author.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
ezek...@iname.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS ON THE OKRA WINFREE SHOW
(a parable for the 21st century)
Š 1997 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin
(Jehovah's Queer Witness)
Jesus Christ returns to planet earth and, of course, He
is invited to a LOT of talk shows...in order for us to
understand better, what this man called Jesus is really all
about. So it is on the Okra Winfree Show He is asked the
question:
"Jesus, what do YOU think was the most important advice
YOU ever received in Your lifetime as the Suffering Messiah?"
Jesus deliberates on this a few moments before answering:
"Well, Okra, I don't consider My incarnation as The Messiah
among the most relevant of My past-life experiences. Even so,
during that existence, I received so many excellent words of
wisdom, that I really CAN'T pick a favorite. But I'll tell
you this: I shall never forget the WORST piece of advice
ANYONE gave Me, in ANY of My multitudinous lives."
Okra Winfree leans forward in profound curiosity and
says: "Okay, Jesus, and what was that?"
Jesus finally answers: "Well, it was during my PRESENT
incarnation (as you now see Me), and it came from a
psychiatrist who once told Me: 'Jesus, You can't save the
world.'"
Okra parries: "THAT revelation must have been quite a
SHOCKeroonie to the ol' ego there, buddy!"
"Too-SHAY, Okra," retorts Jesus, lighting a Camel Light
100 to soothe His jangled nerves, "too-SHAY."
"May-uh KOOL-pah, may-uh KOOL-pah," Okra chuckles, "It's
ALWAYS fun to play devil's advocate with You, Jesus."
"Fine with Me, Okra," grins Our Savior, "as long as YOU
don't mind an occasional DIP in the Lake Of Fire."
"Well, another BURNING question I have..." (audience
guffaws before Okra continues) "...regards the HUMAN side of
Jesus Christ: Besides tobacco, do you have any OTHER
addictions?"
Jesus blushes, and lowers His head. "Yes. One other.
Boys. In that way, I'm like My Daddy."
Suddenly, a voice booms out of nowhere:
"REMEMBER THAT JOKE, SON: I'D WALK A MILE FOR A CAMEL,
TWO FOR A SHEEP OR GOAT, AND THREE FOR A BOY? HA, HA!"
Okra Winfree raises her eyes to the ceiling and, slightly
disgruntled, challenges Our Holy Guest: "Can't you EVER get
Your Father to show up in person?"
Jesus shrugs His shoulders. "God knows I've been trying,
but He seems to take everything like one, big, fat joke. You
know, I can't even get HIM to see ME whenever I want!"
"Wait a minute," Okra grows serious, "You mean to tell me
You STILL can't be with Your Father?"
"Well, not quite," ponders The Son Of Man, "It's just
that He sees ME whenever He wants, but I don't get to see HIM
whenever I want. It's just not fair."
Okra drops a pensive arm from her chin and says, sadly,
"No, Jesus, that isn't fair at all."
"HEY JESUS, I GOT TWO FRONT-ROW TICKETS TO SEE 'JESUS
CHRIST SUPERSTAR' TONIGHT...WANNA GO?"
Our Man Of The Cross sighs and flips a rude finger to the
sky: "FUCK you, Dad, just FUCK you."
"OKAY, GUY, BE THAT WAY. I GOT PLENTY OF HOT CHERUBS WHO
ARE DYING FOR A DATE WITH BIG DICK!"
Okra, in raging fury, jumps onto her chair and waves an
angry fist at the ceiling: "God, don't You think You're going
a little too far? Think of Your Wonderful Son!"
"I ALWAYS THINK OF MY SON. LAST NIGHT WHEN I WAS HUMPING
LUCIFER, I THOUGHT OF MY SON: OH JESUS, OH JESUS, OH JESUS!"
"Don't talk to Him, Okra," grumbles Jesus, "just don't
talk to Him. It's the only way you'll get Him to leave us
alone." Hands shaking, Our Lord attempts to light another
cigarette, but drops the match book.
"HERE, JESUS, HAVE AN ARCHANGEL. I'M DONE WITH HIM FOR A
WHILE. MAYBE HE'LL GET YOU OFF THE RAGGIE."
Out of nowhere appears an incredibly gorgeous dude,
adorned in nothing more than a bulging gold lame' loin cloth
and these opalescent, feathery white wings stretching across
the entire breadth of the stage. He alights by Jesus, who
caresses the firm, smooth butt of the archangel, then grabs
His Own Ample Crotch and says:
"Okra, I hate to break this off, but as you can see, it's
meant to stay on and be fondled."
And with those words, the archangel's fat crown pops its
head above the loin cloth. (Camera zooms in for a yummy
closeup. Audience drools in raptured silence, as a milky
substance dribbles from the crown and down the angel's spear.
When the camera regretfully pulls back, this glorious angel
tosses His luxurious mane of silver hair, and laughs):
"MEET BIG DICK. HAW, HAW!"
Then He lifts Jesus up, cradles Him in His massive arms,
and looks straight into the camera:
"I LOVE MY SON MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE.
LET'S GO, JESUS, YA GOT A DATE WITH ME, ALWAYS."
They vanish, leaving Okra Winfree behind, along with a
half-empty pack of Camel Light 100s lying on the empty chair.
And, of course, the audience.
-----finis
---
Q. How many heteros does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. I don't know, they're still trying to breed enough brains
for the challenge!
---
The Final Testament, a Bible by and for Gays only:
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
GodHates...@HetBeGone.com
---
Charles Schulz's lawyers are after my ass
for my gay-rights parody of Peanuts!
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm
Ezekiel Krahlin
>On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 18:16:56 GMT, ezek...@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel
>Krahlin) wrote an extremely sensible, incredibly clarifying
>explanation of the Bible in relation to homosexuality.
>
>THANK YOU, ZEKE!!!!!!!
I thank you for the kudos...but don't forget to give credit to one
Dave of "Liberated Christians", from whose excellent treatise I merely
quoted. I accept the honor of providing access to this work, but not
to its creation, which must go to Dave. If you care to thank him
personally, email him at: dav...@primenet.com
And...you don't need to save my article wherein I quote from Dave's
scholarly document, as the entire document itself is available from
one of my web sites at:
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Stonewall/8944/dave.htm
which paper I introduce with the following spiel:
"Ever wish you had the perfect rebuttal to a Bible-thumping bigot who
insists homosexuality is condemned by the Good Book? Dave's extensive
and brilliant treatise provides the weapons you need to defend
homosexuality a la The Bible. And (get this), Dave is heterosexual! (I
discovered Dave in newsgroup alt.christnet, confronting the homophobes
who thrive in that newsgroup.)"
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>"Heterosexual people think the whole universe is heterosexual.
>Everything that happens in the universe... is the result of two
>opposite qualities, masculine and feminine, interacting with each
>other....That's a level of arrogance for which there are no words to
>describe." --Greg Flood
--------------------------------------------------------------
Permission granted by author for anyone to distribute this
writing free of charge (including translation into any
language)...under condition that no profit is made therefrom,
and that it remain intact and complete, including title and
credit to the original author.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
ezek...@iname.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
NEW DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
Š 1998 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin
(Jehovah's Queer Witness)
I hereby declare war against the United States
Government, and to all its people who support the federal
sanction against same-sex marriage... which may be a majority.
The moment government permits any state to officially and
intentionally deny a gay citizen's right to the pursuit of
happiness--as indeed marriage is a blissful goal--the door is
open to establishing all homophile women and men as second
class citizens in perpetuity.
I perceive this unconstitutional, ungodly sanction as the
first step towards eradicating all known homosexuals in our
sorry nation. The bombing of the Lesbian lounge in Atlanta is
just the beginning...unless the federal government and
mainstream Christian churches--including African-American
congregations--immediately step in and aggressively fight back
against the jihad these homophobes have declared. (I'm not
holding my breath.) Their continued silence and foot-dragging
on the noble issue of same-sex-lover rights, puts blood on
their hands as surely as if they were right-wing fanatics
themselves!
I urge all lesbians, gays, bisexuals, gender changers,
their supporters, and other so-called queer types to bear arms
and take to the streets...and push back the beast of
homophobia that now rears its ugly head in the eyes of the
majority, who prowl this gutted country like ghouls from The
Night Of The Living Dead. For all intent purposes, President
Clinton has nodded his head in approval of a nationwide witch
hunt to kill us anywhere and everywhere we are seen or known
to abide...or at best to deny us jobs, shelter, friendship,
and equal treatment. Our President's wavering on the "gays in
the military" issue, along with the signing of DOMA...places
him in direct responsibility for exacerbating the hostility
against a basically harmless, and decent, group of citizens:
gay women and men.
Likewise for our so-called "liberal" straight
friends...who are too cowardly to display a pink triangle on
their own clothing, or a T-shirt or bumper sticker
proclaiming: "Another Hetero for Lesbian & Gay Rights". Yet
they proudly wear slogans and icons promoting the rights of
African-Americans, women, children, trees, animals, and so on.
The Danes in World War II sported stars of David to conceal
Jewish folk from Nazis...but I hear of none who displayed the
pink triangle.
If you are heterosexual, and perceive yourself as a true
"progressive", then you would have no qualms in taking up this
noble banner of Homophile Liberation in the ways I have
suggested...else you, too, have blood on your hands. But if
heteros at large still refuse to see this as their fight,
too...we homosexuals can flood the straight bars, clubs, and
other hetero hangouts. Our presence, with pink triangles
emblazoned on our shirts and jackets, will turn these straight
clubs into targets of the Army of God and their ilk. Then, of
course, we'll have a lot more allies in the resistance--albeit
unwilling.
Be it known that I am proudly homosexual, that I am a
Christian who respects all other beliefs as equal, that I
presently go by the name Ezekiel Krahlin (formerly Gene
Catalano). Be it also known that I propose the new label
"Thracian" over "gay male," to symbolize the new-found
empowerment of the homophile community in this century's
closing decade. The word "gay" perpetuates a stereotype of
ourselves as flighty, emotional, and frivolous...not to be
taken seriously, as a citizen, as a human being, or as
anything else! (Surely, women have a similar complaint
against male chauvanists.)
"Lesbian" is a beautiful term for the homosexual female;
as its name comes from a Greek Island with a rich, classical
history. The region of Thrace also has a great history, and
likewise plays an honored role in Hellenic culture...hence I
coin the term "Thracian" for those who are commonly thought of
as "gay male". Ancient Greeks first called their northern
neighbors "Thracians," and later, "Macedonians"...the people
from whom arose Alexander The Great. "Hellenic" can be the
general term for both homophile women and men, who are sick of
the belittling and ineffectual descriptor, "gay". This caps a
nice balance on the other two Greek words, to form an elegant
triad: Hellenic, Lesbian, Thracian. It also does away with
the chauvanistic stance of using "Gay" to represent both male
and female members, as well as males only. (Credit for the
idea of "Hellenic" to replace "Gay" goes to Fireweaver, an
Internet friend.)
Heterosexism, chauvinism, misogyny, mysandry, homophobia,
pedophilia, racism, and bestiality are all blasphemies in God's
eyes, and in mine, and in the eyes of all good people. Under this
inspiration, I declare Northern California a safe haven, and
demand protection by the United Nations Global Peacekeepers. I
also call for the secession of this region, and its establishment as a
government solely for and by Hellenes...where all beliefs are to be
equally respected. Let this new nation be named "Athenia," to
honor woman's suffrage as well as symbolize wisdom and valor. As
a body politik, we are as the victorious David against Goliath: the
giant of homophobia shall be toppled and slain in our time.
Let it also be known that not every gay person is a
friend. Like any group of human beings, they have their ranks
of evil forces. True hearts are few and far between...love
and be constant to such friends--if indeed you have even
one--for you are well blessed. For wherever there are two
kindred hearts, there Your Angel will be also, in spirit. Do
not judge any person by any category (such as gay or hetero,
Jew or Christian, ugly or handsome, poor or rich, white or
black, etc.) But do judge her by what comes from the heart, as
expressed in words and deeds.
Civilization (for what it's worth) is about to go
berserk; the capitalist world as we know it is doomed. I
trust that those whom I can reach through this letter, already
are taking action. If you are wicked (homophobic), it is not
yet too late to change. I stand by you in prayer, and hope
you will join the valorous. For until the last enemy is fallen, it
is my duty to fight for every lost soul until the final moment.
Yes, I pray most ardently for the lost, not for the risen.
In closing, I humbly attempt to give solace to my
Hellenic sisters and brothers, with this quote from Psalm 35
(1-8):
Plead my cause, O Lord, with those who strive with me;
Fight against those who fight against me.
Take hold of shield and buckler,
And stand up for my help.
Also draw out the spear,
And stop those who pursue me.
Say to my soul,
"I am your salvation."
Let those be put to shame and brought to dishonor
Who seek after my life;
Let those be turned back and brought to confusion
Who plot my hurt.
Let them be like chaff before the wind,
And let the angel of the Lord pursue them.
For without cause they have hidden their net for me in
a pit,
Which they have dug without cause for my life.
Let destruction come upon him unexpectedly,
And let his net that he has hidden catch himself;
Into that very destruction let him fall.
-----finis
Garth Billington
factors require insight, 'soul' searching, honesty and courage.
I welcome facts to the contrary.
JayTeeFL wrote in message <19980925001311...@ngol05.aol.com>...
>
>In article <360ae2e3...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>star7cy...@ecch.spam.lycosmail.com (T'Pring AKA Darthi7 of Borg)
writes:
>
>>THANK YOU, ZEKE!!!!!!!
>
>please don't encourage him.
>
>*sigh*
>
>prince jace <---- plans to leave this space blank *doh!*
>
Garth Billington
Enough to spark a terrorist or a major internation debate and crisis.
JayTeeFL wrote in message <19980925001313...@ngol05.aol.com>...
>
>In article <360a6...@205.238.18.7>, "Robert Curran"
><bobc...@integrityonline7.com> writes:
>
>>it doesn't matter if you believe the Bible, it is still true, whether you
>>believe it or not.
>
>just like c.s. lewis' "chronicles of narnia."
>
>prince jace <--- suddenly wonders if his niece has a set of that series...
>
Garth Billington
Show me the the rule and princile of law in western society is relevant.
Show me that the constitution demand adherence, not protection of religious
belief.
JayTeeFL wrote in message <19980925001317...@ngol05.aol.com>...
>
>In article <shrapnel-230...@azathoth-5.d.enteract.com>,
>shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen James) addresses some xtian idiot:
>
>>Blah blah blah yackety schmackety. Why should I, a homosexual and an
>>avowed non-christian, give a good dogdamn about the silly, arbitrary rules
>>of your religion?
>
>fresh, minty flavor?
>
>prince jace <---- child of the television age
>
Garth Billington
Allen James wrote in message ...
>In article <19980925001317...@ngol05.aol.com>,
>jayt...@aol.com (JayTeeFL) wrote:
>
>> In article <shrapnel-230...@azathoth-5.d.enteract.com>,
>> shra...@LICEenteract.com (Allen James) addresses some xtian idiot:
>>
>> >Blah blah blah yackety schmackety. Why should I, a homosexual and an
>> >avowed non-christian, give a good dogdamn about the silly, arbitrary
rules
>> >of your religion?
>>
>> fresh, minty flavor?
>>
>> prince jace <---- child of the television age
>
>
Rob Bullock
<kev...@thenew.net> wrote:
> Well I am not sure how is taking up what sides, but the fact is this. Love
> the Sinner, hate the sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Period. You are not born
> gay, you choose to be gay. If this were not true then you would never have
> an ex-gay person. A white person cannot choose to be an ex-white.
I really don't understand what the point is of arguing nature or
nurture on this subject. It has no bearing upon whether homosexuality
is sinful. If one is to try to use born-gay as some way sidestep the
situation, we further are all BORN in sin. It in no way matters how
you *feel* you should be. Feelings are not the point. And in all
actuality, *feelings* are the deception! God did not make us in the
way we *feel*.
The sin we commit is NOT always a conscious choice.
To stop sinning however, IS a conscious choice.
Perhaps Paul said it best in Romans 7:14:
===
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a
slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I
do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do,
I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who
do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in
me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is
good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want
to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. Now if
I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is
sin living in me that does it.
===
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
rdb
Mark Johnson
>In article <360a973...@news.pacbell.net>, 1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
>> Hey - I was agreeing with you.
>No, you were dragging Clinton
Was agreeing with you. Just pointing out the 'diversity'. Guess it's
an aspect you're not comfortable with?
>> >I would assume that includes athiests; although atheism
>> >is not a religion.
>> Then it's a cult.
>You better do some research on the definition of "cult."
You might be surprized at how it fits the definition. Maybe you've got
a definition of your own?
>Your church's record with regard to WWII is not a happy one,
In the PC mind, that's true. But the PC mind is dishonest. You see
dishonesty where there is none. And defend as honest that which is
not. I saw your other little message.
>pretty inconsequential compared to the rest of Church history. I find it
>difficult to understand why anyone would want to be called a Christian. If
>there were a God, I should think He would have incinerated the planet for
>the atrocities committed in the very name of Jesus.
The Church didn't gun down soldiers from and in the trenches. The
Church didn't kill millions in Russia. The Church didn't build the
camps in the Third Reich, despite what you may have been told. The
Church didn't fill up the 'killing fields'. The Church didn't even
bomb Dresden.
The Church didn't attack North Africa and conquer Byzantium. Byzantium
was part of The Church. The Church didn't attack the west, as did the
Muslim and Turk. It was the Muslim and Turk. The Church didn't invent
the 'total war' tactic, as did the Prot. You've been fed a line about
this Church you're supposed to hate. It's made you twisted in this
regard. You shouldn't be so credulous with your teachers.
>> >bigots; there is nothing PC about homosexuals responding to religious
>> >delusionals.
>> Sure there is. They ain't delusional. The 'gay activist' is.
>Not according to the American Psychological Association. Meanwhile, I
>suggest you read up on religious addiction. It can be treated.
Narth insists that whatever sexual addiction of the homosexual can be
treated. I don't suppose _you'd_ want to read up on _that_?
>I'm not interested. You are the one who needs to believe
>there is something wrong with homosexuals
That's The Church. The Church says that such behavior is wrong, that
an orientation does not define the man or woman. If you're gonna hate,
be sure to know what and who you hate. And make sure those white
sheets are clean before you wear them.
It's just gonna eat you up.
>> Alrighty Mr. atheist. There's no God you say. Where do we go when we
>> die? (I know you won't follow this up, but . . . it's an opportunity
>> for ya to show up the Catholic, here)
>Why would I not reply? You die, and you decompose or are cremated.
Where do we go when we die? I _know_ the flesh decomposes. That's not
an answer. What is it you believe?
>> >> Don't ya know what's meant by - libral?
>> >I can only guess.
>> Don't have ta. Read what I write. I gave you the start of a list o
>> librals. Again, Clinton, co-Pres Hillary, the late Molly Yard, Barney
>> Frank, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Gloria Allred (some name),
>> Geraldo Rivera, Paul Begalla, James Carville, Anne Lewis, Eleanor
>> Clift, Lawrence Tribe, and so on. Quite a gallery.
>I suppose you were merely being cute with your spelling, and I was left to
>wonder if it were ignorance, which, given the rest of your writing, is not
>an unfair assumption.
Like I wrote - quite a gallery. I _know_ you've heard of the Clintons.
Are the others unknown to you?
>> >Please explain how you propose reconciling conflicting religious moral
>> >absolutes in a free, democratic society, dedicated to life, liberty, and
>> >the pursuit of happiness.
>> You forget that while there was no officially sanctioned state church,
>> and so no officially santioned state execution for heresy, as in
>> 'jolly ole' England under the Prot, the nation's people were
>> religious, generally Prot (many 'dissenters', so-called), and the name
>> God, and religious sentiment was often mentioned in official speeches
>> and documents, from Presidents on down. It's only been recently that
>> this 'Jeffersonian separation' has been discovered by liberal Courts,
>> and God was taken out of the schoolhouse.
>And you do not answer the question, unless your answer is that there
>should be no attempt to reconcile religious absolutes and that yours
>should prevail.
You can't 'reconcile' religious conviction. One or another holds sway.
Presently, it's libralism, vice, licentiousness, the whole sad story.
It's being taught, today. It's being defended. But there are other
belief systems. And they will some day hold sway.
>Jefferson knew that we would be a long time sorting it out. He was not
>alone among the Founding Fathers in his desire to avoid religious warfare
>in our new nation.
You can't avoid such. What they wanted to avoid was a state religion,
the Prot sort of thing found in England, which had such a history of
persecuting not just Catholics, but the so-called 'dissenting' Prots.
You don't realize how many fled to these shores to _escape_ the Church
of England.
>> >Guess I must be. Please try explaining why, if one accepts that there are
>> >passages in the so-called Old Testament which refer to homosexuality one
>> >should not also accept the passages which would seem to call for
>> >homosexuals to be put to death.
>> We aren't under the penalties, laws, observances of the OT, as it
>> were. We're under the new covenant. The old covenants are void. But
>> the truth behind the covenants, remains. It was true, then. It's true
>> now. The Ten Commandments are still the Ten Commandments, are still
>> binding, but applied to the new covenant.
>I have it on rabbinical authority that nothing in the sc-called OT applies
>to Christians.
The covenants don't. The covenants were void even by the time Our Lord
came to earth. But the truth on God's side, involved in those
covenants, remains true, and part of our new covenant.
>I believe Christ's highest commandment is to love, and I do
>not find that manifested in anything you write.
You don't feel the 'emotional sense', is that it?
>> >Neither are you a Constitutional Conservative. You are a Social
>> >Conservative, who wants to dictate the consensual behavior of others.
>> But _I'm_ not pushing for 'gay marriage' laws. I'm not importing _my_
>> beliefs into the gubment [sic.] schools. Look in the mirror, here. Who's
>> dictating what?
>And how do same-sex unions affect anyone else?
By what it is says about the faith of those who defend marriage,
actual marriage. By what it says about marriage, to those who are
married. By how it might affect the hospital wards, from the
outpatient care for spousal abuse. And by how it would be sanctioned
by official gubment authority, and what that would imply about social
norms and values. I mean . . . gee - be honest, if you dare. Know what
honesty even is.
>How does teaching tolerance of homosexuals harm anyone?
If one preaches a tolerance of vice, then one must simultaneously
preach intolerance of the associated virtue. Again - try . . to be
honest. See if ya can.
>> By their 'gay lovers', you mean? What are the figures for domestic
>> abuse among gays living in sin, as they once called it?
>Don't have a clue. How do they compare with heterosexual domestic violence?
Worse, I believe.
>> This is just
>> _one_ of the things people wonder about in the whole 'gay marriage'
>> propaganda blitz. Or were you referring to something else?
>What an asshole. Again, try some honesty.
I don't think you know what the word means. Seriously, this _is_ one
of the long-standing complaints about homosexuals, is it not - they
lie, they can't be trusted, they are not generally honest. This used
to be one of the arguments the military offered in defence of their
policies, prior to Clinton.
>> >Try some honesty.
>> Try morality. You can't be honest, if you don't respect morality.
>Bullshit. Morality is relative to culture/religion. One man's morality is
>another's immorality.
I guess that goes for honesty, too. Thing is - it's not so relative as
you imagine. The rationalizations will fail you, one day. And you'll
recognize that conscience is the same for everyone.
>> This is just what we see with regard to Clinton - is it not?
>Discuss Clinton in the appropriate thread.
This is the appropriate thread, and article. Sorry you voted for the
guy - or would have if you were of voting age. Repent - convert.
>Why should it be any harder for homosexuals to remain abstinent and
>celibate than for heterosexuals? The question is why they should. Since
>you are the one who believes there is a moral basis which requires us to,
>it behooves you to prove that basis, beginning with proving the existence
>of your God.
Why shouldn't they get married, as I wrote before? and I don't mean
this oxymoron of 'gay marriage'. Why must an alchoholic get drunk? Why
must someone with a predisposition to vice, engage in that vice? Why
this compulsion, that you desire and defend? Where does that come
from?
>I am extremely moral; I do not share your morality.
It's not a relative thing. One day . . maybe, you'll understand.
>> And honesty is something I
>> think you might want to work at, as well. The 'religious right' are
>> _not_ Nazis, just for one. You're far more likely to find your
>> tyrannts among the libral establishment sort.
>The Religious Right has declared jihad on homosexuals and demonizes them
>for political and financial purposes.
I thought it was the 'gay activist' that denigrated the 'moral
majority'. I think you've got it backwards. I'm not surprized.
>> Now why would they [homosexuals] hide? The very culture discourages
>criticism > of the 'gay lifestyle'.
>> You're just not being honest to deny it.
>Now why do you suppose anyone might be afraid of being thought homosexual?
They wouldn't. It's the PC thing to do. That's exactly what I wrote.
_Criticism_ is deemed wrong by the libral. The Church is thought wrong
for what it says in this regard. Be honest (do try).
>There is no such thing as a homosexual "lifestyle."
I think the 'gay activist' of a decade or so past thought there was.
Maybe they were wrong. Maybe they still are.
>> >I thought perhaps you might be capable of distinguishing between people's
>> >consensual sex and anything else that might qualify as morality.
>> Morality is morality.
>Take some anthro. classes; get an education.
That's not an education. It's indoctrination. Some day . . . well,
some day you'll learn the difference. I did.
>> >More projection. You claim knowledge of and alliegance to Christ, but all
>> >you do is throw stones in the name of Christ. Your religion is about other
>> >people's morals; it is toxic.
>> Because I suggest you open your heart to Him?
>Nope. I don't think you know anything about Jesus. You do not communicate
>lovingly or honestly.
I don't think you really know what either word means.
>> >> >I am Gay.
>> >> It's what you've chosen to do.
>> >No, it is who I am. Abstinence and celibacy do not change sexual
>> >orientation. Your own church states that; it accepts the identity.
>> It suggests something innate, some 'nature', but remains vague about
>> it. It suggests a predisposition to a certain vice. It doesn't
>> "identify" one with such a predisposition.
>Last I heard it did.
>> _You_ prefer to do that.
>> Try and be honest. Don't be backwards.
>More projection. I have seldom encountered anyone as dishonest as you. Get
>psychiatric help.
Again, I don't think you really know what it is to be honest. I think
you've been spoon fed PC. I think in that hothouse you don't recognize
the truth of any criticism. It's a different language, foreign to you.
The ears have to dry off, I think, before this starts making any
sense. Sometimes it's a curse to be _too_ attentive a student.
Teacher's pet can be little more than a lapdog. A good student is one
who questions what he's taught, not who just laps it up. Would have
been true at the height of Prot England. Apparently is today in the
gubment schools.
>> It's the people's business. It's the nation's business.
>When they make it so, they violate the spirit of our Constition and the nation.
No - that would be Clinton. Don't get confused.
Peace.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nations wandered blindly, and unceasingly proclaimed
that their aimless circlings and uneasy spiralings
meant progress, while materially and morally they meant
only incessant change of direction. . . history shows
that a nation that barters its soul for material ideals
is a nation that is doomed.
[Lockington, The Soul of Ireland,
http://abbey.apana.org.au/Other/Ireland/Ireland.txt ]
J. Northwood
Johnson) wrote:
< mercy snip >
Johnson, crawl back under your rock.
You're not interested in truth, you're not interested in honesty and
you're not interested in what really goes on in the world. Go back to
your little fantasy land where you know what's right and can tell the
Pope that he's wrong and still call yourself a good Catholic boy.
Followups set.
Rob Bullock
wrote:
> There is no excuse for advocating hate of any kind - for anything.
Why not?
rdb
Garth Billington
PROOr]F, in any real such as science, biology, psychiatry and the like would
make your comments more credible.
Centuries of men in dresses, and their own pecadilos is hardy justification
by any standard.
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message <360b2dd7...@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
Garth Billington
very anti-discrimination laws. The federal and military position, on the
other hand fly in the face of many constitional issuues. Proof is a
must...and a requirement in legal matters, no?
Your opinion or interpretation isn't enough. Hawaii's case (regardless of
popularity) is proof of that. And some losses in the legal arena, don't mean
you are right.
Human sexuality has always gone beyond male, female attraction and mating
polygamy, polyandry, sanction homosexuation, et. over history), survival of
he species is important -- but a 1, 2 or 10 percent minority hardly
threatens the breading habits of others.
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message <360b2e70...@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
>On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 03:19:23 GMT, afb...@HATESPAMhotmail.com (Allen)
>wrote:
>
>>"Heterosexual people think the whole universe is heterosexual.
>>Everything that happens in the universe... is the result of two
>>opposite qualities, masculine and feminine, interacting with each
>>other....That's a level of arrogance for which there are no words to
>>describe." --Greg Flood
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>Permission granted by author for anyone to distribute this
>writing free of charge (including translation into any
>language)...under condition that no profit is made therefrom,
>and that it remain intact and complete, including title and
>credit to the original author.
>
>Ezekiel J. Krahlin
>ezek...@iname.com
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>NEW DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
>
>© 1998 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin
Garth Billington
in any arena.
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message <360b2ec5...@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
>On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:31:14 GMT,
>
>>On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 18:16:56 GMT, ezek...@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel
>>Krahlin) wrote an extremely sensible, incredibly clarifying
>>explanation of the Bible in relation to homosexuality.
>>
>>THANK YOU, ZEKE!!!!!!!
>
>I thank you for the kudos...but don't forget to give credit to one
>Dave of "Liberated Christians", from whose excellent treatise I merely
>quoted. I accept the honor of providing access to this work, but not
>to its creation, which must go to Dave. If you care to thank him
>personally, email him at: dav...@primenet.com
>
>And...you don't need to save my article wherein I quote from Dave's
>scholarly document, as the entire document itself is available from
>one of my web sites at:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Stonewall/8944/dave.htm
>
>which paper I introduce with the following spiel:
>
>"Ever wish you had the perfect rebuttal to a Bible-thumping bigot who
>insists homosexuality is condemned by the Good Book? Dave's extensive
>and brilliant treatise provides the weapons you need to defend
>homosexuality a la The Bible. And (get this), Dave is heterosexual! (I
>discovered Dave in newsgroup alt.christnet, confronting the homophobes
>who thrive in that newsgroup.)"
>
>
Garth Billington
is to be published soon. Current interpretation, however right or wrong, is
irrelevant to the Church's acceptable of responsiblity and actions by
Christians. We can wait til the publication to further debate this?
Liberalism has nothing do with the politics or responsibility claimed on the
matter.
The history of the Church on this topic is suspect. Borgia dad fathered a
child, the apostles were not all white men, and many, many Popes engaged in
homosexuality despite any official teachings -- and without punishment.
Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
<360b30fd...@news.pacbell.net>...
Garth Billington
practiced despite religions view, or the issue of nature and nurture What is
good, is different that moral in the Church. My loving my partner,
respecting commitment, refusing to work on issues rather than cheating is
good by all stretches -- unless you know otherwise.
Two penises, or a vagina and penis seem inconsequential to what is common or
overall accepted in the value of good and bad.
Rob Bullock wrote in message <360fee1d...@news.enteract.com>...
Therion Ware
saying in <6udvp7$ffh$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>
[snip]
>"You wouldn't know there is light if there were no darkness,
>the same goes for Black and White, Positive and Negative, God and the
>Devil....
>Being heterosexual is not a choice; it is the law of the universe.
>Being anything else is a choice (regardless of the law of our country)!"
A "law of the universe" is something along the lines of "thou cannot
travel at the speed of light". Were hetrosexuality a law in this
sense, then homosexuality would be impossible.
But it isn't. Your law is mere opinion.
>And I agree, totally.
>
>Also to add to that;
>it is the choice of every human being,
>along with all the results and consequences of that choice.
[snip]
--
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
- attrib: Pauline Reage
website:
<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6671/index.html>
remove ".eac" if you want to use e-mail
Garth Billington
and in a general sense a bad idea.
your reasons that it might be acceptable or good are?
Rob Bullock wrote in message <3614ffe5...@news.enteract.com>...
Rasmus Neikes
alt.bible,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.politics.homosexuality due to
DejaNews crossposting policies ***
Followup-To:alt.politics.homosexuality
In article <360ae...@ns1.thenew.net>,
"Kevin FitzPatrick" <kev...@thenew.net> wrote:
> Well I am not sure how is taking up what sides, but the fact is this. Love
> the Sinner, hate the sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Period.
Not according to the Pope, for all that I know... so what position are you in
to tell him what's right or wrong? I would assume that God wouldn't post to
usenet under a synonym, would he?
> You are not born gay, you choose to be gay. If this were not true then you
>would never have
> an ex-gay person.
I guess you know what's coming now: When did you chose to be heterosexual?
What conditions where neccesary for that choice, and under which conditions
would you have chosen otherwise? How many ex-gay persons do you know
personally? (that was me being sarcastic once more... there's dozens of posts
in aph telling you how absurd that argument is...)
>A white person cannot choose to be an ex-white.
"Scratch a homophobe ..." (Ward Steward.. I think...)
Rasmus.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Garth Billington
addict, a self-claim reformed convict, etc.
Knowing such things up from brings into question these women.
Kevin FitzPatrick wrote in message <360ae...@ns1.thenew.net>...
>Well I am not sure how is taking up what sides, but the fact is this. Love
>the Sinner, hate the sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Period. You are not born
>gay, you choose to be gay. If this were not true then you would never have
>an ex-gay person. A white person cannot choose to be an ex-white.
>
>Kevin F.
>
>
>
>Woofle wrote in message <360a81bc...@usenet.cisco.com>...
>>On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 06:59:18 -0700, des...@monitor.net (John De
>>Salvio) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <360A25CC...@com.net>, "*-><><>*-<> *" <">-"> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You won't know there is light if it was no darkness, the same goes for
>>>> Black and the White, Positive and Negative, God and Devil....
>>>> Been heterosexual is not a choice is the law of the universe, been
>>>> anything
>>>> else is a choice! (regardless of the law).
>>>
>>>Does this statement become comprehensible anytime before the
>>>next millennium?
>>>
Rob Bullock
wrote:
> >Why not?
>
> Is that supposed to be funny?
>
> I find it significant that you have to ask why it is a bad idea to
> advocate *hate*... even if you somehow missed my reasoning (which
> seemed clear and plain enough for anyone to see).
Ok, I'll take it one step further for you.
Do you think we should hate hatred?
Or should we love hatred?
rdb