I'm leaving
Neo
Originally, I thought Usenet was supposed to be open discussions so
that people could discuss anything of interest rationally. However, it
turns out that these newsgroups are getting filled with hatred and
bigotry, which is not worth my time. Throughout the entire time I have
been in a.r.c. and a.p.h., people have been constantly beating each
other up with the Bible. People who claim to follow a god that cares
for its people and loves them have no business telling me and others
that we are perverted, sick, immoral, and that we are sinners, deserve
to die, and are going to hell. When the day comes that people can
discuss a subject with a tolerant and understanding disposition, I
will return.
tall-cool-one
Neo wrote:
I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people. So let me tell you that
the God of the bible condemns homosexual practices.
tall cool one
Dan Fake
I empathize with your position. There's a particular curmudgeonly
lad who's taken to accusing me, of all people, of bigotry lately. All
I do is promote pro-humanism, freedom from faith, love, and a
humankind of all humans for all humans, yet because I have the
nerve to actually point out the flaws of faith and the advantages
of non-faith, he attacks me relentlessly.
He's beginning to remind me of one called Sinester who once
injected his acerbic anti-non-faith into the alt.atheism forum.
What do these anti-atheist anti-doubters and anti-humanists hope
to accomplish?
Simply put, unable to offer any inkling of a reason to have faith,
they desperately strive to act as the most evil and despicable
aspects of faith that they can possibly conceive, lying/deceiving/
flaming/denigrating those of non-faith in an effort, by god, to
diminish those who have tenable/reasonable/pro-human reasons
to dismiss faith and depart the insanity of that which has been
the destiny of humankind 'til now.
Clearly, the usenet forum is not conducive to those with a positive
and upbeat message. For some reason, it tends to act as a divisive,
flame-invoking, human-diminishing forum providing those of a less-
than-positive frame-of-mind a launching point to attack and diminish
the value of their fellow humans.
Love your fellow humans, be all that you can be, in this life, at this
time, on this earth, and don't let the anti-love folks and the anti-free-
thinking folks and the anti-atheists and the anti-humanists diminish
the value of that which is humankind's greatest hope, for freedom
from faith and for fulfillment and happiness in this, our one and
only sure chance at it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1
http://home.att.net/~danfake
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sniper
That's why you changed the title of the thread
from "I'm leaving", to "I'm leaving as a cry
baby homo"? Either you don't try to live up to
your god's standards, or your god's so-called
"love" isn't worth jack shit.
> So let me tell you that the God of the bible
> condemns homosexual practices.
So let me tell you that we don't give a rip
about the fairy tales you choose to follow
in the blind belief that they actually mean
something other than how to tell a myth.
Adam Marczyk
news:3B3AD1B7...@bigfish.net...
Yes, he does. In fact, he explicitly instructs his followers to put
homosexuals to death. Have you tried to do that lately?
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Clayton Forno
As long as Christianity exists...that will never happen!!
Fury
Aw, damn. Your message seems yo have been cut off before your wisdom could be
bestowed upon us.
Fury
news:3b3adad5$0$25466$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
Sad, but true :(
*nemo*
> Originally, I thought Usenet was supposed to be open discussions so
> that people could discuss anything of interest rationally.
And so you went looking for such discussions in alt.religion.christian? LOL!
> However, it
> turns out that these newsgroups are getting filled with hatred and
> bigotry, which is not worth my time. Throughout the entire time I have
> been in a.r.c. and a.p.h., people have been constantly beating each
> other up with the Bible.
And now why are you posting this cross-wise into the atheists' group?
> People who claim to follow a god that cares
> for its people and loves them have no business telling me and others
> that we are perverted, sick, immoral, and that we are sinners, deserve
> to die, and are going to hell.
Note that we have no beef with gay folks...well most of us, anyway.
> When the day comes that people can
> discuss a subject with a tolerant and understanding disposition, I
> will return.
Another dissatisfied customer. Oh well.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.att.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
**************************************************
Always up for a little grilled sacred scroll
-
With just a dash of innuendo added for fun...
**************************************************
David L. Moffitt
%%%% Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out! Toodles!!!!
Jeff North
How xtian of you.
---------------------------------------------------------------
All I can say to fundamentalist christians is:
BRING BACK THE LIONS BRING BACK THE LIONS
BRING BACK THE LIONS BRING BACK THE LIONS
BRING BACK THE LIONS BRING BACK THE LIONS
jnor...@xxyahoo.com.au : Remove xx to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff North
Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
>| tall-cool-one <makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote in message
>| news:3B3AD1B7...@bigfish.net...
>| > Neo wrote:
>| >
>| > > For now I am leaving Usenet (I may return, but I don't know when).
>| > > Originally, I thought Usenet was supposed to be open discussions so
>| > > that people could discuss anything of interest rationally. However, it
>| > > turns out that these newsgroups are getting filled with hatred and
>| > > bigotry, which is not worth my time. Throughout the entire time I have
>| > > been in a.r.c. and a.p.h., people have been constantly beating each
>| > > other up with the Bible. People who claim to follow a god that cares
>| > > for its people and loves them have no business telling me and others
>| > > that we are perverted, sick, immoral, and that we are sinners, deserve
>| > > to die, and are going to hell. When the day comes that people can
>| > > discuss a subject with a tolerant and understanding disposition, I
>| > > will return.
>| >
>| > I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people. So let me tell you that
>| > the God of the bible condemns homosexual practices.
>|
>| Yes, he does. In fact, he explicitly instructs his followers to put
>| homosexuals to death. Have you tried to do that lately?
I have no doubt that if these xtian fundies could codified their buybull into
civil law that the list would look like:
1. kill all homosexuals & transsexuals
2. return all blacks to slavery
3. kill all Jews
4. kill everyone that doesn't believe in THEIR god.
Bill T
intolerance and hatred. Have you checked the "shamans" out yet? and
alt.pagan seems to spend more time cursing the xtians than celebrating
Beltane.
But still, I think these ngs serve a purpose. Mainly, virtually all of the
arguments, name calling, epithets, and general sputtering and spitting have
been going on since eternity. What happens, I think, is that each
generation produces a new crop of folks and rather than reading or
"learning" their dad's history, they have to go through all these arguments
again. It's cumbersome this way, but I'd a whole lot rather that people
express and exchange what they've heard, what they feel, or what they
believe (even if nastily expressed), than to have them secretly going around
dragging Blacks to death behind their pickups.
Once the pastor franks, danas, and other addicts of hatred are weeded out,
those who learn through debate are left, and even the most idiotic and nasty
posts can be educational.
I'm sorry to see Neo leave, but perhaps it is time for him/her to take a
breather, regroup his psychic forces, and come back another day when he/she
can help the rest of us grow a little bit.
Bill t
"Midwinter" <quis...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9hf551$ke7$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> Neo <ne...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> news:6a940be0.01062...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Originally, I thought Usenet was supposed to be open discussions so
> > that people could discuss anything of interest rationally.
>
> How long have you been on Usenet? And you've only just learned this?
>
> I also thought that Usenet might offer the opportunity for some
interesting
> discussion, and quite often it does - but I learned very quickly indeed
that
> its prime function is to give a platform to less constructive types. More
> on the religious groups than on any others, you will find the hatred and
> bigotry you mention. And the atmosphere of a group is rarely consistent
> with the ideals of the subject matter - for example, one of the most
> intolerant groups I've ever come across is alt.religion.wicca - a
> hate-filled newsgroup for a religion that holds tolerance as one of its
key
> principles.
>
> It's the same with Christianity. Christianity teaches love, compassion,
> humility, and respect - but that's not what you see here. And the reason
is
> that God isn't as important to most Christians as the Bible is - and the
> Bible isn't as important as their own self-image. The important thing to
> such "Christians" is to be *seen* to be, holier and better than anyone
else,
> regardless of how they truly live their lives. In other words, a total
> reversal of the faith's original ideals.
>
>
> > People who claim to follow a god that cares
> > for its people and loves them have no business telling me and others
> > that we are perverted, sick, immoral, and that we are sinners, deserve
> > to die, and are going to hell.
>
> Christians are mortal. So no Christian has any right to set themselves up
> as judge of other mortals. That is God's place. Nevertheless, many of
them
> take the Biblical ability of their Messiah to judge and to offer
forgiveness
> as an indication that, as his followers, they too have the right to wander
> around the place dictating, judging and generally lording it. This idea
is
> mistaken, and these people are not true Christians.
>
>
> > When the day comes that people can
> > discuss a subject with a tolerant and understanding disposition, I
> > will return.
>
> Stupid question, I realise, but... How will you know? If you're not on
> Usenet, you won't see what's going on, will you?
>
>
Fenris
<makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
>I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people. So let me tell you that
>the God of the bible condemns homosexual practices.
And you can as easily be told that it doesn't.
Bibiliolatry is not a relationship with God.
--
To send friendly e-mail, replace "nospam" with "ttowne1"
and "emptymind" with "mindspring.
Ninure Saunders
ne...@mailandnews.com (Neo) wrote:
-For now I am leaving Usenet (I may return, but I don't know when).
-Originally, I thought Usenet was supposed to be open discussions so
-that people could discuss anything of interest rationally. However, it
-turns out that these newsgroups are getting filled with hatred and
-bigotry, which is not worth my time. Throughout the entire time I have
-been in a.r.c. and a.p.h., people have been constantly beating each
-other up with the Bible. People who claim to follow a god that cares
-for its people and loves them have no business telling me and others
-that we are perverted, sick, immoral, and that we are sinners, deserve
-to die, and are going to hell. When the day comes that people can
-discuss a subject with a tolerant and understanding disposition, I
-will return.
Too bad Neo....I suppose that you will never return, and I'm really and
truly sorry about that.
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/ninure
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
Every 3.6 seconds a real person dies from hunger somewhere in the world!!! Feed a hungry person today:
http://www.hungersite.com
Every day 1800 children woldwide are infected with HIV.
Please help provide care: http://www.thekidsaidssite.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Ninure Saunders
-Neo wrote:
-
-> For now I am leaving Usenet (I may return, but I don't know when).
-> Originally, I thought Usenet was supposed to be open discussions so
-> that people could discuss anything of interest rationally. However, it
-> turns out that these newsgroups are getting filled with hatred and
-> bigotry, which is not worth my time. Throughout the entire time I have
-> been in a.r.c. and a.p.h., people have been constantly beating each
-> other up with the Bible. People who claim to follow a god that cares
-> for its people and loves them have no business telling me and others
-> that we are perverted, sick, immoral, and that we are sinners, deserve
-> to die, and are going to hell. When the day comes that people can
-> discuss a subject with a tolerant and understanding disposition, I
-> will return.
-
-I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people. So let me tell you that
-the God of the bible condemns homosexual practices.
Baptist: Dr. Stayton - There is nothing in the Bible regarding homosexual
orientation. In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with sexual
orientation. It does speak out probably against gang rape, male
prostitution for religious purposes, and pederasty (sex between an adult
and youth). I lead Bible study programs on this subject and am convinced
that the Bible does not address the issue of a person's sexual
orientation.
Episcopalian: Bishop Spong - There are few biblical references to
homosexuality. The first, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, is often quoted
to prove that the Bible condemns homosexuality. But the real sin of Sodom
was the unwillingness of the city's men to observe the laws of
hospitality. The intention was to insult the stranger by forcing him to
take the female role in the sex act. The biblical narrative approves Lot's
offer of his virgin daughters to satisfy the sexual demands of the mob.
How many would say, "This is the word of the Lord?" When the Bible is
quoted literally, it might be well for the one quoting to read the text in
its entirety.
Leviticus, in the Hebrew Scriptures, condemns homosexual behavior, at
least for males. Yet, "abomination," the word Leviticus uses to describe
homosexuality, is the same word used to describe a menstruating woman.
Paul is the most quoted source in the battle to condemn homosexuality (in
Rom. 1:26-27 and in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). But homosexual activity was
regarded by Paul as a punishment visited upon idolaters by God because of
their unfaithfulness. Homosexuality was not the sin but the punishment.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul gave a list of those who would not inherit
the kingdom of God. That list included the immoral, idolaters, adulterers,
sexual perverts, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers and robbers.
Sexual perverts is a translation of two words; it is possible that the
juxtaposition of malakos, the soft, effeminate word, with arsenokoitus, or
male prostitute, was meant to refer to thepassive and active males in a
homosexual liaison.
Thus it appears that Paul would not approve of homosexual behavior. But
was Paul's opinion about homosexuality accurate, or was it limited by the
lack of scientific knowledge in his day and infected by prejudice born of
ignorance? An examination of some of Paul's other assumptions and
conclusions will help answer this question. Who today would share Paul's
anti-Semitic attitudes, his belief that the authority of the state was not
to be challenged, or that all women ought to be veiled? In these attitudes
Paul's thinking has been challenged and transcended even by the church. Is
Paul's commentary on homosexuality more absolute than some of his other
antiquated, culturally conditioned ideas?
Three other references in the New Testament (in Timothy, Jude and II
Peter) appear to be limited to condemnation of male sex slaves in the
first instance, and to showing examples (Sodom and Gomorrah) of God's
destruction of unbelievers and heretics (in Jude and II Peter
respectively). That is all that Scripture has to say about homosexuality.
Even if one is a biblical literalist, these references do not build an
ironclad case for condemnation. If one is not a biblical literalist there
is no case at all, nothing but prejudice born of ignorance, that attacks
people whose only crime is to be born with an unchangeable sexual
predisposition toward those of their own sex.
Episcopalian: Bishop Wood - I am aware of the concern for
certainhomosexual acts and see no addressing of the condition or
orientation [in the Scriptures].
Judaism: Rabbi Marder - I believe that the Hebrew Bible strongly condemns
homosexuality. While it is part of my tradition, I do not regard all
Biblical laws as binding on me. The Biblical condemnation of homosexuality
is based on human ignorance, suspicion of those who are different, and an
overwhelming concern for ensuring the survival of the people. Since the
Bible regards homosexuality as a capital crime, it clearly assumes that
homosexuality is a matter of free choice, a
deliberate rebellion against God. We have learned from modern science that
people do not choose to be gay or straight; hence it is neither logical
nor moral to condemn those whose nature it is to be gay or lesbian.
Judaism: Rabbi Dr. Teutsch - The Scriptural references to homosexuality
make no comment on lesbianism. They object to male homosexuality on three
grounds: cultic prostitution, unnaturalness, and "spilling seed" or
Onanism. Homosexuality has been shown to be natural in animals and humans.
Gay men today are not involved in cultic acts. And the spilling of the
seed through heterosexual, or masturbatory acts is not an issue for me.
Thus I take this prohibition no more seriously than many others, such as
that against lending money at interest, that do not make sense in this
time and place.
Judaism: Rabbi Wilson - Only insofar as that at that time homosexual
behavior was a manifestation of abusive sexual practices associated with
idolatry and fertility cultism, and thus "abomination" because of the
association, not because of the intrinsic "relationship." Also, because it
was "unnatural," that is non-procreative, understandably in tribal times
when procreation was of highest priority.
Lutheran: Bishop Olson - Biblical scholars are busy restudying the few
verses which have often been regarded as anti-homosexual. One thing is
clear, these few verses do not refer to homosexuality as we understand and
use that term today. The Biblical texts do speak against sexual
exploitation and rape whether committed by persons with a heterosexual or
homosexual orientation. The great message of Scripture is of a God of
unbounded love for the human family. If God has any preference at all, it
is for "the least," "the lost" and "the last." God's amazing grace,
compassion, and salvation is open to everyone. Jesus is very clear in
placing his gospel beyond the limitations of churches and denominations.
He says, "I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them
also. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd." (John 10:16) Here is a
partial list of verses that has every right in being equally addressed to
homosexual or heterosexual Christians: John 3:16, Galatians 3:27,
Ephesians 2:8,9, Romans 3:21-24, Acts 10.
Former Mormon: Dr. McGrath - The Scriptures of my religious tradition
include the Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl
of Great Price. There are five references in the Bible that I grew up
believing to be Scriptural proof against homosexuality.
However, I now believe it would be a mistake to rely upon these references
in forming my conclusions about homosexuality. However, I now believe it
would be a mistake to rely upon these reference in forming my conclusions
about homosexuality for the following reasons: What I have learned from
living my life is that those references in the Bible are not speaking to
the truth I have experienced in relation to how God views homosexual love.
Although the General Authorities of my Church have expressed strong
negative opinions about homosexuality, none of our latter day Prophets
have proclaimed revelation from God on this issue, including President
Spencer W. Kimball who has probably been the most outspoken on this topic.
None of the words we attribute to Christ make any reference tohomosexuality
None of the latter-day Scriptures make any reference to homosexuality.
Presbyterian: Dr. Edwards - The Scriptures are very important because they
teach us God's love for all, gay or straight. But the Scriptures are old,
thousands of years old, written even before the word "homosexual" existed.
Same sex acts involving the genitals - we call these "homogenital" - seem
in Scripture to be thought of as the result of idol worship. See, for
example, Romans 1:18-27. Nor do the Scriptures seem to understand what we
mean today by "sexual orientation." Sexual acts which are injurious,
disrespectful, orunloving toward the other person are wrong. So I believe
that the
Scriptures approve of homosexuality and even homogenital acts that are
kind, generous, loving, and respectful of the other person, just as in the
case of heterosexuality and heterogenital acts.
Presbyterian: Rev. Holfelder - A careful and sensitive reading of the
Scriptures does not lead to the automatic conclusion that homosexuality is
a sin. There are passages, especially in the "holiness literature" that
suggest this conclusion. However, the overall message of Scripture in this
matter is far more positive than negative. Biblically, the issue is the
goodness of human sexuality and the use of that gift in covenant
relationship. For me a more important question is that of the relationship
of God in Christ to a human being. In that relationship I see no barriers,
even sexual ones.
Roman Catholic: Sister Ford - Contemporary Biblical scholars areindicating
that the idea of homosexual orientation was unknown to the writers of the
Sacred Scripture. Certainly they had no knowledge of the Kinsey research
which established the existence of a continuum along which all of us are
somewhere between the end points of totally
heterosexual through bisexuality to exclusively homosexual. Many of the
oft-quoted "condemnatory passages" may assume that heterosexuals are
acting out of violation of their "nature." There also is question as to
whether words which appear in our English texts refer in some cases in the
original languages not to homosexuals but to male prostitutes which were
used in pagan worship. Certainly, nowhere does the Bible legislate on the
matter of loving sexual activity between consenting adults in committed
relationships.
Roman Catholic: Sister Gramick - When read at face value, the Scriptures
have nothing positive to say about homogenital behavior. However, most
Christians do not interpret the Bible literally; they try to understand
the Scriptures in their historical and cultural context and see what
meaning the Scriptures have for us today.The Scriptures were written
approximately 2,000 or more years ago when there was no knowledge of
constitutional homosexuality. The Scripture writers believed that all
people were naturally heterosexual so that they viewed homosexual activity
as unnatural.
Women today are pointing out that the inferiority of women expressed in
the Scriptures was a product of the culture of the times in which the
Bible was written; it should not be followed today, now that we are
beginning to appreciate the natural and God-given equality of men and
women.
Similarly, as we know that homosexuality is just as natural and God- given
as heterosexuality, we realize that the Biblical injunctions against
homosexuality were conditioned by the attitudes and beliefs about this
form of sexual expression which were held by people without benefit of
centuries of scientific knowledge and understanding.It is unfair of us to
expect or impose a twentieth century mentality and understanding about
equality of genders, races, and sexual
orientations on the Biblical writers. We must be able to distinguish the
eternal truths the Bible is meant to convey from the cultural forms and
attitudes expressed there.
Roman Catholic: Rev. Nugent - Catholicism uses four major sources for
principles and guidance in ethical questions like homosexuality:
scripture, tradition (theologians, church documents, official teachings,
etc.), reason and human experience. All are used inconjunction with one
another. Scripture is a fundamental and primary authoritative Catholic
source - but not the only source. Biblical witness is taken seriously, but
not literally. An individual scriptural text must be understood in the
larger context of the original language and culture, the various levels of
meanings, and the texts' applications to contemporary realities in light
of the role of the community's and its official leadership role in
providing authoritative interpretations. Both Jewish and Christian
scriptures do speak negatively of certain forms of same-gender (generally
male) sexual behavior (not same-gender love), especially when associated
with idol worship, lust, violence, degradations, prostitution, etc.
Whether scriptures condemn all and every form of same-gender expression in
and of itself for all times, places and individuals in the topic of
serious theological and Biblical discussion and debate. Same-gender
expressions of responsible, faithful love in a covenanted relationship
between two truly homosexually oriented people not gifted with celibacy is
not something envisioned by scriptures. Whether this form of homosexuality
violates biblical or anthropological principles of sexuality and
personhood - especially in light of current scientific knowledge and human
experience about the homosexual orientation - is a key issue facing the
churches and religious groups today.
Unitarian Universalist: Dr. Schulz - While the Old Testament (Hebrew
Scriptures) certainly condemns what it refers to as sodomy, it also
condemns a whole host of other practices (e.g., sleeping with a
menstruating woman) which have long been accepted as reputable. Most of
the Old Testament is surely not an appropriate resource from which to
obtain guidance regarding contemporary ethics! Turning to the New
Testament, we discover that Jesus has nothing whatsoever to say regarding
homosexuality. Inasmuch as he frequently condemned others of whose
behavior he disapproved (e.g., the money-changers in the temple), it is
significant that he makes no reference to homosexuals or their practices.
United Church of Christ: Dr. Lebacqz - Yes and No. Yes, in the same sense
that the Scriptures object to wearing clothes of different fabrics,
eating pork or other kinds of meat, and women speaking in church. That is
to say, the Scriptures are a human product which reflect the cultural
limitations of their time. Thus, they speak negatively about a number of
practices that are routinely accepted today, including certain sexual
practices. Some of these sexual practices are engaged in by both
heterosexually and homosexually oriented people.
No, in the same sense that the Scriptures do not speak clearly to the
phenomenon that we today call "homosexuality." That is, Scripture speaks
negatively about certain behaviors, most notably temple
prostitution, not about basic orientation or about loving and committed
gay/lesbian relationships (A possible exception here is the praise of the
relationship between David and Jonathan.)
United Church of Christ: Dr. Nelson - The Scriptures actually say nothing
about homosexuality as a psycho-sexual orientation. Our understandings of
sexual orientation are distinctly modern ones that were not present in
the minds of Scriptures writers. A few passages of Scripture (seven at
the most) object to certain types of same-sex expressions or acts. The
particular acts in question, however, are sexual expressions which are
exploitative, oppressive, commercialized, or offensive to ancient purity
rituals. There is no Scriptural guidance for same-sex relationships which
are loving and mutually respecting. Guidance for these relationships
should come from the same general Scriptural norms that apply to
heterosexual relationships.
United Methodist: Dr. Cobb - Certainly some of the Biblical writers
objected to homosexual acts, but there is surprisingly little attention to
this topic. The opposition of the church comes from other sources much
more than from scripture. There are more scriptural reasons to oppose
homophobia than to oppose homosexuality.
United Methodist: Bishop Wheatley - The Scriptures at no point deal with
homosexuality as an authentic sexual orientation, a given condition of
being. The remarkably few Scriptural references to "homosexuality" deal
rather with homosexual acts, not with homosexual orientation. Those acts
are labeled as wrong out of the context of the times in which the writers
wrote and perceived those acts to be either nonmasculine, idolatrous,
exploitative or pagan. The kind of relationships between two consenting
adults of the same sex demonstrably abounding among us - relationships
that are responsible and mutual, affirming and fulfilling - are not dealt
with in the Scriptures. Dealing with those relational realities is one of
the tasks we are about in our time.
Ninure Saunders
-tall-cool-one wrote:
->
-> Neo wrote:
->
-> > For now I am leaving Usenet (I may return, but I don't know when).
-> > Originally, I thought Usenet was supposed to be open discussions so
-> > that people could discuss anything of interest rationally. However, it
-> > turns out that these newsgroups are getting filled with hatred and
-> > bigotry, which is not worth my time. Throughout the entire time I have
-> > been in a.r.c. and a.p.h., people have been constantly beating each
-> > other up with the Bible. People who claim to follow a god that cares
-> > for its people and loves them have no business telling me and others
-> > that we are perverted, sick, immoral, and that we are sinners, deserve
-> > to die, and are going to hell. When the day comes that people can
-> > discuss a subject with a tolerant and understanding disposition, I
-> > will return.
->
-> I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people.
-
-That's why you changed the title of the thread
-from "I'm leaving", to "I'm leaving as a cry
-baby homo"? Either you don't try to live up to
-your god's standards, or your god's so-called
-"love" isn't worth jack shit.
Indeed, I hadm't noticed that he was the person who had dome that....
Condiering that he didn't call a fellow "Christian" who started a 'I'm
leaving" thread last week and he didn't vall that person a crybaby!!!
I hope you know not ALL christians are as childish, hypocritical, and
churlish as this "person".
Ninure Saunders
Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
-"Neo" <ne...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:6a940be0.01062...@posting.google.com...
-> For now I am leaving Usenet (I may return, but I don't know when).
-> Originally, I thought Usenet was supposed to be open discussions so
-> that people could discuss anything of interest rationally. However, it
-> turns out that these newsgroups are getting filled with hatred and
-> bigotry, which is not worth my time. Throughout the entire time I have
-> been in a.r.c. and a.p.h., people have been constantly beating each
-> other up with the Bible. People who claim to follow a god that cares
-> for its people and loves them have no business telling me and others
-> that we are perverted, sick, immoral, and that we are sinners, deserve
-> to die, and are going to hell. When the day comes that people can
-> discuss a subject with a tolerant and understanding disposition, I
-> will return.
-
-%%%% Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out! Toodles!!!!
Thanks for PROVING his point......
Roy Cruelty
wrote:
In other words: "family values". How this is going to help families
is beyond me.
Mike Smith
=For now I am leaving Usenet (I may return, but I don't know when).
=Originally, I thought Usenet was supposed to be open discussions
=so that people could discuss anything of interest rationally. However,
=it turns out that these newsgroups are getting filled with hatred and
=bigotry, which is not worth my time. Throughout the entire time I have
=been in a.r.c. and a.p.h., people have been constantly beating each
=other up with the Bible. People who claim to follow a god that cares
=for its people and loves them have no business telling me and others
=that we are perverted, sick, immoral, and that we are sinners, deserve
=to die, and are going to hell. When the day comes that people can
=discuss a subject with a tolerant and understanding disposition,
=I will return.
Translation: "I won't be back." :-)
__________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
(Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheist with a Sense of Humor)
__________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, doesn't go away." -Philip K. Dick
Mike Smith
=I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people.
=So let me tell you that the God of the bible condemns
=homosexual practices.
Condemns a lot of things - pissing against a wall,
non-believers, etc. Hint: the lame things in the bible
may be reflective of the prejudices held by the guys
who wrote it (and re-wrote it, etc.).
stillsunny
<makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
>
>
>Neo wrote:
>
>> For now I am leaving Usenet (I may return, but I don't know when).
>> Originally, I thought Usenet was supposed to be open discussions so
>> that people could discuss anything of interest rationally. However, it
>> turns out that these newsgroups are getting filled with hatred and
>> bigotry, which is not worth my time. Throughout the entire time I have
>> been in a.r.c. and a.p.h., people have been constantly beating each
>> other up with the Bible. People who claim to follow a god that cares
>> for its people and loves them have no business telling me and others
>> that we are perverted, sick, immoral, and that we are sinners, deserve
>> to die, and are going to hell. When the day comes that people can
>> discuss a subject with a tolerant and understanding disposition, I
>> will return.
Sorry to see you go, Neo.
>I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people. So let me tell you that
>the God of the bible condemns homosexual practices.
What if you're wrong?
What if you've misunderstood the whole thing?
What if you've wasted all this energy making people feel terrible,
when you could have been learning how to make people feel better?
What if you've wasted all this time beating people down, when you
could have been learning how to like them, or how to help them, or how
to feed them, or even learning something about yourself from them?
Did you ever think, you might be wrong?
Sunny
>tall cool one
>
Dan Fake
Wrong about what? People do use the bible as a source
document to try to justify their homophobia and/or hatred
of homosexuals and/or hatred of homosexuality. Some
preachers, faiths, churches, and religions do so. Even the
faith spun off of Judaism and with their own version of
the Jesus character, the Muslim faith, uses the same anti-
homosexuality stance as a matter of course, with some
Muslim countries actually having the death penalty for
homosexuality, based on their bible, the quran, and
ancient codes of conduct spun off of that document.
Of course, you're trying to say that he may be wrong
about God being as iterated in the bible, but he's certainly
not wrong about how people use the bible and ancient
religious anti-tolerance/anti-humanism against, well, you
know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1
http://home.att.net/~danfake
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Sunny
>
> >tall cool one
> >
>
stillsunny
About how we can best respond to each other as human beings.
>People do use the bible as a source
>document to try to justify their homophobia and/or hatred
>of homosexuals and/or hatred of homosexuality.
Yep.
> Some
>preachers, faiths, churches, and religions do so. Even the
>faith spun off of Judaism and with their own version of
>the Jesus character, the Muslim faith, uses the same anti-
>homosexuality stance as a matter of course, with some
>Muslim countries actually having the death penalty for
>homosexuality, based on their bible, the quran, and
>ancient codes of conduct spun off of that document.
Yep.
>Of course, you're trying to say that he may be wrong
>about God being as iterated in the bible,
Not really.
I'm only asking what the result would be if he's wrong about what he's
supposed to *do* about any of it.
> but he's certainly
>not wrong about how people use the bible and ancient
>religious anti-tolerance/anti-humanism against, well, you
>know.
Yep.
It's a worthwhile question, I think.
Sunny
JTEM
"Neo" <ne...@mailandnews.com> wrote
> Originally, I thought Usenet was supposed to be open
> discussions so that people could discuss anything of
> interest rationally.
Why would people be any more rational on usenet then, say,
radio or television?
> However, it turns out that these newsgroups are getting
> filled with hatred and bigotry, which is not worth my time.
It's been like this since before I ever arrived here.
> When the day comes that people can discuss a subject with
> a tolerant and understanding disposition, I will return.
To be honest, the only "tolerant and understanding" dispositions
that I've ever encountered have been in conversations
involving like-minded individuals. Maybe not total agreement,
but with a strong foundation. An example might be, two people
who agree [idea A] sucks out loud, but not on why it sucks.
I know that whenever I've tried to turn a discussion in -- engage
the "good guys" of APH rather than the 'phobes -- I've usually
been ignored. Once or twice a flamewar resulted.
This just isn't the place for it.
curtsybear
>Neo <ne...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
>news:6a940be0.01062...@posting.google.com...
>> discuss a subject with a tolerant and understanding disposition, I
>> will return.
>Usenet, you won't see what's going on, will you?
We shall *ALL* be quite aware of the day when hell freezes over,
thankyouverymuch.
--
Curtis at Sieber dot Com
"What is intriguing about 'Ulterior Motive' is its author's background as,
first, a collaborator with behaviorist B.F. Skinner on chimpanzee-language
research, and, then, the inventor of the Start Button and Taskbar for
the computer program Windows 95." -- The New York Times, Christopher
Lehmann-Haupt, reviewing a book, but inadvertently tying together so
many loose ends about the origin of that damned start button!
tall-cool-one
Mike, Smith, mike...@apexmail.com wrote:
> tall-cool-one <makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
>
> =I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people.
> =So let me tell you that the God of the bible condemns
> =homosexual practices.
>
> Condemns a lot of things - pissing against a wall,
> non-believers, etc. Hint: the lame things in the bible
> may be reflective of the prejudices held by the guys
> who wrote it (and re-wrote it, etc.).
Prejudices against "immoral" persons is not a bad thing to the God of
the Bible.
tall cool one
tall-cool-one
stillsunny wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 17:33:42 GMT, "Dan Fake"
> <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >"stillsunny" <sun...@sccoast.net> wrote in message news:5jlmjtok6as3far5e...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 06:40:54 GMT, tall-cool-one
> >> <makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
>
> >> >I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people. So let me tell you that
> >> >the God of the bible condemns homosexual practices.
> >>
> >> What if you're wrong?
> >>
> >> What if you've misunderstood the whole thing?
> >>
> >> What if you've wasted all this energy making people feel terrible,
> >> when you could have been learning how to make people feel better?
> >>
> >> What if you've wasted all this time beating people down, when you
> >> could have been learning how to like them, or how to help them, or how
> >> to feed them, or even learning something about yourself from them?
> >>
> >> Did you ever think, you might be wrong?
> >
> >Wrong about what?
>
> About how we can best respond to each other as human beings.
Pfft... As if "acceptance" of forbidden lifestyles should be condoned.... not.
tall cool one
tall-cool-one
Jeff North wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 06:40:54 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality tall-cool-one
> <makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
>
> >| Neo wrote:
> >|
> >| > For now I am leaving Usenet (I may return, but I don't know when).
> >| > Originally, I thought Usenet was supposed to be open discussions so
> >| > that people could discuss anything of interest rationally. However, it
> >| > turns out that these newsgroups are getting filled with hatred and
> >| > bigotry, which is not worth my time. Throughout the entire time I have
> >| > been in a.r.c. and a.p.h., people have been constantly beating each
> >| > other up with the Bible. People who claim to follow a god that cares
> >| > for its people and loves them have no business telling me and others
> >| > that we are perverted, sick, immoral, and that we are sinners, deserve
> >| > to die, and are going to hell. When the day comes that people can
> >| > discuss a subject with a tolerant and understanding disposition, I
> >| > will return.
> >|
> >| I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people. So let me tell you that
> >| the God of the bible condemns homosexual practices.
>
> How xtian of you.
Of course ;-)
tall cool one
tall-cool-one
Fury wrote:
That is a relief, eh!
tall cool one
Karl E. Taylor
evidence for any gods, yours included.
What you are is a bigoted, arrogant, deluded, moronic, self absorbed,
holier then thou, myth following, ego stroking, blood god kissing, gay
bashing, womanizing, slave holding, genocidel maniac if you follow the
god described in the bible.
Try reading it some time. Instead of listening to people from the pulpit
telling you what is in it . You might spark something in your 2
remaining brain cells.
And stop posting your war god shit to alt.atheism. That is unless you
enjoy wearing asbestos underwear.
--
_____________________________________________________
Karl E. Taylor UNIX/Network Engineer
(623)846-6279 Phoenix, AZ
ktay...@yahoo.com ktay...@qwest.net
_____________________________________________________
tall-cool-one
Adam Marczyk wrote:
> > I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people. So let me tell you that
> > the God of the bible condemns homosexual practices.
>
> Yes, he does. In fact, he explicitly instructs his followers to put
> homosexuals to death. Have you tried to do that lately?
When God acted as King over Ancient Israel, this was the case. Since Jesus
Christ ransom, a new covenant has been in place which requires Jesus followers
to be obedient to the "superior authorities" (kings, rulers, dictators,
emperors, etc etc,.). Thus God is not backing any carnal nation on earth
today. Christians are to teach about "God's Kingdom" established in Heaven
which will adversely affect the earth's rulers in His due time.
American Standard Version - Jeremiah 31:31-33
31 Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with
the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day
that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my
covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah.
33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after
those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in
their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my
people:
New International Version - Daniel 2:44
44 "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that
will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush
all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure
forever.
New Jerusalem Bible - Psalms 2:1:12
1 Why this uproar among the nations,
this impotent muttering of the peoples?
2 Kings of the earth take up positions,
princes plot together against Yahweh and his anointed,
3 'Now let us break their fetters!
Now let us throw off their bonds!'
4 He who is enthroned in the heavens laughs,
Yahweh makes a mockery of them,
5 then in his anger rebukes them,
in his rage he strikes them with terror.
6 'I myself have anointed my king
on Zion my holy mountain.'
7 I will proclaim the decree of Yahweh:
He said to me, 'You are my son,
today have I fathered you.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give you the nations as
your birthright,
the whole wide world as your possession.
9 With an iron sceptre you will break them,
shatter them like so many pots.'
tall cool one
Liquid Grace
So much for responding as a human being.
Note the better of the two theist responses in this thread. Hint: It ain't
short lukewarm one.
Grace
--
"To you - is it movement or is it action?
Is it contact or just reaction?"
Neil Pear -=-Rush-=-The Enemy Within
http://www.liquid-grace.com
BAWAA Knight who says NI! aa#1752
Attention all planets of the solar federation - WE HAVE CONSUMED A TROLL!
tall-cool-one
"Karl E. Taylor" wrote:
> tall-cool-one wrote:
> >
> > Mike, Smith, mike...@apexmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > tall-cool-one <makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > =I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people.
> > > =So let me tell you that the God of the bible condemns
> > > =homosexual practices.
> > >
> > > Condemns a lot of things - pissing against a wall,
> > > non-believers, etc. Hint: the lame things in the bible
> > > may be reflective of the prejudices held by the guys
> > > who wrote it (and re-wrote it, etc.).
> >
> > Prejudices against "immoral" persons is not a bad thing to the God of
> > the Bible.
> >
> > tall cool one
> >
> You are not the god of the bible. In fact there is no objective
> evidence for any gods, yours included.
>
> What you are is a bigoted, arrogant, deluded, moronic, self absorbed,
> holier then thou, myth following, ego stroking, blood god kissing, gay
> bashing, womanizing, slave holding, genocidel maniac if you follow the
> god described in the bible.
Your assertion of presumptuousness is shallow.
tall cool one
Scott Elliott
tall-cool-one wrote:
> I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people. So let me tell you that
> the God of the bible condemns homosexual practices.
Prove it in context not taken out of context?
Everyone has been told to not take bible verses out of context
to make a whole new meaning of them. Yet that is exactly what
is done to make homosexuality a sin. In context of the time,
location, original language and intent the verses most often
used to prove homosexuality is a sin is actually the sin of
idolatry, not homosexuality. The verses in the New Testament
Romans 1:26-27 are often taken out of context and used as proof
that homosexuality is a sin. Yet in context of the time it was
the warning to not to commit whoredoms with idolatrous priest
of the other gods, the "giving of the seed to these gods"
(Lev 18:21-24, 20:5). (The seed was your sperm or your children.)
Their worship were adulterers, fornicators, and prostitutes of
the most infamous kind, such to Molech, Jupiter, Apollo, Mars,
and Venus. There rituals involved male temple prostitutes for
Molech, Chemarim priests (idolatrous priest of the calf faced
god Molech the fire god (golden calf Exo 32:8, Lev 18:21-24,
Lev 20:5, Zeph 1:2-4), who would receive the seed to molech
by heterosexual men lying with the Chemarim priest committing
whoredoms to Molech (Lev 20:5). Like wise the other gods
had their rituals of whoredoms to the gods (Num 25:1,
(1 King 11:7) Deu 23:18, Ezek 23:7). Romans 1:26-27 in context
is the sin of idolatry, nothing to do with homosexuality.
Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
unrighteousness;
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the
lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies
between themselves: (They pursued the idolatry of the other
gods by committing whoredoms to these other gods.)
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped
and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed
for ever. Amen. (Worshipped Molech the calf god over God.)
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for
even their women did change the natural use into that which
is against nature: (The women gave themselves up to whoredom
to receive the error of the seed to these other gods)
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of
the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with
men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in
themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
(Likewise the Chemarim priest committing whoredoms to Molech
(Lev 20:5) they burned in their pursuit (lust means pursuit
Exo 15:9, Psa 81:12, 1 Cor 10:6-7) of their idolatry
heterosexual men with Chemarim priest male temple prostitutes,
the Chemarim priest receiving in themselves that recompense of
their error which was meet, receiving the seed to Molech.)
Lev 20:
5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his
family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after
him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.
tall-cool-one
Liquid Grace wrote:
Spill (spell) it out Grace. Don't "hint" at your complaint of "where's the
beef"
tall cool one
Scott Elliott
Adam Marczyk wrote:
> tall-cool-one <makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote in message
>
> > I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people. So let me tell you that
> > the God of the bible condemns homosexual practices.
>
> Yes, he does. In fact, he explicitly instructs his followers to put
> homosexuals to death. Have you tried to do that lately?
Prove it in context not one liner out of context verses.
Scott Elliott
tall-cool-one wrote:
> Jeff North wrote:
>
> > >| I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people. So let me tell you that
> > >| the God of the bible condemns homosexual practices.
> >
> > How xtian of you.
>
> Of course ;-)
The Leviticus verse that is often misinterpreted as a sin
of homosexuality (Lev 18:22) can only be interpreted as such
by taking the verse "out of context", which taken "in"
context the verse takes on its true and wholly different
meaning. The true meaning is the sin of idolatry not
homosexuality. In context Lev 18:21-24 (see below) the verses
speak of the ritual of spilling the seed to Molech. (The seed
was your children or your sperm.)
Lev 18:21 speaks of human sacrifices giving your children
(your seed) to Molech through fire. It warns perform no idolatry
to Molech, then goes on below this verse to says which idolatrous
acts that are the abominable acts of idolatry performed to Molech.
Lev 18:22 speaks of the ritual of having sodomy with
a Chemarim priest (idolatrous priest of Molech the fire god)
which is the ritual of "giving the seed to Molech". (Women
were not allowed to be Chemarim priest so the "giving the seed
to Molech" was with a man, and clearly says in Lev 20:5 do not
go whoring with male temple prostitutes to Molech.) Lev 18:22 is
an idolatrous act to Molech, the "giving of the seed to Molech",
idolatry is a moral sin, it is abomination.
Lev 18:23 is also the act of idolatry, Molech was a Calf Faced
god, men would "give the seed to Molech" with calves, which is
a idolatrous act. The women would lay with bulls to receive the
seed of Molech, or stand before bulls (if they were pregnant)
for the ritual of raising Molech's seed. Now why was this a so
bad, (beyond it was idolatry)?
Lev 18:24 speaks to that issue, because in doing these acts of
idolatry you defile God as well as defile your nation. If you
spill the seed you do not build the nation, if you raised your
seed to Molech it caused confusion upon your nation, you defiled
your nation. Lev 18:21-24 is the sin of idolatry through the
ritual of spilling the seed to the god Molech. Nothing to do
what so ever with homosexuality.
Now read the verses in context in this light.
Leviticus 18:
21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the
fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy
God: I am the LORD. (perform no idolatry to Molech)
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
is abomination. (give no seed with Chemarim priests to Molech)
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself
therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie
down thereto: it is confusion.(give no seed to beasts to Molech)
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in
all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
(Give no seed to Molech it does not build the nation it defiles
the nation, it is idolatry.)
Lev 20:
5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his
family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after
him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.
Zeph 1:2-4
Scott Elliott
tall-cool-one wrote:
The land of Canaan worshiped the fire god Molech, they had the
ritual of human sacrifices the "giving your children (your seed)
to Molech" through fire, as well as "giving the seed to Molech"
with Chemarim priests (Zeph 1:2-4), idolatrous priests of Molech
the fire god, only males could be a Chemarim priests so the seed
was given to male priests, and clearly said in Lev 20:5 do not
go whoring with male temple prostitutes to Molech. This
misinterpretation of this ritual is often taken out of the context
of the time, location and the context of these verses to say
homosexuality was a sin. It was idolatry whoring with male temple
priests. Also in the ritual of "giving the seed to Molech" with
they give their seed to animals because Molech was a calf faced
god (often a golden calf). Lev 18:21-24 warns preform no idolatry
to Molech, then goes on below Lev 18:21 to says which idolatrous
acts that are the abominable acts of idolatry preformed to Molech.
They are often taken out of context to say this verse is proof
that homosexuality is a sin. When the original intent was
to spell out the abuse of the Canaan worship of the god Molech
and the abuse of your seed, both in human sacrifices and the
"giving of the seed to Molech" which is not only the spilling of
the seed but further it was idolatry to the Canaanite fire god
Molech.
Scott Elliott
tall-cool-one wrote:
> stillsunny wrote:
>
> > About how we can best respond to each other as human beings.
>
> Pfft... As if "acceptance" of forbidden lifestyles should be condoned.... not.
Prove it in context.
Lev 20:
Fenris
<makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
>Prejudices against "immoral" persons is not a bad thing to the God of the
Bible.
It wouldn't wash with Jesus.
Bibliolatry is not a relationship with God.
--
To send friendly e-mail, replace "nospam" with "ttowne1"
and "emptymind" with "mindspring.
Karl E. Taylor
single crime listed. Like I said, go read the bloody thing, and stop
listening to pastors and preachers that have an agenda to push.
That is, unless you want to admit that the bible is in error. Well, do
you?
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor ktay...@qwest.net
A.A #1143 ULC Minister
Home School Educator for Computer Science
Apostle of Dr. Lao Dir. EAC Virgin Conversion Unit
____________________________________________________________________
stillsunny
Hi, tall cool one.
Do me a favor?
Think about how you felt about the people you were talking about when
you wrote what you wrote.
Dismissive? Superior? Contemptuous?
It's easy enough to do, and I think most people do it from time to
time. I do, when someone is too difficult or confusing to understand.
It's much, much easier to just blow them off as a non-human because of
what little I can understand about them.
Now, imagine you *are* one of those people, reading this.
Sunny
Jeff North
<roycr...@netscape.net> wrote:
>| On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:04:25 GMT, Jeff North <jnor...@xxyahoo.com.au>
>| wrote:
>|
>| >On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 03:20:06 -0400, in alt.politics.homosexuality "Adam
>| >Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
[snip]
>| >>| Yes, he does. In fact, he explicitly instructs his followers to put
>| >>| homosexuals to death. Have you tried to do that lately?
>| >
>| >I have no doubt that if these xtian fundies could codified their buybull into
>| >civil law that the list would look like:
>| >1. kill all homosexuals & transsexuals
>| >2. return all blacks to slavery
>| >3. kill all Jews
>| >4. kill everyone that doesn't believe in THEIR god.
>|
>| In other words: "family values".
LOL - never thought of that
>| How this is going to help families is beyond me.
Well it makes sense to the fundies :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------
All I can say to fundamentalist christians is:
BRING BACK THE LIONS BRING BACK THE LIONS
BRING BACK THE LIONS BRING BACK THE LIONS
BRING BACK THE LIONS BRING BACK THE LIONS
jnor...@xxyahoo.com.au : Remove xx to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff North
Why would these followers of satan require asbestos underwear?
Jeff North
<makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
>| stillsunny wrote:
[snip]
>| > About how we can best respond to each other as human beings.
>|
>| Pfft... As if "acceptance" of forbidden lifestyles should be condoned.... not.
Another bible bashing lunatic.
Oh well, I'll do the christian thing and turn the other check.
*PLONK*
tall-cool-one
"Karl E. Taylor" wrote:
Your reply is SHALLOW again. Be specific. I will do you justice - hopefully
;-)
tall cool one
tall-cool-one
Fenris wrote:
> In article <3B3BB733...@bigfish.net>, tall-cool-one
> <makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
>
> >Prejudices against "immoral" persons is not a bad thing to the God of the
> Bible.
>
> It wouldn't wash with Jesus.
Jesus washed it, but immoral ones dirty it up again and again...
> Bibliolatry is not a relationship with God.
True and it is not what I asserted exclusively as if it is dogma.
tall cool one
Ninure Saunders
-Mike, Smith, mike...@apexmail.com wrote:
-
-> tall-cool-one <makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
->
-> =I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people.
-> =So let me tell you that the God of the bible condemns
-> =homosexual practices.
->
-> Condemns a lot of things - pissing against a wall,
-> non-believers, etc. Hint: the lame things in the bible
-> may be reflective of the prejudices held by the guys
-> who wrote it (and re-wrote it, etc.).
-
-Prejudices against "immoral" persons is not a bad thing to the God of
-the Bible.
-
But it certainly is for anyone claiming to be a Chrisitian!!
Matt. 7:1 蛇o not judge, or you too will be judged.
Matt. 7:2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and
with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Luke 6:37 蛇o not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and
you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
Rom. 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on
someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are
condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
Rom. 14:4 Who are you to judge someone else零 servant? To his own master
he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him
stand.
Rom. 14:10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look
down on your brother? For we will all stand before God零 judgment seat.
Romans 14:13-14 "Then let us not be judges of one another any longer: but
keep this in mind, that no one is to make it hard for their brother or
sister, or give them cause for doubting. I am conscious of this, and am
certain in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself; but for the
one in whose opinion it is unclean, for them it is unclean."
1Cor. 4:3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human
court; indeed, I do not even judge myself.
1Cor. 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till
the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will
expose the motives of men零 hearts. At that time each will receive his
praise from God.
1Cor. 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the
church? Are you not to judge those inside?
James 4:11 Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks
against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it.
When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on
it.
James 4:12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to
save and destroy. But you 𢶤ho are you to judge your neighbor?
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/ninure
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
Every 3.6 seconds a real person dies from hunger somewhere in the world!!! Feed a hungry person today:
http://www.hungersite.com
Every day 1800 children woldwide are infected with HIV.
Please help provide care: http://www.thekidsaidssite.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
tall-cool-one
stillsunny wrote:
YES/NO
> Superior? (TCO input YES/NO) Contemptuous? (TCO inputYES/NO)
>
> It's easy enough to do, and I think most people do it from time to time. I do, when someone is too
> difficult or confusing to understand. It's much, much easier to just blow them off as a non-human because
> of what little I can understand about them.
Dang, why don't you give US christians credit to distinguish "right from wrong" ??
> Now, imagine you *are* one of those people, reading this.
You are on a role, now explain your role in this thread for me, TIA.
tall cool one
Janet
I am not gay. And I am certainly not Jesus, but I do think he'd examine your heart if he were writing here and show you how hard your heart is. "Cry baby homo?" Hatred, fear, persecution, hypocrisy, rottenness. Remember the woman who committed adultery? Would you have thrown a stone after hearing the hatred in your own words? Are you a pharisee?? Who are you to say that Neo is condemned? Do you JUDGE?
I just watched a show on TV that showed that the Salem witch trials were based on belief that people were under witch possession - but it turned out to be ARGOT POISONING. They were poisoned with LSD (Look it up) !!!! NATURALLY OCCURRING LSD!!!!! No one was possessed, they were unknowingly under the influence of a naturally occurring psychotroptic drug. And PEOPLE were BURNED for it.
It has been scientifically PROVEN that people who are homosexual are BORN that way. Just like Science showed what happened in Salem. Remember "knowledge will be increased??" - Well, KNOWLEDGE HAS been increase, thanks to SCIENCE.
Who are you to to know what Neo has been through in his/her life??? WHO ARE YOU??? And who are you to criticize your god's work? Remember MERCY??? That doesn't just apply to those who read the Bible. You may not agree with Neo, but you don't need to insult or hate him - you just need to love him. You insult your god and his infinite capacity to forgive and to love: (He that hath an ear, let him hear) Matthew 6:15 "If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." Read your new testament. To forgive means to "cancel the debt". Luke 6:35 "But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again (in return); and your reward will be great, and ye shall be children of the Highest; for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful". So I guess he'll be kind to you, despite your intolerance. If you see Neo as "evil" then re-read that. I don't see Neo as that, but either way, you can't argue with your Book - can you?
Return to LOVE and compassion Tall "Cold" One.
Neo - I am so sorry. You don't EVER deserve to be beaten up. I am so sorry.
And BTW for all of you hate mongers - some of my best friends and some of the "goodest" people I know happen to be gay. And I would much rather be in their company than in the company of pharisees.
tall-cool-one wrote:
Neo wrote:
> For now I am leaving Usenet (I may return, but I don't know when).
> Originally, I thought Usenet was supposed to be open discussions so
> that people could discuss anything of interest rationally. However, it
> turns out that these newsgroups are getting filled with hatred and
> bigotry, which is not worth my time. Throughout the entire time I have
> been in a.r.c. and a.p.h., people have been constantly beating each
> other up with the Bible. People who claim to follow a god that cares
> for its people and loves them have no business telling me and others
> that we are perverted, sick, immoral, and that we are sinners, deserve
> to die, and are going to hell. When the day comes that people can
> discuss a subject with a tolerant and understanding disposition, I
> will return.
I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people. So let me tell you that
the God of the bible condemns homosexual practices.
tall cool one
tall-cool-one
Ninure Saunders wrote:
> Matt. 7:1 ³Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
Ya, as if I personally "judged" you for God. LOL!
tall cool one
tall-cool-one
Janet wrote:
I'm speaking to Tall Cool One. I do love a God who does care for people. And what you just wrote, sir, is the poorest example of Christianity I have ever seen. HOW MEAN you just were, Tall "Cool One".
Lighten up. This is usenet. Let us speak "freely" and
yet allow are prejudices to be accepted.
I am not gay. And I am certainly not Jesus, but I do think he'd examine your heart if he were writing here and show you how hard your heart is. "Cry baby homo?" Hatred, fear, persecution, hypocrisy, rottenness. Remember the woman who committed adultery? Would you have thrown a stone after hearing the hatred in your own words? Are you a pharisee?? Who are you to say that Neo is condemned? Do you JUDGE?
YES and are you judging ME?????????
I just watched a show on TV that showed that the Salem witch trials were based on belief that people were under witch possession - but it turned out to be ARGOT POISONING. They were poisoned with LSD (Look it up) !!!! NATURALLY OCCURRING LSD!!!!! No one was possessed, they were unknowingly under the influence of a naturally occurring psychotroptic drug. And PEOPLE were BURNED for it.
tsk tsk. and yet what has this to due with Homo's?
It has been scientifically PROVEN that people who are homosexual are BORN that way. Just like Science showed what happened in Salem. Remember "knowledge will be increased??" - Well, KNOWLEDGE HAS been increase, thanks to SCIENCE.
INCLINED to be HOMO'S may be more appropriate. We all are
bent to sinful inclinations. Should we just cave in to our personal
sins or resist the so-called natural inclination to sin? That
is the dilemma.
I appreciate your sentiments stated below, but find a lack of KNOWLEDGE found in the bible
tall cool one
The Night Stalker
right?
Steve Sprague, MCP
eAegis http://www.stormpages.com/eaegis
news:alt.comp.anti-virus
<snip bigotry>
J. Juls
>Jehovah,
>Jehovah.
>Jehovah:
He said "Jehovah!" Stone him to death!
I don't care! Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah.
No one is to stone anyone until I give the word, even if they do say
"Jehovah!"
(: (: (: (:
jjuls
Fenris
<makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
>> >Prejudices against "immoral" persons is not a bad thing to the God of the
>> Bible.
>>
>> It wouldn't wash with Jesus.
>
>Jesus washed it, but immoral ones dirty it up again and again...
Jesus was not sin-obsessed. You are. Of you want to worry about sin, worry
about your own...of the spirit. God is love.
>> Bibliolatry is not a relationship with God.
>
>True and it is not what I asserted exclusively as if it is dogma.
Sure you have.
tall-cool-one
Fenris wrote:
> In article <3B3BE496...@bigfish.net>, tall-cool-one
> <makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Prejudices against "immoral" persons is not a bad thing to the God of the
> >> Bible.
> >>
> >> It wouldn't wash with Jesus.
> >
> >Jesus washed it, but immoral ones dirty it up again and again...
>
> Jesus was not sin-obsessed. You are. Of you want to worry about sin, worry
> about your own...of the spirit. God is love.
Get real
tall cool one
tall-cool-one
"J. Juls" wrote:
LOL!!!
There you have it, there you have it
There you have it, there you have it
Jesus Christ SuperStar - Andrew Lloyd Webber
tall cool one
Karl E. Taylor
a dribbling, frothing, fundie bigot.
Moron.
Andrew Odale
tall-cool-one wrote:
> Your reply is SHALLOW again. Be specific. I will do you justice - hopefully
> ;-)
Refute this?
Andrew Odale
tall-cool-one wrote:
Yes you have, you have said in gods name that you know for a fact
god said there is a sin of homosexuality, and you have been shown
time and again there is not. You have put words into the mouth of
god which is not there, you will be judged by your actions.
-------
Andrew Odale
tall-cool-one wrote:
> Spill (spell) it out Grace. Don't "hint" at your complaint of "where's the
> beef"
You say in the bible there is a sin of homosexuality, not sodomy,
not idolatry with a male temple prostitute, but homosexuality, prove it,
put up or shut up. The NIV bible don't count it is not even
close as a translation. Nor will one liners out of context.
tall-cool-one
Andrew Odale wrote:
>
>
> tall-cool-one wrote:
>
> > Ninure Saunders wrote:
> >
> > > Matt. 7:1 ³Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
> >
> > Ya, as if I personally "judged" you for God. LOL!
>
> Yes you have, you have said in gods name that you know for a fact
> god said there is a sin of homosexuality, and you have been shown
> time and again there is not. You have put words into the mouth of
> god which is not there, you will be judged by your actions.
The Word of God said that. Should I repeat it?
tall cool one
Andrew Odale
tall-cool-one wrote:
> Dang, why don't you give US christians credit to distinguish "right from wrong" ??
Because thus far the christians have been such a model of everything
that is bad in the world. If that is right I will take wrong. The wars
we are having are religious based, the millions of people burned as
witches, the crusades, the treatment of homosexuals for no reason
than you are bigoted enough to take the verses out of context to use
against them. No thank you I will take the bad if that is good.
Andrew Odale
Janet wrote:
> I'm speaking to Tall Cool One. I do love a God who does care for people. And
> what you just wrote, sir, is the poorest example of Christianity I have ever
> seen. HOW MEAN you just were, Tall "Cool One".
>
> I am not gay. And I am certainly not Jesus, but I do think he'd examine your
> heart if he were writing here and show you how hard your heart is. "Cry baby
> homo?" Hatred, fear, persecution, hypocrisy, rottenness. Remember the woman
> who committed adultery? Would you have thrown a stone after hearing the
> hatred in your own words? Are you a pharisee?? Who are you to say that Neo is
> condemned? Do you JUDGE?
>
> I just watched a show on TV that showed that the Salem witch trials were based
> on belief that people were under witch possession - but it turned out to be
> ARGOT POISONING. They were poisoned with LSD (Look it up) !!!! NATURALLY
> OCCURRING LSD!!!!! No one was possessed, they were unknowingly under the
> influence of a naturally occurring psychotroptic drug. And PEOPLE were BURNED
> for it.
Well myself I was wondering where I could get some of that bread at.
tall-cool-one
Andrew Odale wrote:
I regress. I quoted Protestant and Catholics bibles. Come on. Get real
tall cool one
Andrew Odale
tall-cool-one wrote:
> INCLINED to be HOMO'S may be more appropriate. We all are bent to sinful
> inclinations. Should we just cave in to our personal sins or resist the
> so-called natural inclination to sin? That is the dilemma.
When you stand before god and he asks why did thou put word in my
mouth? Do sit there and try to say aaa I did not know that is what everyone
said.
The Leviticus verse that is often misinterpreted as a sin
of homosexuality (Lev 18:22) can only be interpreted as such
by taking the verse "out of context", which taken "in"
context the verse takes on its true and wholly different
meaning. The true meaning is the sin of idolatry not
homosexuality. In context Lev 18:21-24 (see below) the verses
speak of the ritual of spilling the seed to Molech. (The seed
was your children or your sperm.)
Lev 18:21 speaks of human sacrifices giving your children
(your seed) to Molech through fire. It warns perform no idolatry
to Molech, then goes on below this verse to says which idolatrous
acts that are the abominable acts of idolatry performed to Molech.
Lev 18:22 speaks of the ritual of having sodomy with
a Chemarim priest (idolatrous priest of Molech the fire god)
which is the ritual of "giving the seed to Molech". (Women
were not allowed to be Chemarim priest so the "giving the seed
to Molech" was with a man, and clearly says in Lev 20:5 do not
go whoring with male temple prostitutes to Molech.) Lev 18:22 is
an idolatrous act to Molech, the "giving of the seed to Molech",
idolatry is a moral sin, it is abomination.
Lev 18:23 is also the act of idolatry, Molech was a Calf Faced
god, men would "give the seed to Molech" with calves, which is
a idolatrous act. The women would lay with bulls to receive the
seed of Molech, or stand before bulls (if they were pregnant)
for the ritual of raising Molech's seed. Now why was this a so
bad, (beyond it was idolatry)?
Lev 18:24 speaks to that issue, because in doing these acts of
idolatry you defile God as well as defile your nation. If you
spill the seed you do not build the nation, if you raised your
seed to Molech it caused confusion upon your nation, you defiled
your nation. Lev 18:21-24 is the sin of idolatry through the
ritual of spilling the seed to the god Molech. Nothing to do
what so ever with homosexuality.
Now read the verses in context in this light.
Leviticus 18:
21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the
fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy
God: I am the LORD. (perform no idolatry to Molech)
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
is abomination. (give no seed with Chemarim priests to Molech)
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself
therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie
down thereto: it is confusion.(give no seed to beasts to Molech)
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in
all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
(Give no seed to Molech it does not build the nation it defiles
the nation, it is idolatry.)
Lev 20:
5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his
family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after
him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.
Zeph 1:2-4
tall-cool-one
Andrew Odale wrote:
>
>
> tall-cool-one wrote:
>
> > Dang, why don't you give US christians credit to distinguish "right from wrong" ??
>
> Because thus far the christians have been such a model of everything
> that is bad in the world. If that is right I will take wrong. The wars
> we are having are religious based, the millions of people burned as
> witches,
different subject
> the crusades,
different subject
> the treatment of homosexuals for no reason
> than you are bigoted enough to take the verses out of context to use
> against them. No thank you I will take the bad if that is good.
Same sex practices is condemn in the bible.
tall cool one
Andrew Odale
tall-cool-one wrote:
Nice dodge peewee brain I noticed you will not answer the
proof of homosexuality but you pull it out every chance you get.
See you in hell if there is one.
Andrew Odale
tall-cool-one wrote:
Since you are unable and unwilling to show there is anything
what so ever in the bible about homosexuality, it proves you
are nothing but a fraud and a charlatan.
tall-cool-one
Andrew Odale wrote:
>
>
> tall-cool-one wrote:
>
> > Andrew Odale wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > tall-cool-one wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ninure Saunders wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Matt. 7:1 蛇o not judge, or you too will be judged.
> > > >
> > > > Ya, as if I personally "judged" you for God. LOL!
> > >
> > > Yes you have, you have said in gods name that you know for a fact
> > > god said there is a sin of homosexuality, and you have been shown
> > > time and again there is not. You have put words into the mouth of
> > > god which is not there, you will be judged by your actions.
> >
> > The Word of God said that. Should I repeat it?
>
> Since you are unable and unwilling to show there is anything
> what so ever in the bible about homosexuality, it proves you
> are nothing but a fraud and a charlatan.
LOL!
Whoa!!!
That proves your point.... not
tall cool one
tall-cool-one
Andrew Odale wrote:
go back to the post before you act as the fool. Otherwise, argue against the post
every one knows and has seen fool
tall cool one
Scott Storm
tall-cool-one wrote:
>
>
> Janet wrote:
>
>> I just watched a show on TV that showed that the Salem witch
>> trials were based on belief that people were under witch
>> possession - but it turned out to be ARGOT POISONING. They were
>> poisoned with LSD (Look it up) !!!! NATURALLY OCCURRING LSD!!!!!
>> No one was possessed, they were unknowingly under the influence of
>> a naturally occurring psychotroptic drug. And PEOPLE were BURNED
>> for it.
>
>
> tsk tsk. and yet what has this to due with Homo's?
>
Well son,
It has more to do with your *ignorant* persecution of
Homosexuals..But we can't really hold it against you now... 'cause ya
know.......
stupid is as stupid does.
Take care,
Scott S.
Marlene Capps
>
>
> Neo wrote:
>
> > For now I am leaving Usenet (I may return, but I don't know when).
> > Originally, I thought Usenet was supposed to be open discussions so
> > that people could discuss anything of interest rationally. However, it
> > turns out that these newsgroups are getting filled with hatred and
> > bigotry, which is not worth my time. Throughout the entire time I have
> > been in a.r.c. and a.p.h., people have been constantly beating each
> > other up with the Bible. People who claim to follow a god that cares
> > for its people and loves them have no business telling me and others
> > that we are perverted, sick, immoral, and that we are sinners, deserve
> > to die, and are going to hell. When the day comes that people can
> > discuss a subject with a tolerant and understanding disposition, I
> > will return.
>
> I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people. So let me tell you that
> the God of the bible condemns homosexual practices.
>
> tall cool one
>
Reading outward:
Away from yourself, viewing all things as the seed from genitalia linked
to generations of wicked them, they and those kinds of shameful people.
The only place you put yourself in the bible is at John 3:16, who claims
that a loving God only began to love at a certain time in history, only
forgave at a certain time in history and only saved at a certain time in
history. So he must only love a certain kind of people having a certain time
for sex, with only certain partners and these certain partners must have
certain genitalia for certain love from God. And if they are not certain
that God loves certain sexual preferences over the other then you are
certain that God loves you for your sexual encounters because you practice
certain styles and behaviours of certain sexual pleasure that creates only
certain kinds of people that can only certainly be loved by God.
The God you follow seems only concerned with what has ever occured from the
beginning "from the waist down." How can he care for people when people
only care about who has sex with who, who created what, who lived and died
from sex, who hated who because of sex, who is right with God because of
sex. who was born of God because of sex.
No wonder God does not have respect for man, all his little dirty mind can
think of is sex, sex, sex.
Not that there is anything wrong with sex but when sex becomes the only
ruler then I think we need to
think about other forms of creation such as the mind and where its been, who
its been with, where it goes and who's been pentrating seeds of ignorance,
how they grow and what they can make you become. Your claim that God loves
only certain practices of sexual pleasure is not the God of divine love,
he is not interested in your sexual lifestyle, He is more interested in
things above the waist, such as the heart, mind and soul. Leave your
sexual identity at the door.
Reading inward:
Quiet.... someones listening.
Quiet.. someones hearing. .
Marlene Capps
Neo <ne...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:6a940be0.01062...@posting.google.com...
> For now I am leaving Usenet (I may return, but I don't know when).
> Originally, I thought Usenet was supposed to be open discussions so
> that people could discuss anything of interest rationally. However, it
> turns out that these newsgroups are getting filled with hatred and
> bigotry, which is not worth my time. Throughout the entire time I have
> been in a.r.c. and a.p.h., people have been constantly beating each
> other up with the Bible. People who claim to follow a god that cares
> for its people and loves them have no business telling me and others
> that we are perverted, sick, immoral, and that we are sinners, deserve
> to die, and are going to hell. When the day comes that people can
> discuss a subject with a tolerant and understanding disposition, I
> will return.
Neo,
Only you can change what you see. You can change the discussion at any
time.
Just say a kind word and the post goes no further. People enjoy the ugly,
they thrive
on the negative. When you see a long post you can be sure there is a mental
war at battle.
But don't let them
fight with you and prevent you from learning that their are other stepping
stones to step on, other leaves to turn and higher
ideas and approachs to reach for if you really have a desire to learn and
grow from discussions.
I see it too, but its what comes from you that is important and not what
comes from them.
Maybe you will change your mind. I hope so.
God Blesses,
Marlene
*nemo*
news:vhmnjtsshfj8d2epe...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 23:04:29 GMT, tall-cool-one
> <makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
<snip>
> >Pfft... As if "acceptance" of forbidden lifestyles should be
condoned.... not.
>
> Hi, tall cool one.
>
> Do me a favor?
>
> Think about how you felt about the people you were talking about when
> you wrote what you wrote.
>
> Dismissive? Superior? Contemptuous?
>
> It's easy enough to do, and I think most people do it from time to
> time. I do, when someone is too difficult or confusing to understand.
> It's much, much easier to just blow them off as a non-human because of
> what little I can understand about them.
>
> Now, imagine you *are* one of those people, reading this.
>
Oy! You're talking about empathy, you are! Good luck!
> Sunny
>
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.att.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
**************************************************
Always up for a little grilled sacred scroll
-
With just a dash of innuendo added for fun...
**************************************************
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>In article <3B3BB733...@bigfish.net>, tall-cool-one
><makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Prejudices against "immoral" persons is not a bad thing to the God of the
>Bible.
>
>It wouldn't wash with Jesus.
Nor, and this is of greater importance, will it wash before the
courts.
ward
--------------------------------------------
"We must love each other or die."
--W. H. Auden
--------------------------------------------
Fury
news:3B3BB99F...@qwest.net...
> tall-cool-one wrote:
> >
> > Mike, Smith, mike...@apexmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > tall-cool-one <makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > =I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people.
> > > =So let me tell you that the God of the bible condemns
> > > =homosexual practices.
> > >
> > > Condemns a lot of things - pissing against a wall,
> > > non-believers, etc. Hint: the lame things in the bible
> > > may be reflective of the prejudices held by the guys
> > > who wrote it (and re-wrote it, etc.).
> >
> > the Bible.
> >
> >
> You are not the god of the bible. In fact there is no objective
> evidence for any gods, yours included.
>
> What you are is a bigoted, arrogant, deluded, moronic, self absorbed,
> holier then thou, myth following, ego stroking, blood god kissing, gay
> bashing, womanizing, slave holding, genocidel maniac if you follow the
> god described in the bible.
>
> telling you what is in it . You might spark something in your 2
> remaining brain cells.
>
> And stop posting your war god shit to alt.atheism. That is unless you
> enjoy wearing asbestos underwear.
Bravo!
*heats up the torches*
Fury
news:tjnubfq...@corp.supernews.com...
Right! Who threw that?! You--get to the back of the crowd!
Fenris
<makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
>Fenris wrote:
>
>> In article <3B3BE496...@bigfish.net>, tall-cool-one
>> <makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Prejudices against "immoral" persons is not a bad thing to the God of the
>> >> Bible.
>> >>
>> >> It wouldn't wash with Jesus.
>> >
>> >Jesus washed it, but immoral ones dirty it up again and again...
>>
>> Jesus was not sin-obsessed. You are. All you want to worry about is
sin; worry
>> about your own...of the spirit. God is love.
>
>Get real
I am. Mind your own supposed sins. You do not speak for God; you do not
represent Christianity.
stillsunny
<makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
>
>
>stillsunny wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 23:04:29 GMT, tall-cool-one
>> <makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >stillsunny wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 17:33:42 GMT, "Dan Fake"
>> >> <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"stillsunny" <sun...@sccoast.net> wrote in message news:5jlmjtok6as3far5e...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 06:40:54 GMT, tall-cool-one
>> >> >> <makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people. So let me tell you that
>> >> >> >the God of the bible condemns homosexual practices.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What if you're wrong?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What if you've misunderstood the whole thing?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What if you've wasted all this energy making people feel terrible,
>> >> >> when you could have been learning how to make people feel better?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What if you've wasted all this time beating people down, when you
>> >> >> could have been learning how to like them, or how to help them, or how
>> >> >> to feed them, or even learning something about yourself from them?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Did you ever think, you might be wrong?
>> >> >
>> >> >Wrong about what?
>> >>
>> >> About how we can best respond to each other as human beings.
>> >
>> >Pfft... As if "acceptance" of forbidden lifestyles should be condoned.... not.
>>
>> Hi, tall cool one.
>>
>> Do me a favor?
>>
>> Think about how you felt about the people you were talking about when
>> you wrote what you wrote.
>>
>> Dismissive?
>
>YES/NO
I'm not sure what you mean here, but I'm going to assume that you feel
partly dismissive. Please let me know if I've misread what you mean.
>> Superior? (TCO input YES/NO) Contemptuous? (TCO inputYES/NO)
I'm going to assume the same here. And I don't know what TCO stands
for.
>> It's easy enough to do, and I think most people do it from time to time. I do, when someone is too
>> difficult or confusing to understand. It's much, much easier to just blow them off as a non-human because
>> of what little I can understand about them.
>
>Dang, why don't you give US christians credit to distinguish "right from wrong" ??
LOL!
I am a Christian. If I disagree with you, then we're on the horns of
a dilemma regarding the ability of Christians to distinguish right
from wrong, aren't we?
>> Now, imagine you *are* one of those people, reading this.
>
>You are on a role, now explain your role in this thread for me, TIA.
Did you mean "roll" in the first part?
I'm sorry to be difficult, but I don't know what all the acronyms
stand for. What is TIA? However, I'll answer your question as best I
understand it. It might be long, and I'm sorry about that. Ready?
I believe most people want to do the right thing. I know I do.
I also think sometimes that "right thing" is difficult, at best, to
determine, and so we set up little frameworks to keep us certain. It
makes judgement simple. If it doesn't fit in the framework, it's not
the right thing.
I also believe most people are as emotionally driven as they are
rationally driven, and lots of times that framework reflects emotion
as much as reason. Not necessarily a bad thing, either. Emotion --
love, empathy, compassion, even fear -- are necessary indicators.
But when our indicators conflict with reason, when our "framework" is
causing us to behave in less than altruistic ways to other human
beings who have cause *us* no harm, and all of whom have worth, it's
time to sort out which one we give sanction to.
I don't like to see people harmed. Your comments, though probably
well intended, and completely believed by you, cause that harm.
You'll probably want to rebut that by saying that it doesn't cause
harm to tell someone about something that you see as in error. So in
the "framework," I'd ask you to examine whether your perception of
error is perhaps more societally driven than really reasonable, and if
what you think about any group of people means you stop seeing them as
living, breathing, wonderful human beings.
Because what I've also noticed is that, when people do that -- when
*I* do that -- they harm not only the people they're dismissing, but
they really, really harm themselves.
That's what I'm doing on this thread.
Sunny
Sherm
"tall-cool-one" <makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote in message news:3B3BED63...@bigfish.net...
Janet wrote:
I'm speaking to Tall Cool One. I do love a God who does care for people. And what you just wrote, sir, is the poorest example of Christianity I have ever seen. HOW MEAN you just were, Tall "Cool One".
Lighten up. This is usenet. Let us speak "freely" and yet allow are prejudices to be accepted.
I am not gay. And I am certainly not Jesus, but I do think he'd examine your heart if he were writing here and show you how hard your heart is. "Cry baby homo?" Hatred, fear, persecution, hypocrisy, rottenness. Remember the woman who committed adultery? Would you have thrown a stone after hearing the hatred in your own words? Are you a pharisee?? Who are you to say that Neo is condemned? Do you JUDGE?
YES and are you judging ME?????????
I just watched a show on TV that showed that the Salem witch trials were based on belief that people were under witch possession - but it turned out to be ARGOT POISONING. They were poisoned with LSD (Look it up) !!!! NATURALLY OCCURRING LSD!!!!! No one was possessed, they were unknowingly under the influence of a naturally occurring psychotroptic drug. And PEOPLE were BURNED for it.
tsk tsk. and yet what has this to due with Homo's?
It has been scientifically PROVEN that people who are homosexual are BORN that way. Just like Science showed what happened in Salem. Remember "knowledge will be increased??" - Well, KNOWLEDGE HAS been increase, thanks to SCIENCE.
INCLINED to be HOMO'S may be more appropriate. We all are bent to sinful inclinations. Should we just cave in to our personal sins or resist the so-called natural inclination to sin? That is the dilemma.
I appreciate your sentiments stated below, but find a lack of KNOWLEDGE found in the bible
tall cool one
Who are you to to know what Neo has been through in his/her life??? WHO ARE YOU??? And who are you to criticize your god's work? Remember MERCY??? That doesn't just apply to those who read the Bible. You may not agree with Neo, but you don't need to insult or hate him - you just need to love him. You insult your god and his infinite capacity to forgive and to love: (He that hath an ear, let him hear) Matthew 6:15 "If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." Read your new testament. To forgive means to "cancel the debt". Luke 6:35 "But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again (in return); and your reward will be great, and ye shall be children of the Highest; for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful". So I guess he'll be kind to you, despite your intolerance. If you see Neo as "evil" then re-read that. I don't see Neo as that, but either way, you can't argue with your Book - can you?
Return to LOVE and compassion Tall "Cold" One.
Neo - I am so sorry. You don't EVER deserve to be beaten up. I am so sorry.
And BTW for all of you hate mongers - some of my best friends and some of the "goodest" people I know happen to be gay. And I would much rather be in their company than in the company of pharisees.
tall-cool-one wrote:
Neo wrote:
> For now I am leaving Usenet (I may return, but I don't know when).
> Originally, I thought Usenet was supposed to be open discussions so
> that people could discuss anything of interest rationally. However, it
> turns out that these newsgroups are getting filled with hatred and
> bigotry, which is not worth my time. Throughout the entire time I have
> been in a.r.c. and a.p.h., people have been constantly beating each
> other up with the Bible. People who claim to follow a god that cares
> for its people and loves them have no business telling me and others
> that we are perverted, sick, immoral, and that we are sinners, deserve
> to die, and are going to hell. When the day comes that people can
> discuss a subject with a tolerant and understanding disposition, I
> will return.
I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people. So let me tell you that
the God of the bible condemns homosexual practices.
tall cool one
stillsunny
<removing the no-archive bit>
>Karl E. Taylor wrote in message <3B3BFD7B...@qwest.net>...
>
>>> > > > What you are is a bigoted, arrogant, deluded, moronic, self absorbed,
>>> > > > holier then thou, myth following, ego stroking, blood god kissing, gay
>>> > > > bashing, womanizing, slave holding, genocidel maniac if you follow the
>>> > > > god described in the bible.
>>> > You kiss the ass of the god in the bible, then you are guilty of every
>>> > single crime listed.
>
>Following God in modern Christianity amounts to focusing on the moral teachings of
>Jesus and receiving the Holy Spirit. The American Church does not teach genocide,
>slave holding, and adultery.
But it did, at least two of them.
>True Christianity speaks out against bigotry,
>arrogance and holier-than-thouness. Condemnation of homosexual behavior is
>limited to St. Paul's teachings and Jewish scripture, a practice that a large
>percentage of Christians worldwide abhor.
A large percentage of Christians abhor Jewish scripture and Paul's
teachings? Well, maybe not large, but at least some of us :-)
And if you're talking about homosexual practices abhored by large
percentages of Christians, that's sort of the point, isn't it? We
abhor the practice, presume lots of things about it (like it never
involves love, or like people are doing it just to tick us off) and
don't see the person behind it.
>To the best of my knowledge, Jesus
>never condemned homosexuals.
Well, there you go, then.
>True religion teaches us to seek God's presence; to love and serve others
>selflessly; to care for the less fortunate, and to be humble and self-controlled-
>the opposite of the claims in your prejudice-laden, hate-filled statement above.
It may indeed, but it certainly doesn't manifest that way. And the
prejudice laden, hate filled statement you refer to was in response to
a statement by someone else which reflected a knee-jerk, prejudicial
remark by someone else, which you clipped.
>>Not very bright are you. But then again, what else should I expect from
>>a dribbling, frothing, fundie bigot. Moron.
>
>This statement is dripping with bigotry towards fundamentalists.
Yep. How about ask why. There's a reason.
>If your e-mail address is real, I will be reporting you to your ISP for violation
>of their verbal abuse policy. You have no moral or legal right to use your email
>account for the purposes of venting your hatred and prejudice towards Christians.
And they will do exactly nothing. Karl's posting from alt.atheism.
Aura, I know a couple of things from your postings.
I know you rarely, if ever, return to respond to the things people say
back to you.
I know you "no archive" your posts, though I've never figured out why.
And I also noted you said you *left* Christianity for some very
specific reasons, which included lots of the dogmatic, mean-spirited,
judgemental, fundamentalist ideas Karl is blasting here.
Before you go chastizing and reporting and all that good stuff,
because you're offended, why don't you ask him *why*. He'll tell you,
if you'll stick around to read it. See, he understands the
fundamentalist mindset. He *was* one.
>From Qwest's website: http://www.qwest.com/legal/usagePolicy.html
>
>"Users shall not use the Qwest Network and Services to transmit...material that is
>...obscene, defamatory, libelous, threatening, abusive, or hateful"
>
>I will be following your postings on this newsgroup, and will send every one that
>violates this policy to their abuse department, which I have a legal and moral
>right to do.
Sunny
>Aura
>
Don
wrote:
>interesting statements. Would someone enlighten me and give me reference to where it has been proven that homosexuality is a life style that one is born with. I can not find that statement to be true any where.
>
What do you mean by "...a life style that one is born with?"
How can you be born with "a life style?"
Most babies whom I have observed and known personally had the
following "life style" as in infant:
Cry alot...
sleep alot...
pee alot...
dirty their diaper alot...
REPEAT alot.
Is THAT the kind of "life style" to which you are refering?
I know people who are gay and people who are straight. Most of my
friends live "normal" lifestyles. Their sexuality is only a part of
their emotional make-up, whether they are gay or straight.
D*
For your productivity: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
Woden
>
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 14:54:56 GMT, "Sherm" <hunk...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >interesting statements. Would someone enlighten me and give me reference to where it has been proven that homosexuality is a life style that one is born with. I can not find that statement to be true any where.
> >
>
> What do you mean by "...a life style that one is born with?"
>
> How can you be born with "a life style?"
>
> Most babies whom I have observed and known personally had the
> following "life style" as in infant:
> Cry alot...
> sleep alot...
> pee alot...
> dirty their diaper alot...
> REPEAT alot.
You left out the all important "nurse alot..."
;-) <...from a new grandpa who's watched his grandson do all these
things....>
>
> Is THAT the kind of "life style" to which you are refering?
>
> I know people who are gay and people who are straight. Most of my
> friends live "normal" lifestyles. Their sexuality is only a part of
> their emotional make-up, whether they are gay or straight.
>
> D*
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
Karl E. Taylor
>
> x-no-archive:yesGee, don't want your stuff stored on Goggle eh? Wonder why.
1. I don't hide behind bogus addresses, or anonymous e-mailers.
2. I stand behind what I write.
3. You really need to learn a bit about church history.
4. Thank you for the complement.
5. This is alt.atheism, the only news group that MY server carries.
6. Bite me.
Happy now? Now why don't you just go away.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor ktay...@qwest.net
A.A #1143 ULC Minister
Home School Educator for Computer Science
Apostle of Dr. Lao Dir. EAC Virgin Conversion Unit
____________________________________________________________________
Medieval Knievel, the Adonis of Oklahoma
"Aura" <au...@aura.aura> wrote in message
news:9hi5v6$15q6$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net...
> I will be following your postings on this newsgroup, and will send every
one that
> violates this policy to their abuse department, which I have a legal and
moral
> right to do.
What a fucking wanker.
--
********************
Medieval Knievel
ICQ # 26667824
"No, you can't change the password. You can erase it and create a new one,
but you can't "change" it. "--Chief schools ok.general on passwords
***********************
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Therion Ware
alt.atheism:
>x-no-archive:yes
no.
>Karl E. Taylor wrote in message <3B3BFD7B...@qwest.net>...
>
>>> > > > What you are is a bigoted, arrogant, deluded, moronic, self absorbed,
>>> > > > holier then thou, myth following, ego stroking, blood god kissing, gay
>>> > > > bashing, womanizing, slave holding, genocidel maniac if you follow the
>>> > > > god described in the bible.
>>> > You kiss the ass of the god in the bible, then you are guilty of every
>>> > single crime listed.
>
>Following God in modern Christianity amounts to focusing on the moral teachings of
>Jesus and receiving the Holy Spirit. The American Church does not teach genocide,
>slave holding, and adultery. True Christianity speaks out against bigotry,
>arrogance and holier-than-thouness. Condemnation of homosexual behavior is
>limited to St. Paul's teachings and Jewish scripture, a practice that a large
>percentage of Christians worldwide abhor. To the best of my knowledge, Jesus
>never condemned homosexuals.
>
>True religion teaches us to seek God's presence; to love and serve others
>selflessly; to care for the less fortunate, and to be humble and self-controlled-
>the opposite of the claims in your prejudice-laden, hate-filled statement above.
>
>
>A good example of a true follower of this kind of religion would be Mother
>Theresa. Would you be willing to apply your statement above to her?
>
>>Not very bright are you. But then again, what else should I expect from
>>a dribbling, frothing, fundie bigot. Moron.
>
>This statement is dripping with bigotry towards fundamentalists.
>
>
>If your e-mail address is real, I will be reporting you to your ISP for violation
>of their verbal abuse policy. You have no moral or legal right to use your email
>account for the purposes of venting your hatred and prejudice towards Christians.
>
>From Qwest's website: http://www.qwest.com/legal/usagePolicy.html
>
>"Users shall not use the Qwest Network and Services to transmit...material that is
>...obscene, defamatory, libelous, threatening, abusive, or hateful"
>
>I will be following your postings on this newsgroup, and will send every one that
>violates this policy to their abuse department, which I have a legal and moral
>right to do.
>
>Aura
>
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.co.uk>. £69.99 gets your video on DVD.
There is no EAC, so delete it from the email, if you want to communicate.
maf1029
wrote:
>In article <3B3BFC7D...@bigfish.net>, tall-cool-one
><makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
>
>>Fenris wrote:
>>
>>> In article <3B3BE496...@bigfish.net>, tall-cool-one
>>> <makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >Prejudices against "immoral" persons is not a bad thing to the God of the
>>> >> Bible.
>>> >>
>>> >> It wouldn't wash with Jesus.
>>> >
>>> >Jesus washed it, but immoral ones dirty it up again and again...
>>>
>>> Jesus was not sin-obsessed. You are. All you want to worry about is
>sin; worry
>>> about your own...of the spirit. God is love.
>>
>>Get real
>
>I am. Mind your own supposed sins. You do not speak for God; you do not
>represent Christianity.
But didn't Tall-Cool-One win the spokesmodel category on Star Search,
thus making him the duly appointed and possibly notarized
representative of Christianity? But, if we do invoke the "Morals and
Standards" clause in order to fire him, does he get to keep the tiara
and sash?
Just curious..........
Karl E. Taylor
>
> "Aura" <au...@aura.aura> wrote in message
> news:9hi5v6$15q6$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net...
>
> > I will be following your postings on this newsgroup, and will send every
> one that
> > violates this policy to their abuse department, which I have a legal and
> moral
> > right to do.
>
> What a fucking wanker.
>
is simply a suck site for me. And I have no such policy on my own
network. Also, my news server only carries one news group,
alt.atheism. Since I only read that one, and only post to that one, if
they get my messages on other groups, to bad. Maybe they should learn
to trim headers. Mine are trimmed here automatically.
Oh well, some nuts just feel the need to tell others how to live.
--
Me
Karl E. Taylor
>
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> >Not very bright are you. But then again, what else should I expect from
> >a dribbling, frothing, fundie bigot. Moron.
>
> you are criticizing.
>
Excuse me sweety, but I don't tell you how to live, kindly don't try and
tell me.
>
> Instead of "gay bashing", you engage in Christian bashing, and yet you have
> nothing but contempt for tall-cool-one. Yours is yet another in a series of
> countless examples on this newsgroup of an anti-Christian pot calling a Christian
> kettle "black".
>
Yup, sure do. I hate all religion, simply because of the stupid,
idiotic, moronic, bigoted, asinine, hateful, hurtful BS every single one
of them seems to perpetrate on it's followers. And before you "pass
judgment", why don't you research the whole thread? Or do you prefer
making that small buzzing noise of yours?
>
> As a former Christian in the corporate, purely religious sense, I see no
> difference between the two forms of bashing. Both are ugly and cruel and
> inhumane, and their proponents are on the same level morally.
>
Then you know nothing of church history, or current church activity.
And don't try and give me that lame, "not true christians" crap.
>
> For the record, I oppose fundie Christianity's misguided crusade against
> homosexual behavior apart from warnings about its higher than average health risks
> and negative psychological effects. Gays are well aware of the Christian opinion
> of their behavior, and don't need to be reminded.
>
So what are you doing to stop it? Other then bitching about what I
write that is.
>
> Some gays have serious emotional problems regarding their rejection by Christians
> and others, and some even commit suicide over it, obviously because they are
> certain they can't change their sexual orientation and can't handle feeling like
> an outcast or a "sinner".
>
And just who do you think but the silly notion of sin into their heads?
Look in a mirror for answers.
>
> Christians should stick to evangelism and give up condemning homosexual behavior,
> which does far more harm than good, both to homosexuals and Christianity.
>
All faiths should keep their beliefs to themselves and stop trying to
tell other people how to live. All religions should keep there views in
their churches, and out of the public square. And all xtians should
keep their noses out of other peoples bedrooms.
>
> I'd prefer to hear more Christian condemnation of adultery, which is one of the
> worst sexual sins imaginable. Unfortunately, I rarely do.
>
According to xtian mythology, sin is sin. So what. Sin is a myth
concept built up to keep the masses in check. Since the origin of sin,
the garden, is a myth, there is no such thing as sin. People live, get
over it. You don't have to like it, but you have no place telling
anyone how to live their lives.
>
> Aura
>
> P.S. Karl- I sent copies of three of your abusive posts to Qwest.
>
Oh, how nice. To bad I run my own news server. And no such silly rules
apply on my network. Don't like it, bite me.
Jeff North
Taylor" <ktay...@qwest.net> wrote:
>| Aura wrote:
[snip. Karl 10, Aura 0]
>| > P.S. Karl- I sent copies of three of your abusive posts to Qwest.
>| >
>| Oh, how nice. To bad I run my own news server. And no such silly rules
>| apply on my network. Don't like it, bite me.
LOVE IT :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------
All I can say to fundamentalist christians is:
BRING BACK THE LIONS BRING BACK THE LIONS
BRING BACK THE LIONS BRING BACK THE LIONS
BRING BACK THE LIONS BRING BACK THE LIONS
jnor...@xxyahoo.com.au : Remove xx to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Templeton
"Sherm" <hunk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:4F0%6.4140$eL5.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Fenris
<maf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>But didn't Tall-Cool-One win the spokesmodel category on Star Search,
>thus making him the duly appointed and possibly notarized
>representative of Christianity?
I must have missed it.
>But, if we do invoke the "Morals and
>Standards" clause in order to fire him, does he get to keep the tiara
>and sash?
>Just curious..........
Fine by me. And I know where he should put them. =)
curtsybear
>>>Following God in modern Christianity amounts to focusing on the moral teachings
>of
>>>Jesus and receiving the Holy Spirit. The American Church does not teach
>genocide,
>>>slave holding, and adultery.
>>But it did, at least two of them.
>what it does today, especially since most of those responsible for these
>atrocities are dead.
And since the church is in such flux, always running to preserve the
rights that they might have denigrated yesterday, we shall expect the
Pope to take a male lover tomorrow?
Or do you expect us to accept the fact that you only practice a FEW of
the bigotries for which Christianity was created?
--
Curtis at Sieber dot Com
"What is intriguing about 'Ulterior Motive' is its author's background as,
first, a collaborator with behaviorist B.F. Skinner on chimpanzee-language
research, and, then, the inventor of the Start Button and Taskbar for
the computer program Windows 95." -- The New York Times, Christopher
Lehmann-Haupt, reviewing a book, but inadvertently tying together so
many loose ends about the origin of that damned start button!
Ptim
enlightened the world with:
|In article <3B3AD1B7...@bigfish.net>, tall-cool-one
|<makewayf...@bigfish.net> wrote:
|
|
|>I "claim" to follow a God who cares for people. So let me tell you that
|>the God of the bible condemns homosexual practices.
|
|And you can as easily be told that it doesn't.
|
|Bibiliolatry is not a relationship with God.
Please explain how one gets into a relationship with God.
Ptim
--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human
freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed
of slaves."
-- William Pitt, 18 Nov 1783
Ptim
enlightened the world with:
Yet again:
|The Leviticus verse that is often misinterpreted as a sin
|of homosexuality (Lev 18:22) can only be interpreted as such
|by taking the verse "out of context", which taken "in"
|context the verse takes on its true and wholly different
|meaning. The true meaning is the sin of idolatry not
|homosexuality. In context Lev 18:21-24 (see below) the verses
|speak of the ritual of spilling the seed to Molech. (The seed
|was your children or your sperm.)
Read this:
http://www.tektonics.org/lev18.html
curtsybear
>>Not very bright are you. But then again, what else should I expect from
>>a dribbling, frothing, fundie bigot. Moron.
>What you write is just as morally unjustifiable as the writings of the Christians
>you are criticizing.
Intolerance of intolerant people is not bigotry, merely reaction.
Admittedly, a lot of collateral damage gets done to those tainted with
the "smell of christianity", but that's also a byproduct of the basic
JudeoChristianBigotryHistory.
>Instead of "gay bashing", you engage in Christian bashing, and yet you have
>nothing but contempt for tall-cool-one. Yours is yet another in a series of
>countless examples on this newsgroup of an anti-Christian pot calling a Christian
>kettle "black".
Reaction to a Christian history of persecution is not an attack.
It is self-defense. It is learned early. It is reinforced daily.
>As a former Christian in the corporate, purely religious sense, I see no
>difference between the two forms of bashing. Both are ugly and cruel and
>inhumane, and their proponents are on the same level morally.
When you shoot a man who has aimed a gun at you, it is not murder.
The diference lies in what the school children keep repeating: "you
started it!"
>For the record, I oppose fundie Christianity's misguided crusade against
>homosexual behavior apart from warnings about its higher than average health risks
>and negative psychological effects. Gays are well aware of the Christian opinion
>of their behavior, and don't need to be reminded.
And any action on the part of the homosexual movement is fully justified
given the history of the situation.
>Some gays have serious emotional problems regarding their rejection by Christians
>and others, and some even commit suicide over it, obviously because they are
>certain they can't change their sexual orientation and can't handle feeling like
>an outcast or a "sinner".
Yep, that's ONE of the many, many reasons.
>Christians should stick to evangelism and give up condemning homosexual behavior,
>which does far more harm than good, both to homosexuals and Christianity.
And you should give up your inability to see that the homosexual reaction
is justified.
>I'd prefer to hear more Christian condemnation of adultery, which is one of the
>worst sexual sins imaginable. Unfortunately, I rarely do.
Agreed. Since the churches are full of adulterers, you shall continue
to hear things that are "palatable" to those who fill the coffers. Sad,
but that's the way she was set up and that's the way they run it.
stillsunny
>x-no-archive:yes
>
>>>Following God in modern Christianity amounts to focusing on the moral teachings
>>>of Jesus and receiving the Holy Spirit. The American Church does not teach
>>>genocide, slave holding, and adultery.
>>
>>But it did, at least two of them.
>Today? Not in the church I attended. What Christianity once did is irrelevant to
>what it does today, especially since most of those responsible for these
>atrocities are dead.
I understand what you're saying.
Trouble is, the mindset which sponsored much of those same wrongs is
still very present, and curtailed only by some social conscience and
some very rigorously protective civil laws. It's that "we're right,
and you're a sinner, and therefore nothing you have to say is of any
worth, because you're not in agreement with us" sort of thing, and it
can get out of hand very quickly.
>>>True Christianity speaks out against bigotry,
>>>arrogance and holier-than-thouness. Condemnation of homosexual behavior is
>>>limited to St. Paul's teachings and Jewish scripture, a practice that a large
>>>percentage of Christians worldwide abhor.
>>
>>A large percentage of Christians abhor Jewish scripture and Paul's
>>teachings? Well, maybe not large, but at least some of us :-)
>I meant that a large percentage abhor picking on homosexuals. I dislike some of
>Paul's teachings and Jewish scripture, not all.
I know. I was teasing about your sentence construction, lightly.
>>And if you're talking about homosexual practices abhored by large
>>percentages of Christians, that's sort of the point, isn't it?
>Abhoring and calling it a sin against God in public are two different things.
True. Abhoring, I'm not sure we can do anything about, because I
think it's linked to a knee-jerk negative emotional response *in* us.
I call it the "yuck" factor. Because we're not wired that way, it
seems terrible to us. Thing is, though, there are six verses in one
huge book which are latched onto by people who have the yuck factor to
justify absolutely hating a segment of our population.
If we got rid of the "yuck" factor, how many people do you really
think would be ranting about homosexuals?
>>We
>>abhor the practice, presume lots of things about it (like it never
>>involves love, or like people are doing it just to tick us off) and
>>don't see the person behind it.
>Agreed.
<clip>
>Two wrongs don't make a right, and you shouldn't fight sin with sin, or evil with
>evil.
I would tend to agree with you, sometimes.
But the thing is, sometimes the only way to get someone's attention is
a whack.
In Karl's case, he's posting solely to alt.atheism. He's also a
minority in the US. He's also been told *lots* of times that he's not
moral or ethical or is incapable of love. You know, stuff like that.
<clip>
>I can't imagine that the same people have suddenly had a change of heart regarding
>their behavior, and thus I see no point in wading through the insulting muck of
>dozens of these replies every day to find the ones like yours, that criticize me
>respectfully (which I appreciate).
Actually, I'm not trying to criticize you. I'm disagreeing with you,
however.
>When I occasionally read what the unbelievers write, it confirms my theory. This
>is a forum where people who hate Christianity dump their hatred on Christians,
>rather than a mature, meaningful discussion group. Remember the guy who was
>salivating over all the juicy Christians there were here just waiting to be
>abused?
No.
I will tell you though, if you do more than read occasionally, you're
going to find some very tenderhearted, loving, generous natured, moral
people who are very tired of Christians assuming that they're none of
these things because they don't believe in God. I think this
newsgroup is cathartic in that way, a chance to blow off some steam at
all the little ways they're insulted daily, and can't really respond.
>Then there are the hateful Christians who verbally abuse those Christians who
>don't agree with them theologically. Thus this forum also functions as a place
>where they can dump their hatred.
Yep. And lots and lots of them are on alt.atheism, solely.
<clip>
>In your particular case, your alias made me suspect that you were a reasonable
>person, so I decided to read what you had to say. Overall, however, I find
>replying to other people emotionally draining, since in almost all cases, they are
>arguing with me.
Little history, off topic. It's not an alias, exactly. Sunny is my
name. When I first started posting, I did so under Remarq, and as
Sunny. When Remarq went belly up, I switched to Deja, but the moniker
"Sunny" was taken. In the middle of a couple of good discussions, I
wanted people to know it was still me, hence, stillsunny.
>>I know you "no archive" your posts, though I've never figured out why.
>
>I am being stalked by someone on usenet.
Oh, yuck.
>>And I also noted you said you *left* Christianity for some very
>>specific reasons, which included lots of the dogmatic, mean-spirited,
>>judgemental, fundamentalist ideas Karl is blasting here.
>Exactly. I do not need religion, I need God.
>
>In the end, I was left with believing in repentance, Jesus (for good reasons far
>too involved to discuss here)and desiring the leading of the Holy Spirit, which is
>basically a spiritual path, not a religion.
>
>I constantly doubt my religious beliefs, and therefore can't function properly in
>a traditional religious environment which demands unquestioning belief and
>allegiance to the "cause".
That's honest.
<clip>
>Are you implying that I should remain silent and not oppose obvious immorality?
No, I'm not.
What I'm gently trying to point out is just this couple of things.
Karl is, for all purposes, a distinct minority in Christian America,
and feels the repercussions of that daily.
This thread is crossposted to an atheist group, a christian group, and
a homosexual group.
Someone, apparently from the Christian group, posted a response that
was at the very least disdainful of homosexuals. It's as common as
table salt, but it's still mean, and it still hurts.
There are, I'm sure, younger people who read these groups, some of
whom might well be trying to come to terms with a growing
understanding that they're different, and that the world is likely to
despise them when they're different. It's a difficult place for them
to be. And in case you think I'm guessing at this, I've gotten
several emails over this past year from younger kids who are not
willing to subject themselves to the glare of this public forum, but
who *are* reading.
Disdainful responses do not help.
Karl smote that response with a righteous anger, because though the
comment was not directed at *his* demographic group, he's quite aware
of how it feels to be at the receiving end of the carefully worded
nastiness *some* Christians on aa consistently demonstrate themselves
capable of generating.
And though I'm sure it stung, because the person he was smiting was a
Christian, what you've done is taken the side of the majority, and all
that means, particularly by posting a response with his name in it.
It's rather the equivalent of chastizing a person for strongly
objecting to the beating of a child.
>Best wishes,
Same to you, and I hope I haven't offended.
Sunny
>Aura
>
Steve Knight
snip moral outrage
>Karl E. Taylor wrote in message <3B3BFD7B...@qwest.net>...
>
>>> > > > What you are is a bigoted, arrogant, deluded, moronic, self absorbed,
>>> > > > holier then thou, myth following, ego stroking, blood god kissing, gay
>>> > > > bashing, womanizing, slave holding, genocidel maniac if you follow the
>>> > > > god described in the bible.
>>> > You kiss the ass of the god in the bible, then you are guilty of every
>>> > single crime listed.
>
>Following God in modern Christianity amounts to focusing on the moral teachings of
>Jesus and receiving the Holy Spirit. The American Church does not teach genocide,
>slave holding, and adultery.
You must live in your own world. You're offended that atheists say
it like it is and are fed up with superstitious zombies babbling about
magic pixies and dead mythological heros.
I read your response to Stillsunny. Quite revealing. You are the
stero-type Salad Bar Christian. You pick and choose what you want to
believe all the while maintaining a superior pious morality.
Personally, I despise your religion. I fight against it whenever I
get the chance. It would please me to no end to see it utterly
destroyed and thrown into a cesspool.
Your religion is a dirty thing invented by primitive man to explain
the universe and our place in it. As Jefferson said, "I find in
Christianity not one redeeming factor."
It's impossible for a god-soaked like you to understand atheism.
Have you researched or read any of the compelling arguments? I doubt
it. Yet you bring 'your' morality into an atheist group and cry when
you're rejected.
Go away. You'll be in your safe little delusion and won't have to
deal with the real world. You're way to thin skinned to handle grown
up talk.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA