**Hyperconservative** Episcopals: Don't let the door...
Craig Chilton
The LAST thing that ANY church claiming to be a CHRISTIAN
denomination needs is a contingent of hate-filled bigots.
If you walk out, that can only IMPROVE the denomination.
So is you choose to remain bigots, there'll be no reason for anyone
to miss you if you leave.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Bojangles
the rest of us do not accept homosexuality we are bigots. We are not. We are
concerned for the church which seems to assume that since Christ did not
specifically address homosexuality that it is alright to lay with man even
though the Old Testament clear states it as abomination. It has nothing to
do with bigotry.
"Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3f30ef54...@netnews.mchsi.com...
Krisblake
wrote:
>Thats the problem with supporters of a gay bishop. You think that because
>the rest of us do not accept homosexuality we are bigots. We are not. We are
>concerned for the church
You ought to be concerned for the kind of image you are portraying of
your beloved deity -- and might I add, it's not a favourable one,
either.
[...]
Dustin
Oh please, nobody is saying these people are not our equals, they're
human just like you and me. The difference is, homosexuality is a
sin, and they celebrate their sin with no remorse. You're inflating
the sin to a group of people and saying if you believe homosexuality
is a sin, you believe all these people are evil. That's not the case,
it's the act they celebrate, not the people themselves.
It's the equivalent of someone who celebrates their alcoholism and
gets trashed every night, should they be allowed in as a bishop? I
don't think so, because they celebrate their sin. We all fall short
of the glory of God, and we sin every day, but we should be remorseful
for what we do.
I have no doubt that people are born with a homosexual orientation,
just like science has shown certain people have genes that make them
more inclined to be alcoholics. However, the difference is acting on
this orientation, which is the sin. We can't change who we are, but
we can change what we do.
L. Michael Roberts
> Thats the problem with supporters of a gay bishop. You think that because
> the rest of us do not accept homosexuality we are bigots. We are not. We are
> concerned for the church which seems to assume that since Christ did not
> specifically address homosexuality that it is alright to lay with man even
> though the Old Testament
I am confused :-/ I though you called yourself a "Christian"
because you followed Christ... and somewhere along the line Christ
is claimed to have said that he came to bring a new covenant and the
old testament has/had passed away..
So just what relevance does the old testament have to Christians?
Other than those "cafeteria Christians" who ignore the inconvenient
parts of the OT, such as the prohibition on eating pork or wearing
garments of mixed fibers, and just select the convenient passages
they can use to bible-bash those they don't like?
<snip>
L. Michael Roberts
> Oh please, nobody is saying these people are not our equals, they're
> human just like you and me. The difference is, homosexuality is a
> sin,
Only to those who believe in an error-filled, translated and
mistranslated book of middle eastern myths; written by ancient
goat-herders who though the function of the human brain was to
produce snot! In the real world, we have a secular society with
separation of church and state so the laws may NOT incorporate your
favourite religious myths/dogma.
If you so ardently desire that religious dogma become the law of
the land, may I recommend you move to a theocracy? I hear
Afghanistan is looking for immigrants.
<snip balance of religious propaganda>
Toby Rider
> You ought to be concerned for the kind of image you are portraying of
> your beloved deity -- and might I add, it's not a favourable one,
> either.
Yes, we ought to be concerned about what kind of image we are
portraying of our beloved deity, we just elected a Bishop who is living
in an openly sinful lifestyle.. It is indeed not a favorable one.. It's
appalling..
Bojangles
In fact he has been more than willing to destroy morally and religiously
bankrupt societies.
You need to ask yourself which diety you follow who is concerned about his
image in the light of man.
"Krisblake" <Krisblake...@xmsg.com> wrote in message
news:v6t1jvckbt17cptb3...@4ax.com...
Bojangles
is not the creator and this whole arguement, the church and its believers
are moot points.Christ did not address the issues of sexuality. His silience
on the matter is not indication of his approval. And in light of what the
Old Testament has to say about homosexuality it is clear where God stands on
that issue. Christ's silence does nothing to negate that position.
"L. Michael Roberts" <No...@noSpamThanks.net> wrote in message
news:3F3119B1...@noSpamThanks.net...
Faye King
hit you in the back folks! And this guy is talking about tolerance? Geez.
"Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3f30ef54...@netnews.mchsi.com...
>
Faye King
expression of love and part of creation then I become a bigot. Where will
all this stop?
"Bojangles" <d...@not.email.com> wrote in message
news:St6Ya.80170$YN5.59317@sccrnsc01...
Wayne
want anyone in the church who disagrees with you. I see nothing of the love
or influence of Christ in anything you said.
"Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3f30ef54...@netnews.mchsi.com...
>
Bojangles
on demanding.
"Faye King" <fatemeh_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vj2bglp...@corp.supernews.com...
Mizzyandrea
your beloved deity -- and might I add, it's not a favourable one,
either.
He has so much hatred in his heart.........it's pathetic
Cary Kittrell
< Christ did not invalidate the Old Testament. If that were the case then God
< is not the creator and this whole arguement, the church and its believers
< are moot points.Christ did not address the issues of sexuality. His silience
< on the matter is not indication of his approval. And in light of what the
< Old Testament has to say about homosexuality it is clear where God stands on
< that issue. Christ's silence does nothing to negate that position.
<
In light of what the Old Testament says about gathering sticks
on the Sabbath (Moses, following God's orders, had a man stoned
to death for so doing), would you agree it's fairly clear that
no man who wantonly persists in cleaning up his lawn on the
Sabbath should be allowed to minister to the congregation?
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
<ail2news-x2!mail2news
<Lines: 26
<Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.politics.homosexuality:535862 alt.religion.christian:1118445 alt.abortion:341451
<
<On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:16:43 GMT, xana...@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton)
<wrote:
<
<> The LAST thing that ANY church claiming to be a CHRISTIAN
<>denomination needs is a contingent of hate-filled bigots.
<
<
<Pick a non-Christian church. One that has different beliefs.
<
<A gay wanting to be a minister in a Christian church is really no different
<than a skin-head Nazi wanting to join the KKK or Jesse Jackson wanting to
<be a leader in a white supremacist group.
<
<> If you walk out, that can only IMPROVE the denomination.
<>
<> So is you choose to remain bigots, there'll be no reason for anyone
<>to miss you if you leave.
<
<those who refuse to stop sinning and telling them it's OK for them to
<continue sinning.
<
<Trying to not sin and sinning is one thing. Saying sin isn't sin or saying
<sin is OK is something else.
<
Is it safe to assume, then, that in the church you attend, women
keep strictly silent?
-- cary
mycroft
"Wayne" <year...@uhuh.com> wrote in message
news:vj2cqt9...@corp.supernews.com...
> I see hate here Craig and it is coming from you. It seems that you do not
> want anyone in the church who disagrees with you. I see nothing of the
love
> or influence of Christ in anything you said.
And I have seen nothing of the love or influence of Christ from you anti-gay
types either. Pot, Kettle, Black.
m
Patrick Humphrey
>>You ought to be concerned for the kind of image you are portraying of
>>your beloved deity -- and might I add, it's not a favourable one,
>>either.
>He has so much hatred in his heart.........it's pathetic
He's just whining because the Episcopalians confirmed Robinson this morning --
so they should tell little Bozojangles not to let the screen door hit him on
the way out.
-PLH, changes are slow in coming, but they'll happen, regardless
Charles Hohenstein
xana...@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote:
> The LAST thing that ANY church claiming to be a CHRISTIAN
> denomination needs is a contingent of hate-filled bigots.
The last thing that any church needs is a contingent of aging,
burnt-out, wishy-washy hippies who believe that the Great Commission was,
"If it feels good, do it."
> If you walk out, that can only IMPROVE the denomination.
The Episcopal Church has lost 30% of its members since 1960. Isn't that
"improvement" enough?
> So is you choose to remain bigots, there'll be no reason for anyone
> to miss you if you leave.
According to your criteria, St. Paul and other authors of the New
Testament are "bigots." It is therefore an epithet to be worn with honor.
Charles Hohenstein
------------------
Boycott French products!
http://www.FranceStinks.com/
http://www.pavefrance.com/blog/
Brian
Leviticus 25:45-46 "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do
sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, . . . and they shall be your
possession . . . they shall be your bondmen forever
The Word of the Lord!
Thanks be to God!!
ALLAH ACK BAR
ALLAH ACK BAR
ALLAH ACK BAR!!
"Bojangles" <d...@not.email.com> wrote in message
news:St6Ya.80170$YN5.59317@sccrnsc01...
Harmony
Krisblake wrote:
"YOUR" Diety!? Is He not yours too? (I'm beginning to wonder!)
It is because of our love for our Diety that we stand up for His Word and for the
purity and EXAMPLE that Christians should bring to this fallen, carnal,
selfish,evil world!
"Be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your
minds!"
Anyone who thinks it's OK to be Gay is deceived and needs an exorcism, probably!
Sorry, but I really now think this is true!
You guys have NOT got the Spirit of Jesus, but of the devil! Always accusing the
good guys of being wrong, to justify your own sinful behaviour!
I'm getting sick of it!!
How dare you call decent, Bible-believing Christians Bigots!!
Gays should be ashamed of themselves!
(and until they are, they will not repent and be forgiven!)
--
*~*~*
"Signs of the Times"
"All this talk of Jesus coming back to see us." ~ Elton John/B.Taupin
http://www.angelfire.com/in2/harmony
(An unusual journey. "From the end of the world, to your town")
Mizzyandrea
types either. Pot, Kettle, Black.
_________________
They're a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
Their "jez" never married and only hung out with the guys....... HE also looks
like he had aids or anorexia......
Who cares what consenting adults do in their bedrooms?
Krisblake
<blac...@nospam.austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Oh please, nobody is saying these people are not our equals, they're
>human just like you and me. The difference is, homosexuality is a
>sin,
So is being a hate-filled bigot.
[...]
Krisblake
<tarider@nospam_blackmill.net> wrote:
>Krisblake wrote:
>
>> You ought to be concerned for the kind of image you are portraying of
>> your beloved deity -- and might I add, it's not a favourable one,
>> either.
>
> Yes, we ought to be concerned about what kind of image we are
>portraying of our beloved deity, we just elected a Bishop who is living
>in an openly sinful lifestyle..
So are you by openly declaring your bigotry.
Krisblake
wrote:
>God has never before been concerned about his image in light of the times.
Did your deity give you an exclusive interview?
[...]
Krisblake
And he has the nerve to comment on the sin of others, when he,
himself, has declared one of the worst kind.
Fuck him.
Cary Kittrell
<4!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news
<Lines: 10
<Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.politics.homosexuality:535892 alt.religion.christian:1118495 alt.abortion:341481
<
<On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 18:37:49 +0000 (UTC), ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
<Kittrell) wrote:
<
<>Is it safe to assume, then, that in the church you attend, women
<>keep strictly silent?
<
<
<The context of I Corinthians 11:2 - 14:40 will clear that up for you.
<
Well, lessee here. Verse 34 of that latter says:
34 As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain
silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be
in submission, as the Law says.
Seems fairly unambiguous to me.
-- cary
Patrick Humphrey
>Krisblake wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:26:26 GMT, "Bojangles" <d...@not.email.com>
>> wrote:
>> >Thats the problem with supporters of a gay bishop. You think that because
>> >the rest of us do not accept homosexuality we are bigots. We are not. We
>> >are concerned for the church
>> You ought to be concerned for the kind of image you are portraying of
>> your beloved deity -- and might I add, it's not a favourable one,
>> either.
>> [...]
>"YOUR" Diety!? Is He not yours too? (I'm beginning to wonder!)
Does YOUR alleged deity allow you to wonder?
>It is because of our love for our Diety that we stand up for His Word and for
>the purity and EXAMPLE that Christians should bring to this fallen, carnal,
>selfish,evil world!
If this world is such a rotten place, what's keeping you here, again? Please
practice what you preach and slap the dust off your sandals and leave. Don't
let the planet hit you on your way out.
>"Be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your
>minds!"
You'd have to have a mind to start with. You obviously aren't too eager to
use yours.
>Anyone who thinks it's OK to be Gay is deceived and needs an exorcism,
>probably!
I have no problem with some people being gay -- after all, I never made the
choice to be the heterosexual that I am, so it's only logical to think that
maybe a small fraction of the human race might be born homosexual...and if
that be the case, why aren't you bitching at YOUR god for making them that
way? (Or would that be too inconvenient for you?)
>Sorry, but I really now think this is true!
You don't think, you just bleat. Evidently, you're another "cafeteria
Christian" more interested in haranguing everyone else into believing as you
do than actually following your faith's scriptures. What a surprise.
>You guys have NOT got the Spirit of Jesus, but of the devil! Always accusing
>the good guys of being wrong, to justify your own sinful behaviour! I'm
>getting sick of it!!
Tough shit, Sherlock. Your opinion and a swift kick to your head will, with a
dollar, get you downtown on Metro. See if your god will let you figure out
what that makes your opinion worth.
>How dare you call decent, Bible-believing Christians Bigots!!
You're not anywhere near decent, child. If the shoe fits...
>Gays should be ashamed of themselves!
Because some screaming fruitcake like YOU says so? You know, if you really
believed this scam you're peddling, you'd let your god do its own
speaking...s/he/it might not like the job you're doing for her/him/it.
>(and until they are, they will not repent and be forgiven!)
Fortunately, the average Christian in this country is a bit better at actually
emulating the precepts of his/her faith than a schmuck like you, since you're
obvioulsy only concerned about others obeying what YOU claim your god says.
-PLH, no wonder I'm a fundamentalist agnostic
Krisblake
<harm...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>Krisblake wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:26:26 GMT, "Bojangles" <d...@not.email.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Thats the problem with supporters of a gay bishop. You think that because
>> >the rest of us do not accept homosexuality we are bigots. We are not. We are
>> >concerned for the church
>>
>> You ought to be concerned for the kind of image you are portraying of
>> your beloved deity -- and might I add, it's not a favourable one,
>> either.
>>
>> [...]
>
>"YOUR" Diety!? Is He not yours too? (I'm beginning to wonder!)
No, 'He' is not the unforgiving, discompassionate, hateful lug you
worship.
>
>It is because of our love for our Diety that we stand up for His Word and for the
>purity and EXAMPLE that Christians should bring to this fallen, carnal,
>selfish,evil world!
Blah, blah, blah, and blah. (It's no bloody wonder why you don't a
fucking mind of your mind own.)
>
>"Be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your
>minds!"
>
>Anyone who thinks it's OK to be Gay is deceived and needs an exorcism, probably!
Maybe what you need is in the form laxatives and a functional brain to
cure your seemingly near-hopless case of patent stupidity.
>
>Sorry, but I really now think this is true!
Your 'God' allows you to think?
>
>You guys have NOT got the Spirit of Jesus, but of the devil! Always accusing the
>good guys of being wrong, to justify your own sinful behaviour!
>I'm getting sick of it!!
>
>How dare you call decent, Bible-believing Christians Bigots!!
I am not refering to real Christians -- I am referring to the likes of
you.
[...]
**Krisblake**
Patrick Humphrey
>On 06 Aug 2003 17:47:15 GMT, mizzy...@aol.com (Mizzyandrea) wrote:
>>>You ought to be concerned for the kind of image you are portraying of
>>>your beloved deity -- and might I add, it's not a favourable one,
>>>either.
>>He has so much hatred in his heart.........it's pathetic
>And he has the nerve to comment on the sin of others, when he,
>himself, has declared one of the worst kind.
>Fuck him.
Metaphorically speaking, I presume -- if not, think of the gene pool! ;-)
-PLH, that came close to being a diet Coke alert
Lars Eighner
<99o2jvgpnjaebqd3c...@4ax.com>,
the lovely and talented Krisblake
broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
The way I figure it, there is a big group of evil people. Some of
them have decided to be somewhat less evil, to drop back to, say,
merely wicked.
And if that is all there is to it, then that is a good thing.
But maybe the wicked people will convince the evil people not
to be so evil and to be merely wicked, too. And that would
be a good thing.
Or maybe the wicked people and the evil people will have
a schism, so that they are at each other's throats and
off of ours. That, too, would be a good thing.
It looks like a classic win-win scenario to me.
HOORAY SCHISM!
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
- Alfred Adler
Bill Baker
wrote in message news:<3F311AB0...@btopenworld.com>:
> Anyone who thinks it's OK to be Gay is deceived and needs an exorcism,
> probably!
You mean like this guy?
http://www.highmountainranch.com/exorcism.html
--
"His eyes were cold. As cold as the bitter winter snow that was falling
outside. Yes, cold and therefore difficult to chew..."
Caiaphas
> Christ did not invalidate the Old Testament. If that were the case then God
> is not the creator and this whole arguement, the church and its believers
> are moot points.Christ did not address the issues of sexuality. His silience
> on the matter is not indication of his approval. And in light of what the
> Old Testament has to say about homosexuality it is clear where God stands on
> that issue. Christ's silence does nothing to negate that position.
>
Well, now, I think Christ fullfilled the Old Testament and effectively obsoleted
it with His Teachings.
Cary Kittrell
<ail2news-x2!mail2news
<Lines: 48
<Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.politics.homosexuality:535917 alt.religion.christian:1118548 alt.abortion:341535
<
<On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:19:29 +0000 (UTC), ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
<Kittrell) wrote:
<
<>In article <46cfe6a21b8bec0e...@dizum.com> Nomen Nescio
<><Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
<><4!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news
<><Lines: 10
<><Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.politics.homosexuality:535892
<>alt.religion.christian:1118495 alt.abortion:341481
<><
<><On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 18:37:49 +0000 (UTC), ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
<><Kittrell) wrote:
<><
<><>Is it safe to assume, then, that in the church you attend, women
<><>keep strictly silent?
<><
<><Nope.
<><
<><The context of I Corinthians 11:2 - 14:40 will clear that up for you.
<>
<>Well, lessee here. Verse 34 of that latter says:
<>
<> 34 As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain
<> silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be
<> in submission, as the Law says.
<>
<>Seems fairly unambiguous to me.
<
<
<Your agenda is clear.
Oh, it is, it is indeed: to show that folks in general get far more upset
about the sins they'd never personally be interested in committing than
they do over those they have a fondness for.
Nonetheless, I did read the entire Biblical section, and I'd be glad for for
you to explain -- here, not by URLs -- why
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain
silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be
in submission, as the Law says.
does not REALLY mean "women should remain silent in the churches".
-- cary
Bojangles
or politics and is intolerant of those who differ
Where in that definition does it state a bigot is someone who does not agree
with your opinion? I do not agree with you. However, I will tolerate a
repented homosexual in the same church, same pew, in the seat next to me. I
will not tolerate an unrepentant sinner to be one of my spiritual leaders.
Would you tolerate a bishop remaining in his position while openly
practicing polygamy? No. Does that make you a bigot? No.
Mine and your positions differ only on the point of homosexuality being an
acceptable form of love. My position is it is not. Yours is it is. We
differ. That is it. I don't think Gene should be a priest, much less a
bishop. You do. Our opinions differ. I will tolerate Gene in his position
from another church of differing denomination. Quit calling people who
differ in opinion with you bigots. On second thought, the next time your
boss disagrees with you call him a bigot.
"Patrick Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk7k5q...@fnord.io.com...
Bojangles
"Caiaphas" <Caiap...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vceYa.70$Hy2....@eagle.america.net...
Bojangles
"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:bgrf7s$72f$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
Bojangles
to have you .
"mycroft" <Xmycr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rYbYa.331$M6.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Cary Kittrell
You know, if you're going to throw rocks at a boy until his body
turns to pulp and he dies, I'd hope that this is more than some
colorful native "tradition"; I'd hope you have some moral justification
for such an act.
Am I safe in assuming that the bits you don't intend to adhere to
are "tradition", and the ones you feel others should be bound
by are "morality"? And if so -- or if not, for that matter --
how do you feel about the tradition/moral precept that women
are unclean during their period?
-- cary
Ward Stewart
And, one might add, a MUCH more toxic sin, damaging to the very fabric
of society!
ward
-------------------------------------------------
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.
ther ninth amendment
-------------------------------------------------
Ward Stewart
wrote:
Well, they SAY that he SAID he did -- of course except for the people
they don't like.
Cary Kittrell
<Lines: 24
<Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.politics.homosexuality:535954 alt.religion.christian:1118606 alt.abortion:341566
<
<On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 21:45:12 +0000 (UTC), ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
<Kittrell) wrote:
<
<>In article <428e699415cafd23...@dizum.com> Nomen Nescio
<><Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
<>
<><Your agenda is clear.
<>
<>Oh, it is, it is indeed: to show that folks in general get far more upset
<>about the sins they'd never personally be interested in committing than
<>they do over those they have a fondness for.
<
<Your post did not show that.
<
<>Nonetheless, I did read the entire Biblical section, and I'd be glad for for
<>you to explain -- here, not by URLs -- why
<
<No need for me to spell out in my own words what has so elequently
<explained by others. There is no reason why a URL I can point to which
<explains "why" cannot be used, except it dimishes your ability to troll.
Well, by all means then, go ahead. Either way. I'm open to
having my mind changed on this point.
-- cary
Craig Chilton
>> The LAST thing that ANY church claiming to be a CHRISTIAN
>> denomination needs is a contingent of hate-filled bigots.
>>
>> If you walk out, that can only IMPROVE the denomination.
>>
>> So is you choose to remain bigots, there'll be no reason for anyone
>> to miss you if you leave.
> That's the problem with supporters of a gay bishop. You think that
> because the rest of us do not accept homosexuality we are bigots. We
> are not. We are concerned for the church which seems to assume that
> since Christ did not specifically address homosexuality that it is alright to
> lay with man even though the Old Testament clear states it as abomination.
> It has nothing to do with bigotry.
God has tracked humanity through several dispositions. It's
analogous to parents' overseeing of their children as they grow up.
As the kids mature, fewer restrictions need to be imposed upon
them, because they've learned many ways of coping with situations.
Likewise, we've seen the Bible lift many of the OT restrictions and
laws, and much of that was done by Jesus, Himself. He lifted all
previous restrictions of what foods can be eaten, or not, and He said
NOTHING to indicate that there remaned anything wrong with same-sex
relationships.
The church (Christianity -- not just the Episcopal denomination)
needs to be aware of this flexibility on God's part. True, God never
changes, but our parents probably changed very little, as adults, either.
However, in both cases, we've seen that the way that both "parents"
(earthly and heavenly) deal with their children as they grow up has
changed as is appropriate for the increasing levels of knowledge and
maturity.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Dennis Kemmerer
news:428e699415cafd23...@dizum.com...
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:19:29 +0000 (UTC), ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
> Kittrell) wrote:
>
> >In article <46cfe6a21b8bec0e...@dizum.com> Nomen Nescio
> ><Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
> ><4!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news
> ><Lines: 10
> ><Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.politics.homosexuality:535892
> >alt.religion.christian:1118495 alt.abortion:341481
> ><
> ><On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 18:37:49 +0000 (UTC), ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
> ><Kittrell) wrote:
> ><
> ><>Is it safe to assume, then, that in the church you attend, women
> ><>keep strictly silent?
> ><
> ><Nope.
> ><
> ><The context of I Corinthians 11:2 - 14:40 will clear that up for you.
> >
> >Well, lessee here. Verse 34 of that latter says:
> >
> > 34 As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain
> > silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be
> > in submission, as the Law says.
> >
> >Seems fairly unambiguous to me.
>
There goes my whole goddamned last _shipment_ of irony meters!
> Your agenda is clear.
Craig Chilton
Toby Rider <tarider@nospam_blackmill.net> wrote:
> Krisblake wrote:
>> You ought to be concerned for the kind of image you are portraying of
>> your beloved deity -- and might I add, it's not a favourable one,
>> either.
> Yes, we ought to be concerned about what kind of image we are
> portraying of our beloved deity, we just elected a Bishop who is living
> in an openly sinful lifestyle.. It is indeed not a favorable one.. It's
> appalling..
Jesus dispensed with much of the legalism of the Old Testament.
Show us even ONE verse in which Jesus, Himself (not one of his
fallible disciples) condemned homosexuality or same-sex relationships in
ANY way.
If you can't, then the only thing appalling about any of this is the
continued bigotry of the church's hyperconservatives.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Craig Chilton
"Bojangles" <d...@not.email.com> wrote:
> Christ did not invalidate the Old Testament. If that were the case
> then God is not the creator and this whole arguement, the church
> and its believers are moot points.Christ did not address the issues
> of sexuality. His silence on the matter is not indication of his approval.
No... but it IS a significant indication that it was a NON-issue for
Him. An idication of his LACK of DISapproval.
As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, minutes ago:
Jeff North
"Bojangles" <d...@not.email.com> wrote:
>| Genesis is obsolete?
Which version?
---------------------------------------------------------------
jno...@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Chilton
Cary Kittrell <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
> "Bojangles" wrote:
>> Cary Kittrell <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>> "Bojangles" wrote:
>>>> Christ did not invalidate the Old Testament. If that were the
>>>> case then God is not the creator and this whole arguement, the
>>>> church and its believers are moot points.Christ did not address
>>>> the issues of sexuality. His silence on the matter is not indication
>>>> of his approval. And in light of what the Old Testament has to
>>>> say about homosexuality it is clear where God stands on that
>>>> issue. Christ's silence does nothing to negate that position.
>>> In light of what the Old Testament says about gathering sticks
>>> on the Sabbath (Moses, following God's orders, had a man stoned
>>> to death for so doing), would you agree it's fairly clear that
>>> no man who wantonly persists in cleaning up his lawn on the
>>> Sabbath should be allowed to minister to the congregation?
>> Christ relinquished us from Old Testament traditions. Not morality.
> You know, if you're going to throw rocks at a boy until his body
> turns to pulp and he dies, I'd hope that this is more than some
> colorful native "tradition"; I'd hope you have some moral justification
> for such an act.
>
> Am I safe in assuming that the bits you don't intend to adhere to
> are "tradition", and the ones you feel others should be bound
> by are "morality"? And if so -- or if not, for that matter --
> how do you feel about the tradition/moral precept that women
> are unclean during their period?
Very well put, Cary! I'll be watching with interest to see how
"Bojangles" responds to this.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
The Spotted One
> the rest of us do not accept homosexuality we are bigots. We are not. We are
> concerned for the church which seems to assume that since Christ did not
> specifically address homosexuality that it is alright to lay with man even
> though the Old Testament clear states it as abomination. It has nothing to
> do with bigotry.
Yes it is bigotry... There is no Biblical difference in the
sinfulness of Christians who are divorced and remarry versus
Christians who are active Homosexuals. Christs own words condemn
divorce and remarriage as the same as the sin of adultery. A
remarried divorcee is 'living in sin' just the same as an active
homosexual is 'living in sin'.
Yet, Christians generally treat divorcees quite differently than
homosexuals. Divorcees are never chastized or shunned for their
continued sin. They are accepted in church. An active homosexual
pair would not at all be welcomed by most Christians. They would be
chastized for continuing in the sin of homosexuality and asked to
leave if they didn't quit. There would be little or no dissent from
Christians if the issue were about a divorced person becoming a
bishop.
The inconsistent treatement is not Biblically justifiable. It comes
from human bigotry, not the Bible.
Craig Chilton
"Bojangles" <d...@not.email.com> wrote:
> "mycroft" <Xmycr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The LAST thing that ANY church claiming to be a CHRISTIAN
>>>> denomination needs is a contingent of hate-filled bigots.
>>>>
>>>> If you walk out, that can only IMPROVE the denomination.
>>>>
>>>> So is you choose to remain bigots, there'll be no reason for
>>>> anyone to miss you if you leave.
>>> I see hate here Craig and it is coming from you. It seems that
>>> you do not want anyone in the church who disagrees with you. I
>>> see nothing of the love or influence of Christ in anything you said.
Yeah. I had the same problem 40 years ago, with the
segregationists... who had the same problem that you and your ilk do.
Therefore, your opinion of me means just as much to me as theirs did,
while I fought the Civil Rights war against THEM.
(BTW -- Note that the bigoted agenda of the segregationists has
been EXTINCT for decades, now. As humanity matures, it OUTGROWS
senseless and hateful bigotry.)
>> And I have seen nothing of the love or influence of Christ from you
>> anti-gay types either. Pot, Kettle, Black.
> Please come to my church to repent your pro-homosexual ways. We
> would love to have you .
Why? Are you planning to repent of your BIGOTED ways?
Sounds like he's pro-PEOPLE, like me.
There's nothing wrong with that.
You could do FAR worse than to learn such tolerance.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Bethe57
>Oh please, nobody is saying these people are not our equals, they're
>human just like you and me. The difference is, homosexuality is a
>sin, and they celebrate their sin with no remorse.
Oh please, who, in the grand scheme of things, really cares what someone's
sexual preference is? If Robinson has proven himself, just like any other
Episcopalian, that he is worthy of being bishop, then let him serve in the
position as he was elected to do.......elected......not appointed, but elected,
so the majority spoke and are just fine with him as he is. He's a human being
first and foremost......he could be purple and be from Mars and there would
still be objections. Let the man do the job he was elected to do and forget
about the rest of the stuff. Tolerance and acceptance of those "different"
than us is the "Christian" thing to do...........
You believe homosexuality is a sin.......I do not.
Besides, no one here on Earth gets to decide what is and isn't a sin--not even
the Pope himself, that's left to a higher authority for whom none of us have
the ability to speak for nor should we sit in judgement because that too, is
left to a higher authority.
Bethe Blasienz
Bryan, Texas
Bethe57
>Krisblake wrote:
>
>> You ought to be concerned for the kind of image you are portraying of
>> your beloved deity -- and might I add, it's not a favourable one,
>> either.
>
> Yes, we ought to be concerned about what kind of image we are
>portraying of our beloved deity, we just elected a Bishop who is living
>in an openly sinful lifestyle.. It is indeed not a favorable one.. It's
>appalling..
Well, there is certainly no tolerance nor acceptance in this little diatribe,
now is there? Acceptance and tolerance of those who are "different" is the
Christian thing to do. Robinson was elected, not appointed, but elected, to
the position of Bishop.......guess the majority has spoken. You believe his
sexual preference is a sin.......I do not. Nor do I think any of us here on
Earth can presume to speak for any higher authority and what is appalling is
that there are those who think they can! Codswallop!
Bethe Blasienz
Bryan, Texas
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>Christ relinquished us from Old Testament traditions. Not morality.
In other words the "abominations worthy of death" that YOU consider to
be moral issues while the abominations worthy of death that are
involved in wearing of linsey-woolsey fabric are not.
A convenient construction for a clown of limited imagination, wit and
decency.
ward
====================================================
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for
women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political
movement that encourages women to leave their husbands,
kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy
capitalism and become lesbians."
Pat Robertson, Aug 23, 1993
====================================================
Dustin
What?!?!? I never suggested once that homosexuality should be
illegal. I think homosexuals should be allowed in the church to
worship just like anyone else. The only difference is, they should
not hold positions of power in the church if they act on their
homosexual tendencies.
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:16:06 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
<No...@noSpamThanks.net> wrote:
>Dustin wrote:
>> Oh please, nobody is saying these people are not our equals, they're
>> human just like you and me. The difference is, homosexuality is a
>> sin,
>
> Only to those who believe in an error-filled, translated and
>mistranslated book of middle eastern myths; written by ancient
>goat-herders who though the function of the human brain was to
>produce snot! In the real world, we have a secular society with
>separation of church and state so the laws may NOT incorporate your
>favourite religious myths/dogma.
> If you so ardently desire that religious dogma become the law of
>the land, may I recommend you move to a theocracy? I hear
>Afghanistan is looking for immigrants.
>
><snip balance of religious propaganda>
Dustin
Ok, explain this to me. If I'm opposed to alcoholism, does that make
me a bigot towards alcoholics?
If I'm opposed towards lying, does that make me a bigot towards liars?
Of course not in both cases, so why does being opposed towards
homosexuality make me a bigot towards homosexuals?
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:13:59 -0400, Krisblake
<Krisblake...@xmsg.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 13:48:09 GMT, Dustin
><blac...@nospam.austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Oh please, nobody is saying these people are not our equals, they're
>>human just like you and me. The difference is, homosexuality is a
>>sin,
>
No One
> What?!?!? I never suggested once that homosexuality should be
> illegal. I think homosexuals should be allowed in the church to
> worship just like anyone else.
How big of you :-).
>
> The only difference is, they should not hold positions of power in
> the church if they act on their homosexual tendencies.
Why shouldn't they? Do you think acting on "homosexual tendencies,"
which could mean just asking someone out on a date with no sex
involved, somehow is incompatible with being an effective manager?
>
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:16:06 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
> <No...@noSpamThanks.net> wrote:
>
> >Dustin wrote:
> >> Oh please, nobody is saying these people are not our equals, they're
> >> human just like you and me. The difference is, homosexuality is a
> >> sin,
Whether it is a sin or not is a matter of opinion, and not everyone
(including theologians) agrees with you. If you want a homophobic
church and members of your church don't agree with you, you can simply
start your own church or join a different one - the U.S. Consitution
guarantees that you have the right to do that. You can even join the
KKK, but if you do, don't expect me to invite you over for dinner.
Steve Hayes
>
> The LAST thing that ANY church claiming to be a CHRISTIAN
>denomination needs is a contingent of hate-filled bigots.
>
> If you walk out, that can only IMPROVE the denomination.
>
> So is you choose to remain bigots, there'll be no reason for anyone
>to miss you if you leave.
Calling other people "hate-filled bigots" is usually a sign of being one.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
King Azzy I
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:16:43 GMT, xana...@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote:
>
> >
> > The LAST thing that ANY church claiming to be a CHRISTIAN
> >denomination needs is a contingent of hate-filled bigots.
> >
> > If you walk out, that can only IMPROVE the denomination.
> >
> > So is you choose to remain bigots, there'll be no reason for anyone
> >to miss you if you leave.
>
> Calling other people "hate-filled bigots" is usually a sign of being one.
The thought of french kissing another man is innately repulsive to me.
Does this make me too a hate-filled bigot merely because of that?
Patrick Humphrey
>bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race,
>or politics and is intolerant of those who differ
>Where in that definition does it state a bigot is someone who does not agree
>with your opinion? I do not agree with you. However, I will tolerate a
>repented homosexual in the same church, same pew, in the seat next to me. I
>will not tolerate an unrepentant sinner to be one of my spiritual leaders.
So leave the church and start your own...where did I say I had any problem
with the anal-retentives like you doing so? (Not that it'd be a problem for
me either way, since I *am* one of those nettlesome fundamentalist agnostics.)
>Would you tolerate a bishop remaining in his position while openly
>practicing polygamy? No. Does that make you a bigot? No.
I'd appreciate it if you'd quit deciding what I think, since my thoughts
aren't necessarily accessible to you without my expressing them first. Since
I'm not a member of any organized church, whether I tolerate any bishop or not
is irrelevant. It's not an issue to me.
>Mine and your positions differ only on the point of homosexuality being an
>acceptable form of love. My position is it is not. Yours is it is. We
>differ. That is it. I don't think Gene should be a priest, much less a
>bishop. You do. Our opinions differ. I will tolerate Gene in his position
>from another church of differing denomination. Quit calling people who
>differ in opinion with you bigots. On second thought, the next time your
>boss disagrees with you call him a bigot.
My boss isn't threatening everyone that disagrees with him with eternal
damnation. Your comrades are trying to monopolize that concession. We
disagree -- so? I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, and I'm not going to
demand you do as I command. It's your choice, and you get to deal with the
consequences of said choice, just like the rest of us.
-PLH, it works for me; as for others, I'm honest enough to say I don't know
Mizzyandrea
Why the fuck did your god create them if they aren't good enough to be priests
and ministers?.........
Shut the fuck up, already..........
Mizzyandrea
illegal. I think homosexuals should be allowed in the church to
worship just like anyone else. The only difference is, they should
not hold positions of power in the church if they act on their
homosexual tendencies.
*******************************
And why the fuck not?...... who the hell are they hurting?
You're a moron.
Bernard Hubbard
news:lc12jv45080m13k4d...@4ax.com:
>
> Oh please, nobody is saying these people are not our equals,
> they're human just like you and me. The difference is,
> homosexuality is a sin, and they celebrate their sin with no
> remorse. You're inflating the sin to a group of people and
> saying if you believe homosexuality is a sin, you believe all
> these people are evil. That's not the case, it's the act they
> celebrate, not the people themselves.
>
> It's the equivalent of someone who celebrates their alcoholism
> and gets trashed every night, should they be allowed in as a
> bishop? I don't think so, because they celebrate their sin. We
> all fall short of the glory of God, and we sin every day, but we
> should be remorseful for what we do.
> I have no doubt that people are born with a homosexual
> orientation, just like science has shown certain people have
> genes that make them more inclined to be alcoholics. However,
> the difference is acting on this orientation, which is the sin.
> We can't change who we are, but we can change what we do.
>
So you believe that all gays should be celibate do you? How very
Papal of you.
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:32:13 -0400, Krisblake
> <Krisblake...@xmsg.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:26:26 GMT, "Bojangles" <d...@not.email.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Thats the problem with supporters of a gay bishop. You think
>>>that because the rest of us do not accept homosexuality we are
>>>bigots. We are not. We are concerned for the church
>>
>>You ought to be concerned for the kind of image you are
>>portraying of your beloved deity -- and might I add, it's not a
>>favourable one, either.
>>
>>[...]
>
>
--
Bernard Hubbard
Australian, Gay, Green and Proud.
drifter
>
> What?!?!? I never suggested once that homosexuality should be
> illegal. I think homosexuals should be allowed in the church to
> worship just like anyone else. The only difference is, they should
> not hold positions of power in the church if they act on their
> homosexual tendencies.
>
What is the definition of acting on ones homosexual tendencies?
Is getting an erection look at you acting on one's homosexual
tendencies?
Is hugging all fellow brothers/priests of the church some of which are
homosexual and others that are heterosexual - is that acting on one's
homosexual tendencies if the person is also sexually aroused when doing
such activity?
Or is kissing and hugging considered broadly speaking a non issue and
only when penetration occurs or mutual masturbation is it considered
acting on one's homosexual tendencies?
Isn't the spilling of any seed even by heterosexual priests/brothers
considered a sin, so why is spilled heterosexual seed to be treated any
differently than spilled homosexual seed? Why would the spilling of
the seed in a woman's butt any worse or better than spilling seed in a
man's butt? Why is a man's seed spilled on a woman's hand any worse or
better than a man's seed spilled on another man's hand?
Please help me understand what is meant by acting on one's homosexual
tendencies and then explain why is worse in one scenario as opposed to
another scenario. Thanks.
Lars Eighner
<gli3jv8u9vn4i3dvj...@4ax.com>,
the lovely and talented Dustin
broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
> Ok, explain this to me. If I'm opposed to alcoholism, does that make
> me a bigot towards alcoholics?
No, because alcoholism is wrong.
> If I'm opposed towards lying, does that make me a bigot towards liars?
No, because lying is wrong.
> Of course not in both cases, so why does being opposed towards
> homosexuality make me a bigot towards homosexuals?
Because homosexuality is good.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Conflict is inevitable, but combat is optional.
- Max Lucado
Lars Eighner
<MPG.199b89fc5...@west.usenetserver.com>,
the lovely and talented King Azzy I
broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
> The thought of french kissing another man is innately repulsive to me.
> Does this make me too a hate-filled bigot merely because of that?
Of course not. It is when you think men who enjoy french kissing each
other are doing something wrong that you become a hate-filled bigot.
PS: If french-kissing with men bothers you, don't do it.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Those for whom peace is no more than a dream are asleep to the future.
- Jack DuVall
Bernard Hubbard
news:3F311AB0...@btopenworld.com:
>
>
> Krisblake wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:26:26 GMT, "Bojangles"
>> <d...@not.email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Thats the problem with supporters of a gay bishop. You think
>> >that because the rest of us do not accept homosexuality we are
>> >bigots. We are not. We are concerned for the church
>>
>> You ought to be concerned for the kind of image you are
>> portraying of your beloved deity -- and might I add, it's not a
>> favourable one, either.
>>
>> [...]
>
> "YOUR" Diety!? Is He not yours too? (I'm beginning to wonder!)
Your Diety is not my Diety. My Diety is a loving God not a mean
spirited, hating and vengeful monster like yours.
>
> It is because of our love for our Diety that we stand up for His
> Word and for the purity and EXAMPLE that Christians should
> bring to this fallen, carnal, selfish,evil world!
Well why don't you attack the fallen, carnal, selfish and evil of
this world instead of selecting the homosexuals exclusively. It
would appear that the heterosexuals need your help as 50% of them
are carnal outside of their marriage. Why not attack the selfish
politicians and their cohorts the rapaceous businessmen and
cheating corporate chiefs. They cause economic crimes,
homosexuality has no victims. Evil doers are responsible for
people becoming victims. Homosexual behaviour is victimless.
>
> "Be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the
> renewing of your minds!"
It is about time that your mind was renewed and refreshed. It is
presently clutter with bilge that has been pumped into you by your
RRR cult. Think for yourself at least once in your life time.
>
> Anyone who thinks it's OK to be Gay is deceived and needs an
> exorcism, probably!
And you probably need to to visit a psychiatrist or other mental
health professional.
>
> Sorry, but I really now think this is true!
I know that you MUST visit a mental health professional, not just
think you should.
>
> You guys have NOT got the Spirit of Jesus, but of the devil!
> Always accusing the good guys of being wrong, to justify your
> own sinful behaviour! I'm getting sick of it!!
Judging by your post you don't have the spirit of Jesus either.
Where is you compassion and love for your neighbour? BTW I am
totally sick of radical religious rightwing rabble trying to order
me around and live my life according to their particular biases.
>
> How dare you call decent, Bible-believing Christians Bigots!!
>
I only do that when the so called *Decent Christians* propose that
the Bible becomes the law of the land.
> Gays should be ashamed of themselves!
No more so than any bigot like yourself is ashamed of their Bible
bashing.
>
> (and until they are, they will not repent and be forgiven!)
>
>
>
It would seem that you have assumed a disingenuous nym sweetie.
Disharmony suits you better. Please be more truthful about
yourself in future.
>
>
> --
> *~*~*
> "Signs of the Times"
> "All this talk of Jesus coming back to see us." ~ Elton
> John/B.Taupin
> http://www.angelfire.com/in2/harmony
> (An unusual journey. "From the end of the world, to your
> town")
Steve Hayes
>On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:13:59 -0400, Krisblake
><Krisblake...@xmsg.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 13:48:09 GMT, Dustin
>><blac...@nospam.austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Oh please, nobody is saying these people are not our equals, they're
>>>human just like you and me. The difference is, homosexuality is a
>>>sin,
>>
>>So is being a hate-filled bigot.
>>
>>[...]
>And, one might add, a MUCH more toxic sin, damaging to the very fabric
>of society!
The worst sins, of course, are always those committed by other people. My sins
are comparatively venial, which makes anyone who criticises my sins a
hate-filled bigot, while my criticism of other people's sins is righteous
reproof.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Ward Stewart
<blac...@nospam.austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Ok, explain this to me. If I'm opposed to alcoholism, does that make
>me a bigot towards alcoholics?
>
>If I'm opposed towards lying, does that make me a bigot towards liars?
>
>Of course not in both cases, so why does being opposed towards
>homosexuality make me a bigot towards homosexuals?
It just does -- your effort to equate homosexuality with Alcoholism
and lying clearly demonstrates why it does!
ward
------------------------------------------------
"In our democratic republic the default MUST BE
that the citizen is free to live his life in any
harmless way that he chooses."
Ward Stewart
-------------------------------------------------
Krisblake
<blac...@nospam.austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Ok, explain this to me. If I'm opposed to alcoholism, does that make
>me a bigot towards alcoholics?
Why are you preoccupied with what two consenting adults do in the
privacy of their own bedroom?
[...]
Craig Chilton
Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> The LAST thing that ANY church claiming to be a CHRISTIAN
>>denomination needs is a contingent of hate-filled bigots.
>>
>> If you walk out, that can only IMPROVE the denomination.
>>
>> So is you choose to remain bigots, there'll be no reason for anyone
>>to miss you if you leave.
> Calling other people "hate-filled bigots" is usually a sign of being one.
Tell that to the tens of thousands of Civil Rights workers/activists
of the 1950s and '60s who defeated the hate-filled bigotry of the
segregationists.
Tell that to the millions of Allied troops who fought against the
hate-filled bigotry of the Nazis.
Tell that to the Women's Suffrage workers who defeated the
hate-filled bigotry that was denying women the right to vote.
Tell that to the Abolitionists who opposed the hate-filled bigotry of
the slave-owners, prior to Emanicipation.
Etc., etc., etc.
After you've gotten the input of those of the above who are still
living, get back to us about that notion of yours that THEY are
hate-filled bigots.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Light Templar
"Ward Stewart" <wste...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:g8h3jv8j5jmccpuq9...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:59:49 GMT, "Bojangles" <d...@not.email.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Christ relinquished us from Old Testament traditions. Not morality.
>
> In other words the "abominations worthy of death" that YOU consider to
> be moral issues while the abominations worthy of death that are
> involved in wearing of linsey-woolsey fabric are not.
>
> A convenient construction for a clown of limited imagination, wit and
> decency.
>
> ward
Not to mention the fact that such a stance holds absolutely no biblical
authority.
Krisblake
<blac...@nospam.austin.rr.com> wrote:
[...]
>If I'm opposed towards lying, does that make me a bigot towards liars?
>
>Of course not in both cases, so why does being opposed towards
>homosexuality make me a bigot towards homosexuals?
You attemtping to equate homosexuality with real sins, like alcoholism
and dishonesty, and you still do not see how that makes you a bigot?
Bojangles
can't play with a certain toy any longer. Later he brings you a new toy and
tell you to play with it but doesn't so much as mention the old. And to you
this means you can play with the new as well as the old?
"Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3f36996e...@netnews.mchsi.com...
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:25:00 GMT,
> "Bojangles" <d...@not.email.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Christ did not invalidate the Old Testament. If that were the case
> > then God is not the creator and this whole arguement, the church
> > and its believers are moot points.Christ did not address the issues
> > of sexuality. His silence on the matter is not indication of his
approval.
>
> No... but it IS a significant indication that it was a NON-issue for
> Him. An idication of his LACK of DISapproval.
>
> As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, minutes ago:
>
> God has tracked humanity through several dispositions. It's
> analogous to parents' overseeing of their children as they grow up.
> As the kids mature, fewer restrictions need to be imposed upon
> them, because they've learned many ways of coping with situations.
> Likewise, we've seen the Bible lift many of the OT restrictions and
> laws, and much of that was done by Jesus, Himself. He lifted all
> previous restrictions of what foods can be eaten, or not, and He said
> NOTHING to indicate that there remaned anything wrong with same-sex
> relationships.
>
> The church (Christianity -- not just the Episcopal denomination)
> needs to be aware of this flexibility on God's part. True, God never
> changes, but our parents probably changed very little, as adults, either.
> However, in both cases, we've seen that the way that both "parents"
> (earthly and heavenly) deal with their children as they grow up has
> changed as is appropriate for the increasing levels of knowledge and
> maturity.
>
>
> -- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Bojangles
blind? I suppose. Even a priest in the Episcopal Church was quoted as saying
homosexuality is a gift from God. Yeah, a gift that has brought God's wrath
in the form of destruction.
"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:bgrue1$ff3$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> In article <pTeYa.83262$YN5.60321@sccrnsc01> "Bojangles"
<d...@not.email.com> writes:
> <Christ relinquished us from Old Testament traditions. Not morality.
> <
> <
> <"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> <news:bgrf7s$72f$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> <> In article <wZ9Ya.54895$Vt6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>
"Bojangles"
> <<d...@not.email.com> writes:
> <>
> <> < Christ did not invalidate the Old Testament. If that were the case
then
> <God
> <> < is not the creator and this whole arguement, the church and its
> <believers
> <> < are moot points.Christ did not address the issues of sexuality. His
> <silience
> <> < on the matter is not indication of his approval. And in light of what
> <the
> <> < Old Testament has to say about homosexuality it is clear where God
> <stands on
> <> < that issue. Christ's silence does nothing to negate that position.
> <> <
> <>
> <> In light of what the Old Testament says about gathering sticks
> <> on the Sabbath (Moses, following God's orders, had a man stoned
> <> to death for so doing), would you agree it's fairly clear that
> <> no man who wantonly persists in cleaning up his lawn on the
> <> Sabbath should be allowed to minister to the congregation?
> <>
>
> <Christ relinquished us from Old Testament traditions. Not morality.
>
>
> You know, if you're going to throw rocks at a boy until his body
> turns to pulp and he dies, I'd hope that this is more than some
> colorful native "tradition"; I'd hope you have some moral justification
> for such an act.
>
>
> Am I safe in assuming that the bits you don't intend to adhere to
> are "tradition", and the ones you feel others should be bound
> by are "morality"? And if so -- or if not, for that matter --
> how do you feel about the tradition/moral precept that women
> are unclean during their period?
>
>
> -- cary
>
>
Krisblake
wrote:
>Krisblake <Krisblake...@xmsg.com> writes:
>
>>On 06 Aug 2003 17:47:15 GMT, mizzy...@aol.com (Mizzyandrea) wrote:
>
>>>>You ought to be concerned for the kind of image you are portraying of
>>>>your beloved deity -- and might I add, it's not a favourable one,
>>>>either.
>
>>>He has so much hatred in his heart.........it's pathetic
>
>>And he has the nerve to comment on the sin of others, when he,
>>himself, has declared one of the worst kind.
>
>>Fuck him.
>
>Metaphorically speaking, I presume -- if not, think of the gene pool! ;-)
:-P
>
>-PLH, that came close to being a diet Coke alert
Light Templar
"Bojangles" <d...@not.email.com> wrote in message
news:REqYa.57339$Oz4.15374@rwcrnsc54...
> Do I really need to pull out the Bible and quote you the verses?
As long as you are willing to quote them in biblical and historical context.
Krisblake
wrote:
>Do I really need to pull out the Bible and quote you the verses? Are you
>blind? I suppose. Even a priest in the Episcopal Church was quoted as saying
>homosexuality is a gift from God. Yeah, a gift that has brought God's wrath
>in the form of destruction.
You are responsible for your own misery, Sir.
Cary Kittrell
Nope. I have similar reactions to the idea of some foods
people eat. And, come to think of it, to some practices
cheerfully engaged in by a fair percentage of straights, too.
But if you go around saying that such people (in roughly escalating
order) are bad, are unspeakably evil, should be prevented
from doing that, should be beaten for doing that, should
be killed, then in that case, I'd have to say yep, that
would be hate-filled bigotry.
-- cary
M. Clark
> Bojangles wrote:
> > Thats the problem with supporters of a gay bishop. You think that because
> > the rest of us do not accept homosexuality we are bigots. We are not. We are
> > concerned for the church which seems to assume that since Christ did not
> > specifically address homosexuality that it is alright to lay with man even
> > though the Old Testament
>
> I am confused :-/ I though you called yourself a "Christian"
> because you followed Christ... and somewhere along the line Christ
> is claimed to have said that he came to bring a new covenant and the
> old testament has/had passed away..
> So just what relevance does the old testament have to Christians?
> Other than those "cafeteria Christians" who ignore the inconvenient
> parts of the OT, such as the prohibition on eating pork or wearing
> garments of mixed fibers, and just select the convenient passages
> they can use to bible-bash those they don't like?
>
> <snip>
Given the extremes of OT Law by today's standards, enemies of Jesus
Christ would have everybody believe that obeying OT Law is an all or
nothing deal. However, those who love the Word can tell you that God
intended for certain aspects of the Law to expire upon the life, death,
and resurrection of Jesus while other aspects of the Law were to remain
in effect.
Consider animal sacrifices, for example. Hebrews 10:1-18, especially
verse 18, shows that Jesus' sacrifice of himself was the ultimate
atonement sacrifice for our sins. So regardless that homosexual
advocates want everybody to think that those "hypocritical" Christians
are supposed to be performing animal sacrifices in accordance with OT
Law, they overlook that since Jesus paid the penalty for our sins and
that animal sacrifices are no longer required.
Also consider that Jesus' earthly mission caused food regulations to
expire. Consider these food related verses:
Mark 7:2-23, especially verse 19 NIV
Acts 12:10-16
1 Corinthians 10:25-27 (but don't cause others to stumble)
However, while Jesus' mission made certain regulations obsolete, other's
are evidently still in effect.
Consider 1 Corinthians 5, for example. This chapter shows that a sexual
offender was expelled from that early church. Although the example
given is a case of incest, note that the forbidden sexual acts of
Leviticus 18:6-23 reference both incest (verses 7,8) and same-sex sexual
relationships (verse 22). This means that 1 Corinthains 5 could just as
well have exemplified an unrepentant homosexual as getting the boot.
Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the
gospel is not about how God despises homosexuality. 1 Corinthians
6:9-11, in fact, show that certain members of that early church had
formerly been involved in same-sex sexual relationships but had been
cleansed in the name of Jesus.
Indeed, return to God, believing in his Son Jesus in faith, and have
eternal life.
M. Clark
Sneechres
> The LAST thing that ANY church claiming to be a CHRISTIAN
> denomination needs is a contingent of hate-filled bigots.
>
> If you walk out, that can only IMPROVE the denomination.
>
> So is you choose to remain bigots, there'll be no reason for anyone
> to miss you if you leave.
The episcopalian church is in violation of Christian doctrine.
"A bishop then must be blameless, **the husband of one wife**..."
1 Timothy 3:2
--S
Cary Kittrell
[sp]
< Do I really need to pull out the Bible and quote you the verses? Are you
< blind? I suppose.
I am afraid that yes, you must. I would be quite interested in seeing
the scriptural verses which explain that some acts which warranted death
in the Old Testament are now diluted down to "tradition", whereas
other are still full-fledged abominations. And the verses which
tell us which are which.
And don't bother with the food proscriptions; I'll waive those.
Which still leaves you a LOT of Leviticus to parse as either
"tradition" and "morality".
I'll be here all day; take your time.
-- cary
joseph irvin
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:59:49 -0700,
> Toby Rider <tarider@nospam_blackmill.net> wrote:
> > Krisblake wrote:
>
>
> >> You ought to be concerned for the kind of image you are portraying of
> >> your beloved deity -- and might I add, it's not a favourable one,
> >> either.
>
> > portraying of our beloved deity, we just elected a Bishop who is living
> > in an openly sinful lifestyle.. It is indeed not a favorable one.. It's
> > appalling..
>
> Jesus dispensed with much of the legalism of the Old Testament.
>
> Show us even ONE verse in which Jesus, Himself (not one of his
> fallible disciples) condemned homosexuality or same-sex relationships in
> ANY way.
>
> If you can't, then the only thing appalling about any of this is the
> continued bigotry of the church's hyperconservatives.
If you believe as many Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired
word of our Creator how would you expect Christians to interpret Romans
1:26-27, I Timothy 1:10 and I Corinthians 6:9-11 concerning homosexuality?
Concerning the new Bishop of the Episcopal Church I Timothy 3:1-7 on his
behavior? How do you interpret the above?
>
>
> -- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Priscilla Ballou
Not as long as you don't generalize from that. OK, homosexuality is not
natural for you, and it would likely be sinful for you to have sex with
another man. But that's about you. It has nothing to do with anyone
else's sexuality nor should it affect your respectful treatment of them.
Priscilla
--
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum,
minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
(thanks be to topfive.com)
Dennis Kemmerer
news:MPG.199b89fc5...@west.usenetserver.com...
> Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:16:43 GMT, xana...@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton)
wrote:
> > >
> > > The LAST thing that ANY church claiming to be a CHRISTIAN
> > >denomination needs is a contingent of hate-filled bigots.
> > >
> > > If you walk out, that can only IMPROVE the denomination.
> > >
> > > So is you choose to remain bigots, there'll be no reason for anyone
> > >to miss you if you leave.
> >
> > Calling other people "hate-filled bigots" is usually a sign of being
one.
>
> The thought of french kissing another man is innately repulsive to me.
Hmmm, that's exactly how I feel about eating asparagus!
> Does this make me too a hate-filled bigot merely because of that?
No, it means you shouldn't do it, and MYOB when it comes to others who do.
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>Do I really need to pull out the Bible and quote you the verses? Are you
>blind? I suppose. Even a priest in the Episcopal Church was quoted as saying
>homosexuality is a gift from God. Yeah, a gift that has brought God's wrath
>in the form of destruction.
The gift referenced was that wonderful boon of loving and being loved.
What a dreary boor you are! Blind too!
plonk
curtsybear
> Do I really need to pull out the Bible and quote you the verses?
Depends on where you've got it firmly wedged.
I wouldn't want to be a killjoy.
--
Curtis at Sieber dot Com
"Those who have been withholding their tithes from us will have to apply
for automatic deductions to remain in the Holy Church. That way we're
sure to have enough money to move off Lesbo Lane by the end of August.
Praise the Lord!" -- Bernadette reveals that the church's 'new roof fund'
is actually to pay for *HER* new roof in the suburbs.
curtsybear
> However, while Jesus' mission made certain regulations obsolete, other's
> are evidently still in effect.
How many of them are NOT covered by Romans 14:14? How would you go
about parsing this so as to allow your "no homos" loophole?
14. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing
unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean,
to him it is unclean.
--
Curtis at Sieber dot Com
"You do know there's a special wing of hell just for homosexuals,
don't you?" -- Bernadette attempts to elicit a 'Holy Apartheid,
Batman!' response
Dennis Kemmerer
news:uKqYa.1425$vo2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
If you folks are going to get into yet another bible-quoting war, please
take the non-religious newsgroups (i.e., a.p.h.) out of your reply headers.
M. Clark
> "Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:3f3594b0...@netnews.mchsi.com...
> > On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:59:49 -0700,
> > Toby Rider <tarider@nospam_blackmill.net> wrote:
> > > Krisblake wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> You ought to be concerned for the kind of image you are portraying of
> > >> your beloved deity -- and might I add, it's not a favourable one,
> > >> either.
> >
> > > Yes, we ought to be concerned about what kind of image we are
> > > portraying of our beloved deity, we just elected a Bishop who is living
> > > in an openly sinful lifestyle.. It is indeed not a favorable one.. It's
> > > appalling..
> >
> > Jesus dispensed with much of the legalism of the Old Testament.
> >
> > Show us even ONE verse in which Jesus, Himself (not one of his
> > fallible disciples) condemned homosexuality or same-sex relationships in
> > ANY way.
Thank you for posting and please pardon me for interrupting.
Leviticus 18:22 condemns same-sex sexual relationships. So given that
Jesus reaffirmed the integrity of the Law in Matthew 5:17-20, especially
verse 18, Jesus essentially condemned sexual immorality including
homosexuality.
Also note that John 16:12-15 shows that all the Scriptures were inspired
by Jesus' Holy Spirit who put into the spiritual hearts of the men who
wrote the Scriptures what he hears from Jesus anyway. So Jesus is still
the source of all the verses that condemn homosexuality regardless that
the gospels don't indicate if Jesus spoke them for his missionary work.
> >
> > If you can't, then the only thing appalling about any of this is the
> > continued bigotry of the church's hyperconservatives.
>
> If you believe as many Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired
> word of our Creator how would you expect Christians to interpret Romans
> 1:26-27, I Timothy 1:10 and I Corinthians 6:9-11 concerning homosexuality?
> Concerning the new Bishop of the Episcopal Church I Timothy 3:1-7 on his
> behavior? How do you interpret the above?
Note that 1 Corinthians 5 shows that people like the gay bishop would
have been kicked out of a true Christian church.
Homosexuals should keep in mind, however, that the good news of the
gospel is not about how God despises homosexuality. 1 Corinthians
6:9-11, in fact, shows that certain members of that early church had
formerly been involved in same-sex sexual relationships but had been
cleansed in the name of Jesus.
Indeed, return to God, believing in his Son Jesus in faith, and have
eternal life.
M. Clark
> >
> >
> > -- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
M. Clark
Thank you for posting.
Note that scientists have only recently completed the human gene map
database and predict it will be years before they know how we work. So
any assertions which suggest that homosexuality is genetically based or
natural are as yet scientifically unfounded as scientists don't even
know this yet.
The bottom line with such assertions is that people are not heeding the
warning of 1 Corinhians 6:9-11 not to be deceived into thinking that
those who practice sexual immorality including homosexuality will
inherit the kingdom of God.
Homosexuals should keep in mind, however, that the good news of the
gospel is not about how God despises homosexuality. 1 Corinthians
6:9-11, in fact, show that certain members of that early church had
formerly been involved in same-sex sexual relationships but had been
cleansed in the name of Jesus.
Indeed, return to God, believing is his Son Jesus in faith, and have
eternal life.
M. Clark
M. Clark
> Most churches are also in violation of huge parts of Leviticus
> (wearing of more than one fabric, etc). Why are you picking and
> choosing the bits that only apply to homosexuals?
Thank you for replying.
As I have mentioned before, homosexual advocates often try to water down
the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality by complaining that christians
don't comply with all the OT Laws anwyay. Homosexual advocates are
evidently trying to package compliance with OT Laws as an all or nothing
deal since complying with the Law would be difficult by today's
standards anyway. But not being true Bible students homosexual
advocates overlook that God had planned for certain aspects of the Law
to "expire" with respect to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus
Christ while other aspects of the Law were to remain in effect.
For example, homosexuals complain that christians don't sacrifice
animals as the Law requires. But they ignore that Hebrews 10:1-23,
especially verses 17-18, tells us that animal sacrifices are no longer
required. Animal sacrifices are no longer required because God accepted
Jesus' sacrifice of himself as the ultimate atonement sacrifice for our
sins.
Homosexual advocates will also tell christians that we had better be
careful what we eat. But they again overlook the following verses which
tell us that Christians are not necessarily obligated to comply with OT
restrictions on food anymore.
Mark 7:1-23, especially verse 19 NIV
Acts 10:10-16
1 Corinthians 10:25-27 (but don't cause others to stumble)
But regardless that complying with certain aspects of OT Law are no
longer required, the NT shows examples which indicate that certain
aspects of OT Law are still very much in effect. 1 Corinthians 5, in
fact, is a good example which shows both sides of this issue.
On one hand, 1 Corinthians 5 shows that the forbidden sexual acts of
Leviticus 18:6-23 are still in effect as this chapter shows that a
Christian congregation is still to have zero tolerance for sexual
immorality. Homosexuals should note that although the example presented
in this chapter concerns a case of incest, both incest (Leviticus
18:7-8) and homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22) are indicated by these
Levitical verses. So 1 Corinthians 5 could just as well have
exemplified a homosexual as having been kicked out of this church.
But while 1 Corinthians 5 shows that a church is still to have zero
tolerance for sexual immorality it also shows that Christians are not
expected to put people to death as in OT times. Indeed, regardless that
Leviticus 20:11 shows that incest offenders were to be put to death, the
church was instructed to simply expel the man from the congregation.
So, did Paul screw up by not ordering for the man to be put no death?
Of course not. By writing to have the man expelled, Paul actually
upheld God's intent for the Law by having the church "purge the evil
from among them". "Purging the evil" was God's intent for the Law as
Deuteronomy 21:21 shows, for example.
Homosexuals should keep in mind, however, that the good news of the
gospel is not about how God despises homosexuality. 1 Corinthians
6:9-11, in fact, shows that certain members of that early church had
formerly been involved in same-sex sexual relationships but had been
cleansed in the name of Jesus.
Indeed, return to God, believing in his Son Jesus in faith, and have
eternal life.
M. Clark
>
>
>
> ---
> "Question with boldness even the existence of a god;
> because, if there be one, he must more approve of
> the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
> - Thomas Jefferson
M. Clark
> In alt.politics.homosexuality M. Clark <idont...@toemail.com> wrote:
> > However, while Jesus' mission made certain regulations obsolete, other's
> > are evidently still in effect.
>
> How many of them are NOT covered by Romans 14:14? How would you go
> about parsing this so as to allow your "no homos" loophole?
>
> 14. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing
> unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean,
> to him it is unclean.
Thank you for replying and for bringing up this point..
Regarding my so-called "no homos" loophole, note that Romans 14 begins
by clarifying that it is referring to disputable matters (NIV).
However, 1 Corinthians 6:8 makes a distinction between sexual immorality
and disputable matters with a stern warning against sexual immorality.
So comparing disputable matters with sexual immorality is like comparing
apples to oranges.
Again, homosexuals should keep in mind that the good news of the gospel
is not about how God despises homosexuality. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, in
fact, shows that certain members of that early church had formerly been
Jeff North
"joseph irvin" <j.m....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>|
>| "Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>| news:3f3594b0...@netnews.mchsi.com...
>| > On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:59:49 -0700,
>| > Toby Rider <tarider@nospam_blackmill.net> wrote:
>| > > Krisblake wrote:
>| >
>| >
>| > >> You ought to be concerned for the kind of image you are portraying of
>| > >> your beloved deity -- and might I add, it's not a favourable one,
>| > >> either.
>| >
>| > > Yes, we ought to be concerned about what kind of image we are
>| > > portraying of our beloved deity, we just elected a Bishop who is living
>| > > in an openly sinful lifestyle.. It is indeed not a favorable one.. It's
>| > > appalling..
>| >
>| > Jesus dispensed with much of the legalism of the Old Testament.
>| >
>| > Show us even ONE verse in which Jesus, Himself (not one of his
>| > fallible disciples) condemned homosexuality or same-sex relationships in
>| > ANY way.
>| >
>| > If you can't, then the only thing appalling about any of this is the
>| > continued bigotry of the church's hyperconservatives.
>|
>| If you believe as many Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired
>| word of our Creator how would you expect Christians to interpret Romans
>| 1:26-27, I Timothy 1:10 and I Corinthians 6:9-11 concerning homosexuality?
Do you guys (buybull bashers) always start reading a book by skipping
the first couple of chapters?
>| Concerning the new Bishop of the Episcopal Church I Timothy 3:1-7 on his
>| behavior? How do you interpret the above?
>| >
>| >
>| > -- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
>|
---------------------------------------------------------------
jno...@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
curtsybear
>> How many of them are NOT covered by Romans 14:14? How would you go
>> about parsing this so as to allow your "no homos" loophole?
>> 14. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing
>> unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean,
>> to him it is unclean.
> Thank you for replying and for bringing up this point..
> Regarding my so-called "no homos" loophole, note that Romans 14 begins
> by clarifying that it is referring to disputable matters (NIV).
And what would be disputable? The Old Testament.
> However, 1 Corinthians 6:8 makes a distinction between sexual immorality
> and disputable matters with a stern warning against sexual immorality.
> So comparing disputable matters with sexual immorality is like comparing
> apples to oranges.
Why should I not concern myself with 1 Corinthians 6:9-11? The answer
lies in 1 Corinthians 9:20, where the writer explains the tirade over
Old Testament oddities.
20: And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews;
to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain
them that are under the law;
Which shows that the entire 1 Corinthians screed was an attempt to
convert believers by incorporating their former beliefs into the writings,
not to dictate that SOME old laws were somehow reconsecrated in the New
Testament. Thus, unless I "esteemeth any thing to be unclean" it is not,
but those whose faith would have them believe so, then it can still be so.
I should look at Romans 13:8-10 instead and serve the only singular
commandment of "love my neighbor as myself" and forget all the other
oddities which were required from the old testament, unless my faith
requires it. And you, M Clark, should (in the NIV words):
Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he
stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make
him stand.
with a side helping of:
It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else
that will cause your brother to fall. So whatever you believe
about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the
man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.
--
Curtis at Sieber dot Com
"It wastes the sacred seed of men and the precious eggs of women.
It takes the focus of sexual relations off reproduction and the Sanctity
of the Family. It kindles wanton lusts and rips apart the fabric of
society by destroying families. It turns people into hedonists and
flesh worshippers." -- Bernadette leads up to the inevitable 'It slices.
It dices. It purees old turnips. And it CAN be yours for only three
E-E-E-zee payments of $9.99'
Light Templar
"M. Clark" <idont...@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1fzbmae.18rpkqs12uet19N%idont...@toemail.com...
A. If you read Leviticus in it's entirety, in context, you will note that
the whole of Leviticus was addressed as a specific pact, with a specific
race of people. "The Children of Israel" specifically, and not to the
world as a whole. Moses would have considered it a grievous sin to so much
as teach Levitical Law to Gentiles, much less expect them to obey it.
Additionally, a further read into that verse in question, and preceding
verses, would indicate that the male/male temple prostitution was what was
being proscribed, not homosexuality as a whole.
>
> Also note that John 16:12-15 shows that all the Scriptures were inspired
> by Jesus' Holy Spirit who put into the spiritual hearts of the men who
> wrote the Scriptures what he hears from Jesus anyway.
Hardly compelling. The Bible says that the Bible is true. I would imagine
that there are similar passages in every "holy" text of every religion.
What else is it going to say?
> So Jesus is still
> the source of all the verses that condemn homosexuality regardless that
> the gospels don't indicate if Jesus spoke them for his missionary work.
>
Speculation.
> > >
> > > If you can't, then the only thing appalling about any of this is
the
> > > continued bigotry of the church's hyperconservatives.
> >
> > If you believe as many Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired
> > word of our Creator how would you expect Christians to interpret Romans
> > 1:26-27, I Timothy 1:10 and I Corinthians 6:9-11 concerning
homosexuality?
> > Concerning the new Bishop of the Episcopal Church I Timothy 3:1-7 on his
> > behavior? How do you interpret the above?
>
> Note that 1 Corinthians 5 shows that people like the gay bishop would
> have been kicked out of a true Christian church.
>
Who are you to say what is and what is not a "true" Christian Church? It's
the "True Scotsman" fallacy.
joseph irvin
"Jeff North" <jno...@yourpantsbigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:5gj5jv4pqttf5uk64...@4ax.com...
I was not bashing anything/anyone. I was asking questions. If you think
the first couple of chapters of the Bible are important in this thread then
show how they are.
thisisme
Now, Sneechres, you know how much Cinch-sack hates being confused with the facts.
Rat & Swan
>
> Ok, explain this to me. If I'm opposed to alcoholism, does that make
> me a bigot towards alcoholics?
If you refuse to accept someone who is a social drinker, claiming that
he is an alcoholic, when he has shown no such tendancies toward binge
drinking, yes. You are prejudiced against consumers of alcohol. Whether
or not the individual is an actual alcoholic does not matter, you call
him an alcoholic and behave as if he were.
> If I'm opposed towards lying, does that make me a bigot towards liars?
If you accuse someone of lying and they have not lied, yes. Your view of
a person may or may not be accurate.
> Of course not in both cases, so why does being opposed towards
> homosexuality make me a bigot towards homosexuals?
Because you judge him on a percieved characteristic which he may not
exhibit. You do not know the nature of his daily life and activities,
you presume the worst, based on your darkened views.
Swan
Pat Winstanley
> Subject: Re: **Hyperconservative** Episcopals: Don't let the door...
> From: "Bojangles" <d...@not.email.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.religion.christian, alt.religion.christian.episcopal, alt.bible, alt.abortion
>
> Thats the problem with supporters of a gay bishop. You think that because
> the rest of us do not accept homosexuality we are bigots. We are not. We are
> concerned for the church which seems to assume that since Christ did not
> specifically address homosexuality that it is alright to lay with man even
> do with bigotry.
>
The OT also clearly says that if a child is disrespectful to its parents
then that child must be killed.
The OT also clearly says that it is forbidden to eat pork, wear mixed
fibres, etc, etc...
How many of your children have you killed in accordance with the OT
command?
How many times have you worn clothing of mixed fibres?
How many times have you eaten pork?
(Or are you one of these people who only quotes the bits of the OT/NT
that support your personal comfort zone, and ignore the inconvenient
ones that don't)?
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>
>Note that scientists have only recently completed the human gene map
>database and predict it will be years before they know how we work. So
>any assertions which suggest that homosexuality is genetically based or
>natural are as yet scientifically unfounded as scientists don't even
>know this yet.
Therefore it MUST be a choice and a wicked one at that!
>
>The bottom line with such assertions is that people are not heeding the
>warning of 1 Corinhians 6:9-11 not to be deceived into thinking that
>those who practice sexual immorality including homosexuality will
>inherit the kingdom of God.
You got it! Ignoring your bible and planning to continue doing so!