I Am A Gay Christian And Proud Of It.
BAM1106016
barryo says:
>The subject is, I am a gay Christian and proud of it. My answer to that
>is...Praise God. I don't think that anyone can take away the decision to
>be in Christ for this person.
>
>Correct. In fact, if a man is in Christ then he is a homosexual.
>
That's right - gays are exempt from all sexual sins. These only apply to
men having sex with women. (and vice versa) Face it - oh that's right -
you can't even face your partner!
BAM
BAM1106016
merlin asks: (re gay rights)
>why would i want to live on your imaginary heavenly plantation when you
>won't give me equal rights on earth?
>
Sorry for butting in (no pun intended), but my answer would be because
you're a dirty slimebucket.
BAM
Nicolas Demers
Stix wrote:
>
> Glen Balmer posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
> >> so let gays marry. end of problem
> >
> >Marriage is between man and woman ONLY
>
> Only for now - eventually all couples will be able to marry.
Mmm... Why stop at couples?
--
Nicolas P. Demers n...@cs.sfu.ca
http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~npd/personal/index.html
"So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said
The snow is falling down around the armoury
And the city's closing in around my head..."
BAM1106016
Yeah - Melissa is one of those who would put you in jail for stealing a
turtle egg, but when it comes to abortion, the more the merrier.
BAM
Alex Van Der Hengst
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 14:32:35 -0700, Nicolas Demers <n...@cs.sfu.ca>
wrote:
>Stix wrote:
>>
>> Glen Balmer posted the following to alt.atheism:
>>
>> >> so let gays marry. end of problem
>> >
>> >Marriage is between man and woman ONLY
>>
>> Only for now - eventually all couples will be able to marry.
>
>Mmm... Why stop at couples?
Heck yeah! Why should I be limited to one wife? I want 17. I also
want 14 husbands, and I want them all to receive spousal benefits from
my insurance company. I also want to claim all of them on my tax
returns. Who wants a monogamous man-wife marriage anyway? I was born
to love many people. Also think of the children, I mean it takes a
village to raise them, so my situation is perfect.
Think the above is just a joke? Wait a couple of years.
--
Alex Van Der Hengst
email: vander...@mindspring.com
..."Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,
and thou shalt be saved..." Acts 16:30,31
sregoR .M divaD
Alex Van Der Hengst wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 14:32:35 -0700, Nicolas Demers <n...@cs.sfu.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Stix wrote:
> >>
> >> Glen Balmer posted the following to alt.atheism:
> >>
> >> >> so let gays marry. end of problem
> >> >
> >> >Marriage is between man and woman ONLY
> >>
> >> Only for now - eventually all couples will be able to marry.
> >
> >Mmm... Why stop at couples?
>
> Heck yeah! Why should I be limited to one wife? I want 17. I also
> want 14 husbands, and I want them all to receive spousal benefits from
> my insurance company. I also want to claim all of them on my tax
> returns. Who wants a monogamous man-wife marriage anyway? I was born
> to love many people. Also think of the children, I mean it takes a
> village to raise them, so my situation is perfect.
>
> Think the above is just a joke? Wait a couple of years.
At least you're not trying to justify your "one wife" beliefs on bronze
age biblical practices.
--
The Young American
============================
ESTRAGON: I can't go on like this.
VLADIMIR: That's what you think.
Samuel Beckett, "Waiting for Godot"
kosh
Glen Balmer wrote:
>
> Barry O'Grady <barr...@fastlink.com.au> wrote in article
> > The subject is, I am a gay Christian and proud of it. My answer to that
> > is...Praise God. I don't think that anyone can take away the decision to
> > be in Christ for this person.
>
No, he's simply saying that that is merely YOUR point, and
that YOUR point is wrong.
Kosh
Daedulus
God did not condemn anyone for their sexual preferences. He was just as
harsh in condemning heterosexual promiscuity (fornication, I believe it
was called) as He was in condemning homosexual promiscuity.
BAM1106016
Daedulus says:
That may be true. But you don't hear groups calling themselves "Men who
cheat on their wives" or "Young men for pre-marital sex", shouting for
equal rights, either. In fact, all good men consider sex outside of
marriage ignoble, and don't brag about it.
BAM
BAM
MindFlayer
In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Daedulus penned this in one fell
sweep: <342E06...@indyweb.net>
>God did not condemn anyone for their sexual preferences. He was just as
>harsh in condemning heterosexual promiscuity (fornication, I believe it
>was called) as He was in condemning homosexual promiscuity.
Only, he still let straights have sex under certain conditions, but
forbid gay sex altogether. Kewl, huh?... No.
--
********************************************************************
* MindFlayer alt.atheist #696 * Don't fuck with logic -- *
* http://www.cs.umass.edu/~danilche * you will lose. *
********************************************************************
erikc
On Sun, 28 Sep 1997 02:27:39 -0500
Daedulus <ich...@indyweb.net>
-- origin: alt.atheism:
>|God did not condemn anyone for their sexual preferences. He was just as
>|harsh in condemning heterosexual promiscuity (fornication, I believe it
>|was called) as He was in condemning homosexual promiscuity.
Bull fucking shit! When are you assholes going to start taking responsibility
for your personal preferences and distastes instead of laying the blame at the
doorstep of that hallucinatory sky-fairy you suck up to.
People who suck each others dicks or lap each others pussies aren't doing *you*
a bit of harm (unless someone is *forcing* you to participate). But then again,
all this suggest that you have some major psychological hangup about sex that
you are trying to hide in the guise of religious belief.
You made your point, go away, seek competent help.
Erikc Ag #2 | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
| "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
merlin
dear mindflayer,
i think you have a point, that this god everyone is talking about is a god
for hetrosexual americans, that means the rest of will have to keep
wandering in the wilderness and stay out of captivity from the
hetrosexuals as we keep looking, if we feel the need, for our own GAY
MOSES.
merlin
In article <34377a3f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, min...@ix.netcom.com
(MindFlayer) wrote:
> In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Daedulus penned this in one fell
> sweep: <342E06...@indyweb.net>
> >God did not condemn anyone for their sexual preferences. He was just as
> >harsh in condemning heterosexual promiscuity (fornication, I believe it
> >was called) as He was in condemning homosexual promiscuity.
>
MindFlayer
In forest deep, where dark things sleep, merlin penned this in one fell
sweep: <merlin2-2909...@128.228.5.114>
>dear mindflayer,
>
>i think you have a point, that this god everyone is talking about is a god
>for hetrosexual americans, that means the rest of will have to keep
>wandering in the wilderness and stay out of captivity from the
>hetrosexuals as we keep looking, if we feel the need, for our own GAY
>MOSES.
Oh, man!
Why not just change the society? I mean, that is what all the GBLT
organizations are trying to do... Waiting for your own personal savious is
silly, IMO.
The bisexual atheist,
merlin
dearest mindflayer,
could not agree with you more.
merlin
In article <3439c02a...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, min...@ix.netcom.com
frank w elliott jr
MindFlayer (min...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Daedulus penned this in one fell
: sweep: <342E06...@indyweb.net>
: >God did not condemn anyone for their sexual preferences. He was just as
: >harsh in condemning heterosexual promiscuity (fornication, I believe it
: >was called) as He was in condemning homosexual promiscuity.
:
: Only, he still let straights have sex under certain conditions, but
: forbid gay sex altogether. Kewl, huh?... No.
Yes, but it's really the same rule because we're all called to be chaste.
Isn't that wonderfully fair? :)
--Frank
frank w elliott jr
BAM1106016 (bam11...@aol.com) wrote:
: Daedulus says:
:
: >harsh in condemning heterosexual promiscuity (fornication, I believe it
: >was called) as He was in condemning homosexual promiscuity.
:
: cheat on their wives" or "Young men for pre-marital sex"
As for the former, men who cheat on their wives are ubiquitous.
As for the latter, such groups are called "fraternities."
Not too bright, are you?
--Frank
Beth Wise
On 30-Sep-97 06:41:15, frank w elliott jr said in alt.atheism:
> MindFlayer (min...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Daedulus penned this in one fell
>: sweep: <342E06...@indyweb.net>
>: >harsh in condemning heterosexual promiscuity (fornication, I believe it
>: >was called) as He was in condemning homosexual promiscuity.
>:
>: forbid gay sex altogether. Kewl, huh?... No.
> Yes, but it's really the same rule because we're all called to be chaste.
> Isn't that wonderfully fair? :)
No. It sucks.
--
A recent search on DejaNews has confirmed that I'm missing more posts than
I'm seeing, especially in alt.atheism. Please CC replies to the address below.
--
Beth Wise | Have you ever wondered why
aka Ink on #Amiga, Undernet | the older you get, the more
inky(at)csrlink(dot)net | life sucks? Everything is
http://www.toptown.com/ | revealed in Ink's Shit Happens
centralpark/ink | Theory at the URL to your left.
Amiga 4000/040/25MHz/18MB | <--
Lee
On 30 Sep 1997 11:41:15 GMT,
elliott@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu (frank w elliott
jr) wrote:
>MindFlayer (min...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Daedulus penned this in one fell
>: sweep: <342E06...@indyweb.net>
>: >God did not condemn anyone for their sexual preferences. He was just as
>: >harsh in condemning heterosexual promiscuity (fornication, I believe it
>: >was called) as He was in condemning homosexual promiscuity.
>:
>: Only, he still let straights have sex under certain conditions, but
>: forbid gay sex altogether. Kewl, huh?... No.
>
>Yes, but it's really the same rule because we're all called to be chaste.
>Isn't that wonderfully fair? :)
Actually what is condemned is adultery, fornication, and MEN having
sexual relations together.
Lee - From beautiful central Indiana
MindFlayer
In forest deep, where dark things sleep, frank w elliott jr penned this in
one fell sweep: <60qogr$9cu$3...@news.nyu.edu>
>MindFlayer (min...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Daedulus penned this in one fell
>: sweep: <342E06...@indyweb.net>
>: >God did not condemn anyone for their sexual preferences. He was just as
>: >harsh in condemning heterosexual promiscuity (fornication, I believe it
>: >was called) as He was in condemning homosexual promiscuity.
>:
>: Only, he still let straights have sex under certain conditions, but
>: forbid gay sex altogether. Kewl, huh?... No.
>
>Yes, but it's really the same rule because we're all called to be chaste.
>Isn't that wonderfully fair? :)
No, idiot, you are all called to be fruitful and multiply. It just so
happens that your fucking bible forbids gay sex.
Magenta
"Beth Wise" <in...@spamless.net> doth speak:
>On 30-Sep-97 06:41:15, frank w elliott jr said in alt.atheism:
>>: In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Daedulus penned this in one fell
>>: sweep: <342E06...@indyweb.net>
>>: >God did not condemn anyone for their sexual preferences. He was just as
>>: >harsh in condemning heterosexual promiscuity (fornication, I believe it
>>: >was called) as He was in condemning homosexual promiscuity.
>>:
>>: Only, he still let straights have sex under certain conditions, but
>>: forbid gay sex altogether. Kewl, huh?... No.
>
>> Yes, but it's really the same rule because we're all called to be chaste.
>> Isn't that wonderfully fair? :)
>
Sorry- no sucking allowed. ;-)
--
+----- Peace & Love, ----+- Magenta (dash) 7 (at) JUNO (dot) com ----+
| /| /| _ _ _ _-|-_ |"There are more things in heaven and earth,|
| / |/ |(_|(_|(/_| )|(_| |...Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." |
|_________ _/ __________|_________________--[Hamlet Act I: Scene V]_|
merlin
dear frank,
when i read the below i for the first time began to wonder who is the real
enforcer of these jesus cult sex laws really is? the quote:
> : Only, he still let straights have sex under certain conditions, but
> : forbid gay sex altogether. Kewl, huh?... No.
these were the rules hitler enforced in germany, these are the rules being
enforced in china right now, these are some of the rules that sadam
hussein lives by, why do they also have to be official jesus cult rules
also?
interesting that people always seem to have to get government involved in
their religious beliefs.
merlin
In article <60qogr$9cu$3...@news.nyu.edu>,
elliott@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu (frank w elliott jr)
wrote:
> MindFlayer (min...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : In forest deep, where dark things sleep, Daedulus penned this in one fell
> : sweep: <342E06...@indyweb.net>
> : >God did not condemn anyone for their sexual preferences. He was just as
> : >harsh in condemning heterosexual promiscuity (fornication, I believe it
> : >was called) as He was in condemning homosexual promiscuity.
> :
> : Only, he still let straights have sex under certain conditions, but
> : forbid gay sex altogether. Kewl, huh?... No.
>
> Yes, but it's really the same rule because we're all called to be chaste.
> Isn't that wonderfully fair? :)
>
> --Frank
Mavis Beaton
Love is never a perversion. Your hatred of God's children - homosexuals -
is a perversion.
BAM is seething with hatred of homosexuals. I wonder why?
BAM1106016 <bam11...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971005233...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
| elliott says:
|
| >As for the former, men who cheat on their wives are ubiquitous.
| >As for the latter, such groups are called "fraternities."
| >
| >Not too bright, are you?
| >
|
| Yes, they probably outnumber homos 1,000,000 to 1. But they're still not
| banding together and boasting of their perversions as a group.
|
| BAM
|
janet
In article <01bcd38e$0abe6d40$9f10...@pathcom.com.pathcom.com>, Mavis
Beaton <mbe...@love.com> writes
>Love is never a perversion. Your hatred of God's children - homosexuals -
>is a perversion.
>
>BAM is seething with hatred of homosexuals. I wonder why?
>
>
Forgive the intrusion and all that, and I would agree that hating ANYONE
is wrong. Fullstop, no discussion.
But it IS possible to think that a specific practice is wrong, without
harbouring a secret desire to indulge in it oneself.
>
>BAM1106016 <bam11...@aol.com> wrote in article
><19971005233...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>| elliott says:
>|
>| >As for the former, men who cheat on their wives are ubiquitous.
>| >As for the latter, such groups are called "fraternities."
>| >
>| >Not too bright, are you?
>| >
>|
>| Yes, they probably outnumber homos 1,000,000 to 1. But they're still not
>| banding together and boasting of their perversions as a group.
>|
>| BAM
>|
--
janet
"And all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be
well" Julian of Norwich
BAM1106016
Mavis Beaton says:
>Love is never a perversion.
True - but who's talking about love?
Your hatred of God's children - homosexuals -
>is a perversion.
I don't hate them - I just wish they'd stop doing it, and stop bragging about
it. No normal person boasts or claims to have pride in his sexual desires.
>BAM is seething with hatred of homosexuals. I wonder why?
There's no answer to that question because it follows a false premise. So
intolerant Mavis!!
BAM
kosh
Yngwie986 (Glenn) <yngw...@aol.com> wrote:
: >http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
: I have not looked at this page yet and plase do not misunderstand me as
: "hating" gay people...but that there is NO Biblical support for being
: homosexual.
This should read, "...but that there is no Glenn-biblical support..."
It just depends on how you read the bibles.
: I am more of the attitude "love the sinner..hate the sin"
Alright. However, I assure you that if I went around proclaiming
that I LOVE Evangelical Christians, but I simply hate the things they
do and worship (you know, like worshipping a man as G0D, and drinking
his symbolic blood, etc.), and the way they live, I assure you that the
folks who always go around saying "love the sinner/hate the sin" would
be the first ones to accuse me of displaying anti-christian hatred.
Works both ways, I suppose.
kosh
merlin
In article <61g2l4$9...@nntp02.primenet.com>, kosh
<ko...@central.antispamnet.com> wrote:
> Yngwie986 (Glenn) <yngw...@aol.com> wrote:
> : >http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
>
> : I have not looked at this page yet and plase do not misunderstand me as
> : "hating" gay people...but that there is NO Biblical support for being
> : homosexual.
hmmmm, there is no mention of airplanes, railroads, the earth being round,
skyscrapers, the follies bergers in paris, the christian church, or the
pope in rome. infact paris, london, New York City, Los Angeles, or Bankok
are all not mentioned by name in the bible, so does that mean we should
dis-allow the existence of things not in the bible?
there is no mention of ........... think about it. what else does not
meet your criteria for existence by being ratified by being mentioned in
the bible? it seems like independent religious thought ended 2,000 years
ago, and no new ideas are allow? if it isn't in the book it is against
god?
i just don't get this village mentality, for a religion to be alive people
have to have a direct connection with god, to say that the only criteria
is if something was mentioned 2,000 years ago, just doesn't wash. that
means there has been NO VIABLE human religious experience to 2,000 years?
not possible.
merlin
Jeremy Wall
So far no one has mentioned the fact that God expressly forbids the practice
of Homosexuality. Any acceptance of it means that the acceptor is not
follwing God's law. So it doesn't matter whether there is a scriptural
basis for it or not. Any one who follws the practice is not living a
Christian Life.
merlin wrote in message ...
BAM1106016
Jeremy Wall says:
>So far no one has mentioned the fact that God expressly forbids the practice
>of Homosexuality. Any acceptance of it means that the acceptor is not
>follwing God's law. So it doesn't matter whether there is a scriptural
>basis for it or not. Any one who follws the practice is not living a
>Christian Life.
>
>
The Catholic Church forbids it, and the Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ.
BAM
Toby
On Sat, 11 Oct 1997, Jeremy Wall wrote:
> So far no one has mentioned the fact that God expressly forbids the practice
> of Homosexuality.
So far you haven't been paying much attention....
Tell me, does he expressly forbid homosexuality in the same manner he
expressly forbids eating pork?
> Any acceptance of it means that the acceptor is not
> follwing God's law. So it doesn't matter whether there is a scriptural
> basis for it or not.
Oo! Alright. Suppose there isn't a scriptural basis? Then how do you know
he doesn't like it? What, did he one day come to you and speak out a bush:
"THOU SHAN'T!"?
> Any one who follws the practice is not living a
> Christian Life.
The only true christian died on the cross.
--
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
Till human voices wake us, and we drown.
http://members.tripod.com/~Tesseract/
Bob Van Burkleo
>So far no one has mentioned the fact that God expressly forbids the practice
>of Homosexuality. Any acceptance of it means that the acceptor is not
>follwing God's law. So it doesn't matter whether there is a scriptural
>basis for it or not. Any one who follws the practice is not living a
>Christian Life.
Actually no. the only proscriptions refer to certain acts, only between
men, and only in certain relgious context. This is similar to
proscriptions against other acts such as eating shellfish, bats, and men
having sex with menstrating women.
Anyone who feels they can decide who is and isn't leading a Christian life
is far more likely NOT a Christian.
-----
Bob Van Burkleo rpvb3 at mindspring.com
Magenta
"Jeremy Wall" <jjw...@juno.com> doth speak:
>So far no one has mentioned the fact that God expressly forbids the practice
>of Homosexuality. Any acceptance of it means that the acceptor is not
>follwing God's law. So it doesn't matter whether there is a scriptural
>basis for it or not. Any one who follws the practice is not living a
>Christian Life.
All of your misconceptions are answered in the link you quoted but did
not read.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
kosh
Jeremy Wall <jjw...@juno.com> wrote:
: So far no one has mentioned the fact that God expressly forbids the practice
: of Homosexuality.
I do not know where your head has been recently, but there have
been several people that have mentioned the sentiment you express above.
The difficulty for them has been that most people listening are
intellegent enough to recognise that those folks making the claim are
operating on only one interpretation of several.
: Any acceptance of it means that the acceptor is not
: follwing God's law. So it doesn't matter whether there is a scriptural
: basis for it or not.
[Roll-on-floor-laughing!] You're serious?! Anyone, atheist or
believer, will tell you that scriptural matters define this "G0D's law"
of which you so carelessly speak.
kosh
your_...@clear.net.nz
Toby <tch...@sfu.ca> writes: > On Sat, 11 Oct 1997, Jeremy Wall wrote:
>
> > So far no one has mentioned the fact that God expressly forbids the practice
> > of Homosexuality.
>
>
> Tell me, does he expressly forbid homosexuality in the same manner he
> expressly forbids eating pork?
>
> > follwing God's law. So it doesn't matter whether there is a scriptural
> > basis for it or not.
>
> he doesn't like it? What, did he one day come to you and speak out a bush:
> "THOU SHAN'T!"?
>
> > Christian Life.
>
>
> --
> We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
> By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
> Till human voices wake us, and we drown.
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~Tesseract/
>
Tom Goodman
On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 09:02:31 -0500, "Jeremy Wall" <jjw...@juno.com>
wrote:
>So far no one has mentioned the fact that God expressly forbids the practice
>of Homosexuality. Any acceptance of it means that the acceptor is not
>follwing God's law. So it doesn't matter whether there is a scriptural
>basis for it or not. Any one who follws the practice is not living a
>Christian Life.
Some people will never learn. The following says much :
Ephesians 5:3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual
immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are
improper for God's holy people.
Ephesians 5:4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse
joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.
Ephesians 5:5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or
greedy person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the
kingdom of Christ and of God.
Ephesians 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of
such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient.
Ephesians 5:7 Therefore do not be partners with them.
Tom Goodman
On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 09:19:13 -0700, rp...@mindspring.com (Bob Van
Burkleo) wrote:
>In article <343f8...@news.primary.net>, "Jeremy Wall" <jjw...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>>So far no one has mentioned the fact that God expressly forbids the practice
>>of Homosexuality. Any acceptance of it means that the acceptor is not
>>follwing God's law. So it doesn't matter whether there is a scriptural
>>basis for it or not. Any one who follws the practice is not living a
>>Christian Life.
>
Tom Goodman
On 11 Oct 1997 14:13:01 -0700, kosh <ko...@central.antispamnet.com>
wrote:
>Jeremy Wall <jjw...@juno.com> wrote:
>: So far no one has mentioned the fact that God expressly forbids the practice
>: of Homosexuality.
>
> I do not know where your head has been recently, but there have
>been several people that have mentioned the sentiment you express above.
>
> The difficulty for them has been that most people listening are
>intellegent enough to recognise that those folks making the claim are
>operating on only one interpretation of several.
>
>
>: Any acceptance of it means that the acceptor is not
>: follwing God's law. So it doesn't matter whether there is a scriptural
>: basis for it or not.
>
Tom Goodman
On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:25:16 -0700, Toby <tch...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Oct 1997, Jeremy Wall wrote:
>
>> So far no one has mentioned the fact that God expressly forbids the practice
>> of Homosexuality.
>
>So far you haven't been paying much attention....
>
>Tell me, does he expressly forbid homosexuality in the same manner he
>expressly forbids eating pork?
Matthew 15:17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes
into the stomach, and so passes on?
Matthew 15:18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart,
and this defiles a man.
Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder,
adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.
>
>> Any acceptance of it means that the acceptor is not
>> follwing God's law. So it doesn't matter whether there is a scriptural
>> basis for it or not.
>
>Oo! Alright. Suppose there isn't a scriptural basis? Then how do you know
>he doesn't like it? What, did he one day come to you and speak out a bush:
>"THOU SHAN'T!"?
>
>> Any one who follws the practice is not living a
>> Christian Life.
>
>The only true christian died on the cross.
Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a
whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great
numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at
Antioch.
Tom Goodman
Proverbs 4:14 Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the
way of evil men.
Proverbs 4:15 Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.
Proverbs 4:16 For they sleep not, except they have done mischief; and
their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some to fall.
Proverbs 4:17 For they eat the bread of wickedness, and drink the wine
of violence.
Proverbs 4:18 But the path of the just is as the shining light, that
shineth more and more unto the perfect day.
Proverbs 4:19 The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at
what they stumble.
Bob Van Burkleo
In article <3440c105...@news.idirect.com>,
comme...@headquarter.com (Tom Goodman) wrote:
Yes, it would be easier to just avoid you Tom, but we really can't just
pass by your wickedness. The truth is clear to us, but your darkness has
rendered you to merely quoting scriptures which you search in hopes of
finding eternal life. Christ made it clear that salvation doesn't come
from a book, any book.
Bob Van Burkleo
In article <3440c112...@news.idirect.com>,
comme...@headquarter.com (Tom Goodman) wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:25:16 -0700, Toby <tch...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Oct 1997, Jeremy Wall wrote:
>>
>>> So far no one has mentioned the fact that God expressly forbids the practice
>>> of Homosexuality.
>>
>>So far you haven't been paying much attention....
>>
>>Tell me, does he expressly forbid homosexuality in the same manner he
>>expressly forbids eating pork?
>
>Matthew 15:17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes
>into the stomach, and so passes on?
>Matthew 15:18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart,
>and this defiles a man.
>Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder,
>adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.
So you are saying "No"?
Toby
On Sun, 12 Oct 1997, Tom Goodman wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:25:16 -0700, Toby <tch...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> >Tell me, does he expressly forbid homosexuality in the same manner he
> >expressly forbids eating pork?
> Matthew 15:17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes
> into the stomach, and so passes on?
Passes on out the arsehole, I take it?
> Matthew 15:18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart,
> and this defiles a man.
> Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder,
> adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.
What the bloody hell does this have to do with either eating pork or being
a homosexual?
> >The only true christian died on the cross.
>
> Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a
> whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great
> numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at
> Antioch.
Appart from associating these folk with the Holy Hand Grenade, how is this
significant?
Tom Goodman
Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not
fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the
Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other:
so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the
law.
Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are
these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Galatians 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations,
wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Galatians 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such
like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time
past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of
God.
None Of The Above
On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 12:23:02 GMT, comme...@headquarter.com (Tom
Goodman) wrote:
>Proverbs 4:14 Bleat, bleat, bleat, bleat, bleat, bleat..
Geo
atheist #15
Dinty W. Moore
> Tom Goodman <comme...@headquarter.com> wrote in article
> >
> > Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not
> > fulfil the lust of the flesh.
> > Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the
> > Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other:
> > so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
> > Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the
> > law.
> > Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are
> > these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
> > Galatians 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations,
> > wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
> > Galatians 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such
> > like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time
> > past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
> >
Methinks though does protest too much.
Dinty W. Moore
Author, The Accidental Buddhist (Algonquin Books, 1997)
http://cac.psu.edu/~dwm7/buddha.htm
"Moore's hilarious and sometimes irreverent look at Buddhism is a
perfect primer for the budding Buddhist" -- Publisher's Weekly>
Blackguard
Toby <tch...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 12 Oct 1997, Tom Goodman wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:25:16 -0700, Toby <tch...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > >Tell me, does he expressly forbid homosexuality in the same manner he
> > >expressly forbids eating pork?
>
> > Matthew 15:17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes
> > into the stomach, and so passes on?
>
> Passes on out the arsehole, I take it?
>
> > Matthew 15:18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart,
> > and this defiles a man.
> > Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder,
> > adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.
>
> What the bloody hell does this have to do with either eating pork or being
> a homosexual?
>
> > >The only true christian died on the cross.
> >
> > Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a
> > whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great
> > numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at
> > Antioch.
>
> Appart from associating these folk with the Holy Hand Grenade, how is this
> significant?
"Oh Lord bless this thy hand grenade.
First removest thou the holy pin.
Then countest thou to three. No more, no less. The number countest shall
be three and the number of the counting shall be three. Countest thou
not to four, nor countest to two lest three be the next number. Five is
right out!
Then when the number reached be three, lobbest thy Holy Hand Grenade at
thine enemy, who being naughty in your sight, shall snuff it."
-Monty Python and the Holy Grail. (I know it's paraphrased but I
couldn't remember the exact words.)
Cabrutus
Tom Goodman <comme...@headquarter.com> wrote in article
<344350de...@news.idirect.com>...
> On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 11:46:58 -0700, rp...@mindspring.com (Bob Van
> Burkleo) wrote:
>
> >In article <3440c105...@news.idirect.com>,
> >comme...@headquarter.com (Tom Goodman) wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 09:19:13 -0700, rp...@mindspring.com (Bob Van
> >>Burkleo) wrote:
> >>
[snip]
>
>
> Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not
> fulfil the lust of the flesh.
> Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the
> Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other:
> so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
> Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the
> law.
> Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are
> these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
> Galatians 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations,
> wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
> Galatians 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such
> like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time
> past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of
> God.
>
>
Yes, must be a robot. All it can do is post Babble quotes; it doesn't know
that the Bible is a load.
--
Cabrutus -- alt.atheism atheist #820
loc...@SPAM.PROTECTION.CAPS.geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3587
Spambait: -- cke...@earthlink.net -- pro...@cibola.net --
webm...@godhatesfags.com -- bob...@aol.com -- pra...@tbn.org --
comm...@tbn.org
J.D. Black
In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.971011132203.20875C-100000@fraser>, Toby
<tch...@sfu.ca> wrote:
}On Sat, 11 Oct 1997, Jeremy Wall wrote:
}
}> So far no one has mentioned the fact that God expressly forbids the practice
}> of Homosexuality.
}
}So far you haven't been paying much attention....
}
}Tell me, does he expressly forbid homosexuality in the same manner he
}expressly forbids eating pork?
}
No.
}> Any acceptance of it means that the acceptor is not
}> follwing God's law. So it doesn't matter whether there is a scriptural
}> basis for it or not.
}
}Oo! Alright. Suppose there isn't a scriptural basis?
Why suppose that?
}Then how do you know
}he doesn't like it?
That's why I am wondering why to suppose that.
}What, did he one day come to you and speak out a bush:
}"THOU SHAN'T!"?
}
No, He did that for Moses.
}> Any one who follws the practice is not living a
}> Christian Life.
}
}The only true christian died on the cross.
}
That would all depend on your daffynition of 'true christian.'
--
In the event someone would like to reply to this message via e-mail (who
knows why), remove 'nospam.' in my reply address to get:
jdb...@metronet.com
If there is a final departure of insurance money, obviously that makes a
settlement almost impossible. The President isn't going to pay any money
out of his own pocket.
-- Rober Bennett, Bill Clinton's lead attorney in the Paula Jones case,
after State Farm announced it would no longer pay Clinton's legal bills,
quoted in "The Washington Post"
Bob Van Burkleo
In article <3447AFC6...@netins.net>, Norm Rice <hea...@netins.net> wrote:
>It is okay to eat pork:
>
> Ac 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
> 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that
>is common or unclean.
> 15 And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath
>cleansed, [that] call not thou common.
>
> Col 2:16 ś Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in
>respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:
>
>It is not okay to be a homosexual:
>
> Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like
>manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange
>flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal
>fire.
I don't think any one here is talking about having sex with angels here
(the 'strange flesh' referred to)
> 1Co 6:9 ś Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
>kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
>adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Mistranslation of someone who doesn't always speak for God <yawn>
> 1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with
>mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there
>be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
Mistranslation of someone who doesn't always speak for God <yawn>
>There was a time in the Old Testament when you could not eat pork. We
>live in the New Testament.
No, we live in the time of Christ - the New Testament is just an anthology
of writings of various authors put together by committee. You don't have
to believe the Bible is a magic book to be a Christian.
>
>Toby wrote:
>
>> >On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, J.D. Black wrote:
>> > In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.971011132203.20875C-100000@fraser>, Toby
>> > <tch...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>> > }On Sat, 11 Oct 1997, Jeremy Wall wrote:
>>
>> > }Tell me, does he expressly forbid homosexuality in the same manner
>> he
>> > }expressly forbids eating pork?
>>
>> > No.
>>
>> Oh. You're right; he's rather clear on the latter bit.
>>
>> > }> Any acceptance of it means that the acceptor is not
>> > }> follwing God's law. So it doesn't matter whether there is a
>> scriptural
>> > }> basis for it or not.
>>
>> > }Oo! Alright. Suppose there isn't a scriptural basis?
>> >
>> > Why suppose that?
>>
>> Because "it doesn't matter whether there is a scriptual basis for it
>> or
>> not". If we suppose there is no scriptual basis and proceed from
>> there, we
>> can figure out whether or not Jeremy speaks the truth.
>>
>> So, then, the question: in absense of scripture, how could you even
>> guess
>> at JHVH's intentions?
>>
>> --
>> We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
>> By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
>> Till human voices wake us, and we drown.
>>
>> http://members.tripod.com/~Tesseract/
-----
Toby
kosh
>It is okay to eat pork:
>
> Ac 10:13 And there came a VOICE to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
> 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that
> is common or unclean.
> 15 And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath
> cleansed, [that] call not thou common.
> Col 2:16 ś Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in
>respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:
So, some Apostate schmuck has a DREAM/TRANCE that a big TABLE CLOTH
FROM THE SKY comes down to him, and some BIG VOICE says "Eat it!"
THEN he goes around convincing people that this means it's
okay for THEM to break the EVERLASTING food laws of G0D.
But, you roll your eyes when others here on the net offer
new takes on Biblical passages. You sainted Peter for the same.
And, you wonder why Jewish people don't convert? Jeez.
kosh
Richard Trice
Bob Van Burkleo (rp...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: In article <3447AFC6...@netins.net>, Norm Rice <hea...@netins.net> wrote:
:
:
: I don't think any one here is talking about having sex with angels here
: (the 'strange flesh' referred to)
I do believe that god expressly forbade homosexuality,
in LEV chap 20. The sex problems. While it may be
true that we live in the New Testament, (not me
personally, as I don't believe any of it) but it
specifically says that "if a man lieth with another
man as one would a woman, then both of them have
done what is detestable (the crimes that are punishable
by men severely), and that they are to be put to
death."
Bob Van Burkleo
In article <#uL44UW3...@newstoo.hiwaay.net>, tri...@HiWAAY.net
(Richard Trice) wrote:
>Bob Van Burkleo (rp...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>: In article <3447AFC6...@netins.net>, Norm Rice
<hea...@netins.net> wrote:
>:
>:
>: I don't think any one here is talking about having sex with angels here
>: (the 'strange flesh' referred to)
>
>I do believe that god expressly forbade homosexuality,
>in LEV chap 20.
Actually, no. In the OT, only specific ACTIONS were prohibited and only
under specific conditions. The Law was fulfilled by Christ's death so
that it could pass. We are now under God's grace, where intents are the
quality that denotes sins, not simple actions.
As Christ showed in His example of the commandment "Thou shalt not
murder", you can violate this command without killing, and conversely you
can kill without murdering. It is the intent, not the action, that
identifies sin now.
Similarly, any sex act is just an action - not sinful in and of itself.
It is the intent that will decide if it is a sin or not.
During Biblical times, both Old and New, it was considered a social
obligation to marry and have children. Ergo, all same sex activity was
probably adulterous or simply hedonistic. Any proscription in that
environment has nothing really to do with gay Christians today in
committed family couples.
Oh, and your 'snipping' of the preceeding question to my answer is
potentially misleading. In Jude it says that the people of Sodom, turned
to 'strange flesh'. This was a reference to the observation of the times
about their trying to rape angels. The OT and apocryphial texts talk about
how in the time of Genesis about the angels finding the daughters of man
pleasing, having sex with them, with monstrous offspring as a result.
This became fascinating to the Paulians, as Paul had incorporated several
of the current 'mystery religion' beliefs into his retooling of
Christianity. Basically, Paul said that angelic beings who lived on the
planets ruled the various ages of mankind, and the world was then in the
last one. God had planned a way to wrest control away from these beings
before the beginning of time. He sent His Son into the world, and the
angelic beings, not recognizing His true nature, plotted to destroy Him.
Once they did, they forfeited their hold over mankind. (Corinthians
2:6-9) All just a variation on the astral Gnosticism of the times.
Remember, Paul was trying to make a religion that was in direct
competition to the other, more established, mystery religions of the day.
Anyway, hence the New Testament fascination between all physical
interactions between heavenly beings and mortals, hence the reference in
Jude.
Tom Goodman
>In article <#uL44UW3...@newstoo.hiwaay.net>, tri...@HiWAAY.net
>(Richard Trice) wrote:
>
>>Bob Van Burkleo (rp...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>>: In article <3447AFC6...@netins.net>, Norm Rice
><hea...@netins.net> wrote:
>>:
>>:
>>: I don't think any one here is talking about having sex with angels here
>>: (the 'strange flesh' referred to)
>>
>>I do believe that god expressly forbade homosexuality,
>>in LEV chap 20.
>
>Actually, no. In the OT, only specific ACTIONS were prohibited and only
>under specific conditions. The Law was fulfilled by Christ's death so
>that it could pass. We are now under God's grace, where intents are the
>quality that denotes sins, not simple actions.
>
>As Christ showed in His example of the commandment "Thou shalt not
>murder", you can violate this command without killing, and conversely you
>can kill without murdering. It is the intent, not the action, that
>identifies sin now.
>
James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the
friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will
be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
Richard A Price
Bob Van Burkleo wrote:
>
> In article <344c1112...@news.idirect.com>,
> sex outside the contract of marriage. They are not being true to their
> vows of fidelity, and taking the risk of creating children outside their
> own family. They are being deceptive to their spouses, and untrue to
> their families. Again, the intent is the sin, not the action.bOB,
You are fooling yourself. Homosexuality is forbidden in the New
Testament also {the practice of}. To say it is the intent and not what
you do is foolishness.
Dick
Bob Van Burkleo
>> Bob Van Burkleo rpvb3 at mindspring.com
>bOB,
> You are fooling yourself. Homosexuality is forbidden in the New
>Testament also {the practice of}. To say it is the intent and not what
>you do is foolishness.
Since homosexuality as practiced today didn't exist at that time, that can
hardly be true. You are mistaken dick, once again.
Bob Van Burkleo
In article <344ebd38...@news.comnet.ca>, comme...@headquarter.com
(Tom Goodman) wrote:
>You show how stupid and ignorant you are. Homosexuality of today is
>same as of Babylon era. Nothing new under the sun.
Actually no. If there were any chance that you were really a Christian,
I'd bother to explain it to you - but since you are just a Satanist, there
really is no point.
Tom Goodman
On Wed, 22 Oct 1997 15:16:29 -0700, Richard A Price
<dea...@cdepot.net> wrote:
>Bob Van Burkleo wrote:
>> Yes, and adulterers and adulteresses, are by defintion, people who have
>> sex outside the contract of marriage. They are not being true to their
>> vows of fidelity, and taking the risk of creating children outside their
>> own family. They are being deceptive to their spouses, and untrue to
>> their families. Again, the intent is the sin, not the action.
>>
>> -----
>> Bob Van Burkleo rpvb3 at mindspring.com
>bOB,
> You are fooling yourself. Homosexuality is forbidden in the New
>Testament also {the practice of}. To say it is the intent and not what
>you do is foolishness.
>Dick
Bod thinks he is so smart by making up his own ideology about the
Bible. True, he is just fooling himself. But actually he is just
another one of those suckers of satan.
Tom Goodman
>In article <344E7B...@cdepot.net>, dea...@cdepot.net wrote:
>
>>> Bob Van Burkleo rpvb3 at mindspring.com
>>bOB,
>> You are fooling yourself. Homosexuality is forbidden in the New
>>Testament also {the practice of}. To say it is the intent and not what
>>you do is foolishness.
>
>Since homosexuality as practiced today didn't exist at that time, that can
>hardly be true. You are mistaken dick, once again.
>
>-----
>Bob Van Burkleo rpvb3 at mindspring.com
You show how stupid and ignorant you are. Homosexuality of today is
janet
In article <344ebd38...@news.comnet.ca>, Tom Goodman
<comme...@headquarter.com> writes
today". I assume this means as a specific life style, and I believe the
post was correct. The actual acts may be the same, but the choice of
life style around sexual orientation is a fairly new development, as is
the categorisation of people by sexual choices/orientations/whatever.
Kinsey said in the 1950's it wasn't a very good idea, though....
--
janet
Sic friatur crustum dulce
Tom Goodman
>In article <344ebd38...@news.comnet.ca>, comme...@headquarter.com
>(Tom Goodman) wrote:
>>You show how stupid and ignorant you are. Homosexuality of today is
>>same as of Babylon era. Nothing new under the sun.
>
>Actually no. If there were any chance that you were really a Christian,
>I'd bother to explain it to you - but since you are just a Satanist, there
>really is no point.
>
>-----
>Bob Van Burkleo rpvb3 at mindspring.com
Look at who's talking. Bob the fagotism supporter accusing a
God-supporter as satanist. Satan sure have his brainwashing control
over people with low spiritual IQ like bob.
Tom Goodman
On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:52:31 -0400, mer...@tuna.net (merlin) wrote:
>
>satanist? who worships satan? it is your religion that preaches the
>existence of both god and satan, so how can you not worship satan as
>he/she/it is mentioned in your bible? satan is a made up mythological
>being created by monarchist to scare and punish their intentionally
>uneducated subjects.
>
>your accusation of satanism clouds discussion as it goes against common
>decency and manners and is rude and uncalled for in this discussion.
merlin, satan is more real than you. never see things on their
surface, there are much more than what meets the eyes.