The Big News

[Mr. N.A.Cho]

We are pleased with the result of the vote by the National
Representatives to remove restrictions on the participation of youth
in the Boy Scouts. Our council’s membership supports further changes
to the membership standards and we will continue to advocate for the
removal of restrictions based on sexual orientation. We remain
focused on the development of children so that they grow to become
better citizens, better leaders, and active contributors to our
state’s future. We will march forward on this mission while
continuing our council’s long standing policies and practices of
nondiscrimination.

[unklbob]

Does this mean Hugh can finally come out?

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:51:20 -0700 (PDT), unklbob <mcgri...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On May 23, 6:50=A0pm, "Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpaceForR...@mail.com> wrote:
>> We are pleased with the result of the vote by the National
>> Representatives to remove restrictions on the participation of youth

>> in the Boy Scouts. =A0Our council=92s membership supports further changes

>> to the membership standards and we will continue to advocate for the

>> removal of restrictions based on sexual orientation. =A0We remain

>> focused on the development of children so that they grow to become
>> better citizens, better leaders, and active contributors to our

>> state=92s future. =A0We will march forward on this mission while
>> continuing our council=92s long standing policies and practices of

>> nondiscrimination.

>Does this mean Hugh can finally come out?

I did in my letters to BSA and the National Eagle Scout Assn.

Love the sinner just became a recommended practice for males in the
BSA. It will be safe to admit girls now.

The slogan used to be "If you can't lick 'em, join 'em". I guess that
will change to "Join 'em and lick 'em".

Hugh

[Mr. N.A.Cho]

On May 24, 12:30 pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:51:20 -0700 (PDT), unklbob <mcgrisw...@aol.com>

I believe that Love the sinner is a Christian principle no? Does
BSA not follow Christian principles? Do YOU follow Christian
principles?

Mr. Cho

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:29:02 -0700 (PDT), "Mr. N.A.Cho"
<ThisSpac...@mail.com> wrote:

>I believe that Love the sinner is a Christian principle no? Does
>BSA not follow Christian principles? Do YOU follow Christian
>principles?
>
>Mr. Cho

Legitimate questions - will wonders never cease.

AFAIK "love the sinner" is an interpretation of Biblical Scripture and
not written as such precisely.

BSA does not require members to be Christians. Members of BSA have a
duty to God. That duty is essentially what is taught at home and in
their place of worship. A member is not required to be a member of or
even attend church.

Amazingly, of the more than 400 Eagle candidates who appeared before
boards I chaired in my 39+ years, no Muslims or Jews or blacks ever
appeared. None of them would have been disqualified on that basis.
Even the candidates from India were Christian.

Everyone sins whether by omission or comission. The Bible is very
clear that adultery and having sex with a man as you would a woman are
detestable and the one who commits those sins can not be saved.

I follow Christian principles to the best of my ability. I have
absolute faith in Jesus Christ and I have never to my knowledge
committed a sin that can not be forgiven.

Hugh

[Eric Ramon]

On May 24, 8:19 pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:

>
> Everyone sins whether by omission or comission. The Bible is very
> clear that adultery and having sex with a man as you would a woman are
> detestable and the one who commits those sins can not be saved.
>
> I follow Christian principles to the best of my ability. I have
> absolute faith in Jesus Christ and I have never to my knowledge
> committed a sin that can not be forgiven.
>

how's your beard doing? I take it you've never rounded the edges or
cut it off or anything like that. So it must be pretty long by now.

[Cornelius Cornelius]

On May 25, 4:19 am, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:29:02 -0700 (PDT), "Mr. N.A.Cho"
>

What's the bible say about fucking Japanese whores?

[Kyle T. Jones]

Not to be done on Sundays or during Lent.

Cheers.

--
Too bad. Read the manual. If this stuff were easy
we would not get the big bucks. -- Michael Press, June 1st 2012

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:29:25 -0700 (PDT), Cornelius Cornelius
<corneliusc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>What's the bible say about fucking Japanese whores?

I am not aware that the Bible mentions Japanese whores.

Are you planning a trip to Japan?

I have not been there since 1945 so I have no recommendations for your
leisure time. You are on your own and don't have to report back to me.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:30:05 -0700 (PDT), Eric Ramon
<ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why would you think that?

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:33:27 -0500, "Kyle T. Jones"
<onexpa...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:

>Not to be done on Sundays or during Lent.
>
>Cheers.

Funny - but Sunday is not the Sabbath.

Hugh

[Eric Ramon]

On May 25, 8:03 am, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:30:05 -0700 (PDT), Eric Ramon
>

so you're saying you don't know your Bible?

Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind:
it is abomination."

the one you like so much.

Leviticus 19:27: "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads,
neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."

that's why those Hassidics look like they do. They take that one as
seriously as you do the one above.

Leviticus is full of stuff that religious people ignore. Why is one
acceptable but not the other?

[the_andr...@yahoo.com]

On May 24, 11:19 pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>
>
> one who commits those sins can not be saved

I don't want to derail the Boy Scout conversation but I have a problem
with believing there is a limitless god who is unable to save us from
certain sins.

"I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor
demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither
height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to
separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Romans 8:38-39

As far as I can tell, the only unpardonable sin is unbelief.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:28:22 -0700 (PDT), Eric Ramon
<ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 25, 8:03=A0am, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:30:05 -0700 (PDT), Eric Ramon
>>
>> <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >On May 24, 8:19=3DA0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>>
>> >> Everyone sins whether by omission or comission. The Bible is very
>> >> clear that adultery and having sex with a man as you would a woman are
>> >> detestable and the one who commits those sins can not be saved.
>>
>> >> I follow Christian principles to the best of my ability. I have
>> >> absolute faith in Jesus Christ and I have never to my knowledge
>> >> committed a sin that can not be forgiven.
>>
>> >how's your beard doing? I take it you've never rounded the edges or
>> >cut it off or anything like that. So it must be pretty long by now.
>>
>> Why would you think that?
>>
>> Hugh
>
>so you're saying you don't know your Bible?
>
>Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind:
>it is abomination."
>
>the one you like so much.
>
>Leviticus 19:27: "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads,
>neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."
>
>that's why those Hassidics look like they do. They take that one as
>seriously as you do the one above.
>
>Leviticus is full of stuff that religious people ignore. Why is one
>acceptable but not the other?

I hate to expose your ignorance but the Old Testament was given to the
Jews and I am not Jewish.

If you are interested in learning and not humiliating yourself further
I suggest you look at Romans and 1st Corinthians. Let me know if you
need help finding them in the New Testament.

Hugh

[Michael Press]

In article
<208fb92b-37b4-4a16...@vy4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Do you have a citation or is that one of your religious beliefs?
And what do you mean by `love?'

--
Michael Press

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:46:13 -0700 (PDT), "the_andr...@yahoo.com"
<the_andr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of
God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the
kingdom of God."

I believe the man who posted to BSA added homos for his convenience.
The word effiminate is there and historically means queer. I guess
there are some queers who are not effiminate but I have not actually
seen one - but I don't frequent places where I am likely to.

Hugh

[Eric Ramon]

so you're not bound by the Ten Commandments. Ok. That's believable.

[Michael]

First, I'm not sure why we consider Paul of Tarsus to be the expert on all Christian. I'd be much more swayed that this is the Divine Will if it was good old-fashioned red-lettered Jesus. Second, it's really interesting that homosexuality is offered as more or less equivalent to fornicators generally. When people argue that the Bible argues against homosexuality, they are cherry-picking the sin out of others that are quite prevalent, such as drunkenness and covetous. Finally, as you probably know, the translation of the the word arsenokoitai has been under considerable debate. It appears to be a neologism created by Paul, perhaps from the OT.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 15:26:59 -0700 (PDT), Eric Ramon
<ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I hate to expose your ignorance but the Old Testament was given to the
>> Jews and I am not Jewish.
>>
>so you're not bound by the Ten Commandments. Ok. That's believable.

Bound? I'm not bound to any law - I have free will.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:43:40 -0700 (PDT), Michael
<michael...@gmail.com> wrote:

>First, I'm not sure why we consider Paul of Tarsus to be the expert on all =
>Christian. I'd be much more swayed that this is the Divine Will if it was g=
>ood old-fashioned red-lettered Jesus. Second, it's really interesting that =
>homosexuality is offered as more or less equivalent to fornicators generall=
>y. When people argue that the Bible argues against homosexuality, they are =
>cherry-picking the sin out of others that are quite prevalent, such as drun=
>kenness and covetous. Finally, as you probably know, the translation of the=
> the word arsenokoitai has been under considerable debate. It appears to be=

> a neologism created by Paul, perhaps from the OT.

"Fornicators generally" is correct. But the Bible tells us that any
sexual relations other than between a man and his wife is fornicating.
Either we believe the Bible is the inspired word or we don't and
argument is futile.

I have heard of Act Up and Drink Up - I have not heard of Fornicate
Up, or Adultery Up. Of the sins mentioned queers cherry-pick the one
they want recognized as normal and respected.

Hugh

[Michael]

I agree it's ultimately a question of just plain belief, but I'm not sure why someone's letters are considered expressions of the Divine Will. Also, did Jesus ever say that the Bible is the inspired Word?

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 07:49:54 -0700 (PDT), Michael
<michael...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I agree it's ultimately a question of just plain belief, but I'm not sure why someone's letters are considered expressions of the Divine Will. Also, did Jesus ever say that the Bible is the inspired Word?

Perhaps belief must be accompanied by faith. There is no doubt in my
mind that what we see is the result of a Creator vice an accidental
Big Bang. That's belief. I have faith that Jesus taught me how to have
an eternal place with Him and God if I have that faith.

I can't answer your question except for myself. I don't need
expressions of Divine Will or Inspired Word. A very close friend who
has a PhD in Theology does. I am satisfied that the Bible is THE Rule
Book for Life. Sometimes I live up to it, sometimes I break the rules.

I don't care whether Adam and Eve were amoeba or monkeys or humans -
or whether amoeba evolved into monkeys and they into Adam and Eve. My
aforementioned friend does.

One convincing argument for me is the consistency. We can't repeat the
Big Bang and produce the consistency we see around us. Our Big Bangs
have been very destructive, not creative.

Once I start asking questions about the Bible I lose the thrust of the
message. I can't avoid the questions because I WANT TO KNOW. It is not
given to us to know.

Okay, if I am wrong, what have I lost? I have enjoyed life as much as
anyone for 85.5 years 2.5 days.

Hugh

[Michael Press]

In article <51a16242...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:

You are bound by laws. The freedom you have is to
choose which laws you will be bound by.

--
Michael Press

[Jim G.]

Eric Ramon sent the following on 5/25/2013 1:28 PM:

Why are you trying to make his head assplode?

--
Jim G. | It's baseball season, so life is good.
"One man practicing sportsmanship is far better than 50 preaching it."
-- Knute Rockne

[Jim G.]

J. Hugh Sullivan sent the following on 5/25/2013 8:39 PM:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:43:40 -0700 (PDT), Michael
> <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> First, I'm not sure why we consider Paul of Tarsus to be the expert on all =
>> Christian. I'd be much more swayed that this is the Divine Will if it was g=
>> ood old-fashioned red-lettered Jesus. Second, it's really interesting that =
>> homosexuality is offered as more or less equivalent to fornicators generall=
>> y. When people argue that the Bible argues against homosexuality, they are =
>> cherry-picking the sin out of others that are quite prevalent, such as drun=
>> kenness and covetous. Finally, as you probably know, the translation of the=
>> the word arsenokoitai has been under considerable debate. It appears to be=
>> a neologism created by Paul, perhaps from the OT.
>
> "Fornicators generally" is correct. But the Bible tells us that any
> sexual relations other than between a man and his wife is fornicating.

Where does the New Testament say this, exactly? Heck, for that matter,
the Ten Commandments of the *O*T simply prohibit adultery, but not
fornication.

Of course, the entire set of rules concerning sexual behavior was based
around practical concerns like family lineages and the importance of
heritage and the like, as opposed to morality itself. Back in those
days, they didn't have DNA testing to definitively determine an
offspring's parentage, and all that. Nowadays, that's not so much the case.

> Either we believe the Bible is the inspired word or we don't and
> argument is futile.

So you obey the inspired word of God when it suits your purposes and
ignore it when it doesn't? Got it.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:25:32 -0700, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

I choose which laws I observe and which I don't, therefore I am not
bound.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:38:52 -0500, "Jim G."
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>Why are you trying to make his head assplode?
>
>--
>Jim G. | It's baseball season, so life is good.
>"One man practicing sportsmanship is far better than 50 preaching it."
>-- Knute Rockne

That's the problem with net fishing. You sometimes bring in the bottom
feeding scavengers.

Hugh

[Michael Press]

In article <51a276b3...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:25:32 -0700, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <51a16242...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 25 May 2013 15:26:59 -0700 (PDT), Eric Ramon
> >> <ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I hate to expose your ignorance but the Old Testament was given to the
> >> >> Jews and I am not Jewish.
> >> >>
> >> >so you're not bound by the Ten Commandments. Ok. That's believable.
> >>
> >> Bound? I'm not bound to any law - I have free will.
> >
> >You are bound by laws. The freedom you have is to
> >choose which laws you will be bound by.
>

> I choose which laws I observe and which I don't, therefore I am not
> bound.

You cannot choose not to live under laws.
Therefore you are bound to live under laws.
As I said you can choose. You cannot choose
not to choose. You are bound.

--
Michael Press

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:45:00 -0500, "Jim G."
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>J. Hugh Sullivan sent the following on 5/25/2013 8:39 PM:
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:43:40 -0700 (PDT), Michael
>> <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> First, I'm not sure why we consider Paul of Tarsus to be the expert on all =
>>> Christian. I'd be much more swayed that this is the Divine Will if it was g=
>>> ood old-fashioned red-lettered Jesus. Second, it's really interesting that =
>>> homosexuality is offered as more or less equivalent to fornicators generall=
>>> y. When people argue that the Bible argues against homosexuality, they are =
>>> cherry-picking the sin out of others that are quite prevalent, such as drun=
>>> kenness and covetous. Finally, as you probably know, the translation of the=
>>> the word arsenokoitai has been under considerable debate. It appears to be=
>>> a neologism created by Paul, perhaps from the OT.
>>
>> "Fornicators generally" is correct. But the Bible tells us that any
>> sexual relations other than between a man and his wife is fornicating.
>
>Where does the New Testament say this, exactly? Heck, for that matter,
>the Ten Commandments of the *O*T simply prohibit adultery, but not
>fornication.

"Fornication Defined in Christianity...

Undoubtedly through the influence of the dominant Christian
traditions, in English the word fornication became defined as "the
sexual act when occurring outside of a marriage recognized by the
church." In other words, any person who had sex without being married
by the official church was called a "fornicator." Even if people were
married in other religions or sects, the established church considered
them "fornicators." This definition is still in use today, and even is
extended by certain groups to include those who remarry after
divorce."

I'll not research the verses for you since you obviously can't
understand anyhow.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:45:00 -0500, "Jim G."
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

You are following me around to respond to my posts like an obsession.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:07:26 -0700, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>You cannot choose not to live under laws.
>Therefore you are bound to live under laws.
>As I said you can choose. You cannot choose
>not to choose. You are bound.
>
>--
>Michael Press

I can't escape gravity (on earth) so I am bound by it. Being bound is
being limited. I may limit myself but man made laws do not limit me.
What they do is force me to decide if it is worth getting caught.

Hugh

bound 2 (bound)
n.
1. A boundary; a limit. Often used in the plural: Our joy knew no
bounds. Your remarks exceed the bounds of reason.
2. bounds The territory on, within, or near limiting lines: the bounds
of the kingdom.
v. bound·ed, bound·ing, bounds
v.tr.
1. To set a limit to; confine: a high wall that bounded the prison
yard; lives that were bounded by poverty.
2. To constitute the boundary or limit of: a city park that was
bounded by busy streets.
3. To identify the boundaries of; demarcate.
v.intr.
To border on another place, state, or country.

[Jim G.]

J. Hugh Sullivan sent the following on 5/26/2013 5:22 PM:

Well, I understand the difference between "in the New Testament" and "in
Christianity," which is apparently more than I can say for you.

What's equally funny is that your own quote shows that the word was
already being compromised by those with their own agendas at least as
far back as the "recognized by the church" and "established church"
bits, and yet you don't seem to realize it. Go figure. A bright guy like
you, and all.

[Jim G.]

J. Hugh Sullivan sent the following on 5/26/2013 5:25 PM:

> You are following me around to respond to my posts like an obsession.

And yet you just replied twice to the same message from me. I hate to
think how many times you'd have replied if you were as "obsessed" with
me as I supposedly am with you.

--
Jim G. | It's baseball season, so life is good.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Okay, what is your definition of fornication?

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:42:48 -0500, "Jim G."
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>J. Hugh Sullivan sent the following on 5/26/2013 5:25 PM:

>> You are following me around to respond to my posts like an obsession.
>
>And yet you just replied twice to the same message from me. I hate to
>think how many times you'd have replied if you were as "obsessed" with
>me as I supposedly am with you.
>
>--
>Jim G. | It's baseball season, so life is good.

I made two points in the two posts. I would have covered both in one
but it would have been beyond your ability to comprehend.

I was giving you the opportunity to show you are not a fool and, sorry
to say, you failed.

Hugh

[Michael Press]

In article <51a35a23...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:07:26 -0700, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >You cannot choose not to live under laws.
> >Therefore you are bound to live under laws.
> >As I said you can choose. You cannot choose
> >not to choose. You are bound.
>

> I can't escape gravity (on earth) so I am bound by it. Being bound is
> being limited. I may limit myself but man made laws

You know very well, Hugh Sullivan, that I did not say "man made laws."

This is closest to what I mean:

1. Restrained by a hand, rope, chain, fetters, or the like.

> do not limit me.
> What they do is force me to decide if it is worth getting caught.
>

> bound 2 (bound)
> n.
> 1. A boundary; a limit. Often used in the plural: Our joy knew no
> bounds. Your remarks exceed the bounds of reason.
> 2. bounds The territory on, within, or near limiting lines: the bounds
> of the kingdom.
> v. bound·ed, bound·ing, bounds
> v.tr.
> 1. To set a limit to; confine: a high wall that bounded the prison
> yard; lives that were bounded by poverty.
> 2. To constitute the boundary or limit of: a city park that was
> bounded by busy streets.
> 3. To identify the boundaries of; demarcate.
> v.intr.
> To border on another place, state, or country.

--
Michael Press

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 18:24:44 -0700, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>This is closest to what I mean:
>
>1. Restrained by a hand, rope, chain, fetters, or the like.

Okay.

Hugh

[Jim G.]

J. Hugh Sullivan sent the following on Mon, 27 May 2013 18:34:30 GMT:

You're missing the bigger point, but at least you seem to be realizing
that the definition itself has been a moving target for a very long
time.

But to repeat the bigger point, please point out where Jesus banned all
variations of "fornication" in the New Testament. You seem to be in an
awful rush to avoid answering that question.

[Jim G.]

J. Hugh Sullivan sent the following on Mon, 27 May 2013 18:38:59 GMT:

> On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:42:48 -0500, "Jim G."
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >J. Hugh Sullivan sent the following on 5/26/2013 5:25 PM:
>
> >> You are following me around to respond to my posts like an obsession.
> >
> >And yet you just replied twice to the same message from me. I hate to
> >think how many times you'd have replied if you were as "obsessed" with
> >me as I supposedly am with you.
> >
> >--
> >Jim G. | It's baseball season, so life is good.
>
> I made two points in the two posts. I would have covered both in one
> but it would have been beyond your ability to comprehend.

Of course. That *clearly* had to be the reason. I don't know why I
thought for a moment that it might be something else.

> I was giving you the opportunity to show you are not a fool and, sorry
> to say, you failed.

Says the guy who still can't back up his earlier claims and who instead
is trying desperately to move goalposts.

--
Jim G. | It's baseball season, so life is good.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:40:33 -0500, Jim G.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>Says the guy who still can't back up his earlier claims and who instead
>is trying desperately to move goalposts.

My claim was what the Bible says backed up by centuries of religious
belief. I have no answer when you lie about what I said.

You could really make an ass of yourself if God had not beaten you to
it.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:40:33 -0500, Jim G.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>J. Hugh Sullivan sent the following on Mon, 27 May 2013 18:34:30 GMT:

>> Okay, what is your definition of fornication?
>
>You're missing the bigger point, but at least you seem to be realizing
>that the definition itself has been a moving target for a very long
>time.

I know some people are queer. I know a lot more who are so weak they
suck up to them and support their filthy habits. That's your moving
target.

You are not answering my question.

>But to repeat the bigger point, please point out where Jesus banned all
>variations of "fornication" in the New Testament. You seem to be in an
>awful rush to avoid answering that question.

That's your point - I never made that claim. The Bible is very clear.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 20:15:11 GMT, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
Sullivan) writes:

I am going to cease my part in this exchange for several reasons...

1. I can't explain why some of the laws passed to the Jews in the Old
Testament are observed and why others are not. Some people shave, some
women become leaders of men, but we no longer offer sacrifices and
some people do their best to observe the Ten Commandments.

2. You indicated that Jesus didn't specifically condemn homosexuality
so you don't accept the numerous Biblical admonishments against.
Unless you are cherry-picking you must not agree with, for example,
the Ten Commandments that Jesus did not author. That's in spite of you
professing to believe in a few of your favorites that have no part in
an exchange on homosexuality. I have no response to such bias and
idiocy.

3. You don't accept the centuries old belief about fornication,
instead referring to the fact that it is a moving target because some
people don't agree. Would you use the same argument against the use of
illegal drugs and terrorism? If not you are a miserable hypocrite.

4. When you refused to accept the definition of fornication by
religious people for centuries, I asked for your definition of
fornication. Like the coward you are you have avoided answering. You
have tried to divert attention by substituting instances that are no
part of an exchange about homosexuality.

I will not reply further UNLESS you can prove to me that you have some
credibility either for your military service or in the business
community.

I may review my decision if you can prove yourself worthy of my time.
Otherwise I will regard you as the poor white trash you are.

Hugh

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

So who is the lucky recipient of this missive? Sorry for asking because
I was not following this thread...

[Jim G.]

J. Hugh Sullivan sent the following on 5/28/2013 3:15 PM:

> On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:40:33 -0500, Jim G.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Says the guy who still can't back up his earlier claims and who instead
>> is trying desperately to move goalposts.
>
> My claim was what the Bible says backed up by centuries of religious
> belief. I have no answer when you lie about what I said.

Then prove what the Bible says about fornication. *That's* the point
that you've been running away from. Of course, you have quite the
reputation around here for throwing around claims and accusations
without bothering to verify any of it first or prove it later, so this
really doesn't surprise me in the least.

Still, here's your chance to prove me wrong and break with your personal
tradition. Show me what Jesus had to say about fornication.

> You could really make an ass of yourself if God had not beaten you to
> it.

And once again a lame attempt at a putdown is used as a substitute for a
substantive response. C'mon, champ. Prove your claim. Prove me wrong.

[Jim G.]

J. Hugh Sullivan sent the following on 5/28/2013 4:16 PM:

> On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:40:33 -0500, Jim G.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> J. Hugh Sullivan sent the following on Mon, 27 May 2013 18:34:30 GMT:
>
>>> Okay, what is your definition of fornication?
>>
>> You're missing the bigger point, but at least you seem to be realizing
>> that the definition itself has been a moving target for a very long
>> time.
>
> I know some people are queer. I know a lot more who are so weak they
> suck up to them and support their filthy habits. That's your moving
> target.

What does being queer have to do with it? I suppose that you have queer
on the brain because of some deep denial of your own that has to do with
having your cock out while golfing and the like, but why are you
introducing it here? Stay with me, champ. Focus. We're talking about
*fornication* at the moment, which isn't just a gay thing.

> You are not answering my question.

The way the game is played is that you answer my questions before you
get to demand that I answer your own *subsequent* questions, champ. But
you won't, because it's easier for a mentally lazy and weak person like
you to just keep tossing out new questions when the alternative is to
actually do some critical thinking of your own.

>> But to repeat the bigger point, please point out where Jesus banned all
>> variations of "fornication" in the New Testament. You seem to be in an
>> awful rush to avoid answering that question.
>
> That's your point - I never made that claim. The Bible is very clear.

And you've made it very clear that you don't think that you have to
follow all of the requirements of the Old Testament. Because you're a
fine, Christian gentleman, and all that. So I'm limiting the scope of
the discussion to unique matters that fall under the faith that you
supposedly follow so closely: Christianity. That's why I've limited
things to the New Testament, and that's why I think that you made a
claim along those lines. Because the alternative would be that you would
presume to cherry-pick which parts of the Old Testament to follow and
which ones to blow off. And we both know that you would *never* do
something like that.

[Jim G.]

J. Hugh Sullivan sent the following on 5/29/2013 7:24 AM:

> On Tue, 28 May 2013 20:15:11 GMT, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
> Sullivan) writes:
>
> I am going to cease my part in this exchange for several reasons...

Oh, look who's replying to the same post of mine twice again. It's a
good thing that you're not obsessed, or anything. And the replies are
over 12 hours apart, too! But since you're not obsessed, or anything,
I'll just assume that you didn't spend any of that time thinking about
any of this stuff.

> 1. I can't explain why some of the laws passed to the Jews in the Old
> Testament are observed and why others are not.

Maybe you should give that some more thought before you act like a sheep
and follow along without any thought to the matter.

> Some people shave, some
> women become leaders of men, but we no longer offer sacrifices and
> some people do their best to observe the Ten Commandments.

Well, *you* certainly don't do your best when it comes to the Ten
Commandments bit. Or is someone holding a gun to your head every time
you post stuff that you haven't verified to be true?

> 2. You indicated that Jesus didn't specifically condemn homosexuality

Once again, you've got the ghey on your brain when I didn't say anything
about it or even introduce the subject. I've stuck with fornication all
along, champ, so any movement towards the ghey has come from you. Not
that it has anything to do with Alabama golfers, or anything.

> so you don't accept the numerous Biblical admonishments against.

It's amazing that a train could get this far off the tracks without
using a crane, or something.

> Unless you are cherry-picking you must not agree with, for example,
> the Ten Commandments that Jesus did not author.

Since the Ten don't mention fornication, I don't see why downplaying the
eeeeeevils of such behavior means that I don't believe in the Ten
Commandments.

What's so weird here is that you worry so much about people putting
unmarried penises into unmarried vaginas (which is not prohibited by the
Ten) even as you yourself blatantly and repeatedly *do* violate one of
the Ten. You'd rather break one of the Ten so that you can, say, attack
Obama than *not* break one of the Ten and get laid. If you were single
and not committing adultery, that is.) Very weird priorities there, champ.

> That's in spite of you
> professing to believe in a few of your favorites that have no part in
> an exchange on homosexuality. I have no response to such bias and
> idiocy.

I'll say this for you. When you grab onto the ghey, you hold on for dear
life. But once again for good measure, champ: I have not--not
once--spoken for *or* against homosexuality in my comments in this
thread. Why you continue to think otherwise is just one of the many
mysteries involving that calcifying brain of yours.

> 3. You don't accept the centuries old belief about fornication,
> instead referring to the fact that it is a moving target because some
> people don't agree.

No one is inherently obligated to follow the thinking and the choices of
the majority. Which, for you, is a good thing, as it means that you can
continue to post your lies about Obama and others you don't like.

> Would you use the same argument against the use of
> illegal drugs and terrorism? If not you are a miserable hypocrite.

I'm in favor of legalizing all drugs and for allowing people to pursue
their own recreational interests as long as they don't harm others in
the process. As for terrorism, I'm not quite seeing how the harm done by
terrorists is in any way comparable to the non-existent "harm" done by
unmarried people having sex. So you'll have to explain that one to me.

> 4. When you refused to accept the definition of fornication by
> religious people for centuries, I asked for your definition of
> fornication. Like the coward you are you have avoided answering.

I didn't answer because you still hadn't answered my *earlier* question.
But I suppose that's not cowardice when *you* do it, right? FWIW, that
earlier question was with regard to what Jesus had to say against
fornication. And yes, I'm still waiting for your answer.

> You
> have tried to divert attention by substituting instances that are no
> part of an exchange about homosexuality.

D00d. Enough with the ghey already. If coming out will allow you to stop
obsessing about it and introducing it into threads where I've said
nothing about it, then come out already.

> I will not reply further UNLESS you can prove to me that you have some
> credibility either for your military service or in the business
> community.

Heh. As if either of those is relevant to what Jesus did or did not say
about fornication, let alone about bearing false witness. You're funny,
champ.

> I may review my decision if you can prove yourself worthy of my time.
> Otherwise I will regard you as the poor white trash you are.

As you demonstrate once again, it's not easy to look macho when you're
busy running away from someone.

[Michael Press]

In article <rubrum-1C4CEC....@news.albasani.net>,

Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article

> <208fb92b-37b4-4a16...@vy4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpac...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 12:30 pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
> > > On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:51:20 -0700 (PDT), unklbob <mcgrisw...@aol.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >On May 23, 6:50=A0pm, "Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpaceForR...@mail.com> wrote:
> > > >> We are pleased with the result of the vote by the National
> > > >> Representatives to remove restrictions on the participation of youth
> > > >> in the Boy Scouts. =A0Our council=92s membership supports further changes
> > > >> to the membership standards and we will continue to advocate for the
> > > >> removal of restrictions based on sexual orientation. =A0We remain
> > > >> focused on the development of children so that they grow to become
> > > >> better citizens, better leaders, and active contributors to our
> > > >> state=92s future. =A0We will march forward on this mission while
> > > >> continuing our council=92s long standing policies and practices of
> > > >> nondiscrimination.
> > > >Does this mean Hugh can finally come out?
> > >
> > > I did in my letters to BSA and the National Eagle Scout Assn.
> > >
> > > Love the sinner just became a recommended practice for males in the
> > > BSA. It will be safe to admit girls now.
> > >
> > > The slogan used to be "If you can't lick 'em, join 'em". I guess that
> > > will change to "Join 'em and lick 'em".
> > >
> > > Hugh
> >
> >
> > I believe that Love the sinner is a Christian principle no?
>
> Do you have a citation or is that one of your religious beliefs?
> And what do you mean by `love?'

Mr. Cho has nothing.

--
Michael Press

[Mr. N.A.Cho]

On May 30, 4:52 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <rubrum-1C4CEC.13443225052...@news.albasani.net>,

>  Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article

> > <208fb92b-37b4-4a16-ae11-0f3156d0f...@vy4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

> Michael Press- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You did some weird wild snippage there my friend, I didn't post any of
those words......

[Michael Press]

In article
<5b1fa780-0ecb-42ea...@b4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
"Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpac...@mail.com> wrote:

> On May 30, 4:52?| am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> In article <rubrum-1C4CEC.13443225052...@news.albasani.net>,

>> ?| Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <208fb92b-37b4-4a16-ae11-0f3156d0f...@vy4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

>>> ?| "Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpaceForR...@mail.com> wrote:

>>>> On May 24, 12:30?| pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:51:20 -0700 (PDT), unklbob <mcgrisw...@aol.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>On May 23, 6:50=A0pm, "Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpaceForR...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> We are pleased with the result of the vote by the National
>>>>>>> Representatives to remove restrictions on the participation of youth
>>>>>>> in the Boy Scouts. =A0Our council=92s membership supports further changes
>>>>>>> to the membership standards and we will continue to advocate for the
>>>>>>> removal of restrictions based on sexual orientation. =A0We remain
>>>>>>> focused on the development of children so that they grow to become
>>>>>>> better citizens, better leaders, and active contributors to our
>>>>>>> state=92s future. =A0We will march forward on this mission while
>>>>>>> continuing our council=92s long standing policies and practices of
>>>>>>> nondiscrimination.
>>>>>>Does this mean Hugh can finally come out?
>>
>>>>> I did in my letters to BSA and the National Eagle Scout Assn.
>>
>>>>> Love the sinner just became a recommended practice for males in the
>>>>> BSA. It will be safe to admit girls now.
>>
>>>>> The slogan used to be "If you can't lick 'em, join 'em". I guess that
>>>>> will change to "Join 'em and lick 'em".
>>

>>>> I believe that Love the sinner is a Christian principle no?
>>
>>> Do you have a citation or is that one of your religious beliefs?
>>> And what do you mean by `love?'
>>
>> Mr. Cho has nothing.
>

> You did some weird wild snippage there my friend, I didn't post any of
> those words......

In message <208fb92b-37b4-4a16...@vy4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
you wrote

"I believe that Love the sinner is a Christian principle no?"

I addressed you on those words that _you_ wrote, and
you continue to ignore the questions I asked you. You
are at liberty to ignore my questions and I am at
liberty to broadcast the fact that you ignore the questions.

--
Michael Press