PDA

View Full Version : Lesbian Methodist Minister



Lucky
December 3rd, 2004, 12:58 AM
Lesbian Minister Defrocked by Methodist Court

Reuters.com (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6983764)

By Jon Hurdle

PUGHTOWN, Pennsylvania (Reuters) - A lesbian Methodist minister was defrocked on Thursday after being found guilty by an ecclesiastical court of violating a church law that bars its clergy from being practicing homosexuals.

A jury of 13 clergy from the United Methodist Church voted 12-1 that Irene Elizabeth Stroud had violated the church's Book of Discipline that says homosexuality is incompatible with being a minister. The jury then voted 7-6 to withdraw Stroud's ministerial credentials at the First United Methodist Church of Germantown in Philadelphia.

The decision came after a two-day public trial -- only the third in the history of the United Methodist Church -- in which Stroud, associate pastor at the church, was accused of violating church law by being an "a self-avowed practicing homosexual."

After the court's decision, Stroud said the close decision of the jury on the penalty showed how divided the church was on the issue of homosexuality.

"I feel a lot of sadness but I also feel hope for the future of the church," Stroud said. "I feel that this is a teaching moment for the church."

During an April, 2003 sermon, Stroud told her congregation that she was living in a committed relationship with another woman. She declined to practice celibacy or transfer to another, more tolerant denomination, and decided to be open about her sexuality.

After the announcement, Stroud's supporters from the Germantown church, some in tears, joined hands in the gymnasium where the trial was held and repeatedly sang a song that included the words "We are gay and straight together."

KEY ELECTION ISSUE

Same-sex marriage was a prominent issue in November's U.S. presidential election, with many conservative voters backing President Bush's reelection after his support for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages.

Rev. Fred Day, senior pastor at Stroud's church, spoke of his "deep disappointment" at the verdict.

"This is not the United Methodist Church of our just heritage," he said.

Stroud can continue working at the church as a lay person but will not be able to perform ceremonies such as baptisms and weddings. She has 30 days to decide whether to appeal.

During his testimony, Rev. Day said that convicting Stroud because of her sexuality would be as discriminatory as making a judgment on the basis of color, ethnicity or economic status.

Day praised Stroud, 34, as an outstanding pastor and a person of "great spiritual integrity" who moves and inspires her congregation. "She cannot get through a baptism without us having to pause for a crying jag," Day told the court.

Questioned by church counsel Thomas Hall about whether it was acceptable for a minister to violate the discipline of the church, Day said, "The answer is clearly 'yes'."

"It is my belief that United Methodist discipline isn't clear on this subject," Day said, citing a church regulation stating homosexuals are of equal worth to people of other orientations. "How much worth do homosexuals have if they are not allowed to rise to positions of leadership?"

In his closing statement, Williams appealed to the jury to see the rights of all members of the church as equal.

Hall argued on behalf of the church that the denomination's Book of Discipline banned openly homosexual clergy, and told the jury that members of the church could not "negate" the regulations even if they object to them.

The United Methodist Church says on its Web site that it has some 8.25 million lay members and nearly 45,000 clergy in more than 35,000 local U.S. churches. It also has another 1.86 million members in 12 foreign countries.

SOTK
December 3rd, 2004, 02:27 AM
During his testimony, Rev. Day said that convicting Stroud because of her sexuality would be as discriminatory as making a judgment on the basis of color, ethnicity or economic status.

Yeah, heaven forbid, we as Christians, should be discriminatory against something God forbids. :rolleyes:

:vomit:

Lighthouse
December 3rd, 2004, 03:10 AM
:think:
Would they be just as torn up over a heterosexual minister who was legally single, but had a live-in boyfriedn/girlfriend and was admitting to having sex with them, and not seeing it as wrong? Or, how about a minister who commits adultery, as if there's nothing wrong with that? And admits to it, from the pulipt...

:nono:

Frank Ernest
December 3rd, 2004, 05:56 AM
"During his testimony, Rev. Day said that convicting Stroud because of her sexuality would be as discriminatory as making a judgment on the basis of color, ethnicity or economic status."

Sooooooooo, according to the Rev. Day, God's Word must conform to man's earthly concerns and judgments. Interesting line of thought. Isaiah 5:20-21 comes to mind.

Also Dennis Prager quote in sig line.

philosophizer
December 3rd, 2004, 07:22 AM
The alternate title for this article could be:

Lesbian Methodist Minister Defrocked for Administering Lesbian Methods.

Ecumenicist
December 3rd, 2004, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

:think:
Would they be just as torn up over a heterosexual minister who was legally single, but had a live-in boyfriedn/girlfriend and was admitting to having sex with them, and not seeing it as wrong? Or, how about a minister who commits adultery, as if there's nothing wrong with that? And admits to it, from the pulipt...

:nono:

This analogy doesn't work, because heterosexual people have
a choice to express themselves within the confines of an
exclusive, committed relationship. Homosexual people have
no such choice in the church, their choices are celibacy or sin
in the eyes of the church.

And don't say "they could choose to be hetero," unless you are
willing to say you could "choose to be homo." I know I
couldn't, its not part of who I am.

The enemy is not homosexuality, its promiscuity, in all
relationships.

Dave

philosophizer
December 3rd, 2004, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

The enemy is not homosexuality, its promiscuity, in all relationships.

Homosexuality is a problem. It's a sin and we should say so.

And, if I'm not mistaken, lighthouse's post was about rebuking promiscuity.

Art Deco
December 3rd, 2004, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by SOTK

Yeah, heaven forbid, we as Christians, should be discriminatory against something God forbids. :rolleyes:

:vomit: It aint over until the fat lady sings...stand by for a law suit in a civil court to re-instate the homo pastorette:




Note:The link can be found at www.worldnetdaily.com under: Minister Faces Suit For Following Bible (second news item from the top)

Nineveh
December 3rd, 2004, 09:00 AM
What is going on in Pennsylvania? Isn't this where the Epicopals were introduced to pagan practice by their preistess, too? Anyway, 3 cheers to the methodists who are doing what the Episcopals are too "all inclusive" to do!


Art Deco,

Eegads! Now it's "against the law" to excommunicate people? Thanks for pointing out that article :) ( direct link (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/22004b.asp) )

Delmar
December 3rd, 2004, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

This analogy doesn't work, because heterosexual people have
a choice to express themselves within the confines of an
exclusive, committed relationship. Homosexual people have
no such choice in the church, their choices are celibacy or sin
in the eyes of the church.

And don't say "they could choose to be hetero," unless you are
willing to say you could "choose to be homo." I know I
couldn't, its not part of who I am.

The enemy is not homosexuality, its promiscuity, in all
relationships.

Dave No Dave the enemy is behaviour that leads to death! Homosexuality leads to death ! That's why God forbids it!

Crow
December 3rd, 2004, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

This analogy doesn't work, because heterosexual people have
a choice to express themselves within the confines of an
exclusive, committed relationship. Homosexual people have
no such choice in the church, their choices are celibacy or sin
in the eyes of the church.

And don't say "they could choose to be hetero," unless you are
willing to say you could "choose to be homo." I know I
couldn't, its not part of who I am.

The enemy is not homosexuality, its promiscuity, in all
relationships.

Dave

God set a standard within which sex is acceptable. He did not guarantee everyone "The right to have sex." or "freedom of sexual expression." That "right" doesn't exist within the Bible.

philosophizer
December 3rd, 2004, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Crow

God set a standard within which sex is acceptable. He did not guarantee everyone "The right to have sex." or "freedom of sexual expression." That "right" doesn't exist within the Bible.


"Rights" don't exist naturally, anyway. Freedoms do. Rights are created by societies.

NavyDude
December 3rd, 2004, 10:41 AM
To quote The Daily Show's Stephen Colbert, "For a story headline titled, 'Lesbian violates book of discipline,' this story isn't nearly as hot as I thought it'd be." :chuckle:

Lucky
December 3rd, 2004, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

It aint over until the fat lady sings...
Or in this case, it's the fag lady.

ShadowMaid
December 3rd, 2004, 01:25 PM
I can't believe people are so confused as to RESPECT and HONOR a homo!! :madmad:

Ecumenicist
December 3rd, 2004, 01:26 PM
I heard on the radio the source of the word " fag" as it applies
to homosexual people.

A faggot is a piece or bundle of kindling. Said kindling had been
so often and routinely used by good Christians to burn homosexual
people alive at the stake, that the name has "stuck" with
homosexual people. Use of the term convicts perpetrators
of evil against humanity, and therefore against God.

Dave

Lighthouse
December 3rd, 2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

This analogy doesn't work, because heterosexual people have
a choice to express themselves within the confines of an
exclusive, committed relationship. Homosexual people have
no such choice in the church, their choices are celibacy or sin
in the eyes of the church.

And don't say "they could choose to be hetero," unless you are
willing to say you could "choose to be homo." I know I
couldn't, its not part of who I am.

The enemy is not homosexuality, its promiscuity, in all
relationships.

Dave
They can choose to submit to Christ. Homosexuality is not normal. People are not born that way, and it is not something they have no choice in. They have a choice. They can choose Christ, and He will turn them from their wicked ways. And the reason I can't choose to be a faggot is not because of who I am, but because of who I am in Christ. Homosexuality is contrary to who I am in Christ. If it were not for Christ, I could be promiscuous, and I could be bisexual, for all I know. Heterosexuality is how we were all created to be. It is not contrary to who anyone is in Christ.

Lighthouse
December 3rd, 2004, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

I heard on the radio the source of the word " fag" as it applies
to homosexual people.

A faggot is a piece or bundle of kindling. Said kindling had been
so often and routinely used by good Christians to burn homosexual
people alive at the stake, that the name has "stuck" with
homosexual people. Use of the term convicts perpetrators
of evil against humanity, and therefore against God.

Dave
You are a fag.

Ecumenicist
December 3rd, 2004, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

You are a fag.

I'm sorry that you've had to suffer all that you have, and
that its brought you to this place of intolerance and hatred.

Its not what Christ has in mind for you, and its not
reflective of a Spirit perfected in Christ.

May you find Grace and Peace and forgiveness in Christ,
for yourself and for others who have hurt you (including
myself.)

God Bless,

Dave

Lighthouse
December 3rd, 2004, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

I'm sorry that you've had to suffer all that you have, and
that its brought you to this place of intolerance and hatred.

Its not what Christ has in mind for you, and its not
reflective of a Spirit perfected in Christ.

May you find Grace and Peace and forgiveness in Christ,
for yourself and for others who have hurt you (including
myself.)

God Bless,

Dave
I have suffered nothing, but your ignorance and defiance of God. Yes, I am intolerant, and that's because some things are stupid. I am not intolerant out of hate. I am intolerant because I love. You are the one who hates, Dave. You hate God, and all of His creation.

Nineveh
December 3rd, 2004, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

so often and routinely used by good Christians to burn homosexual
people alive at the stake

Where? When? I recall homos burning Christians at the stake and feeding them to lions, but I don't recall any event in history of Chrisitans burning homos at the stake.


that the name has "stuck" with
homosexual people.

From what I am getting looking for an origin on the term, "burning homos" at the stake is only one possibility, and even then I find it only at homosexual sites. It seems odd only homos would bear out the term for being burned at the stake from reading Foxe's Book of Martyrs. So I would really appriciate if you share with me your evidence for such a claim.


Use of the term convicts perpetrators
of evil against humanity, and therefore against God.

And what do you know of "convicting"?

Ecumenicist
December 3rd, 2004, 07:07 PM
Nice to hear from you Nin, how ya been?

Delmar
December 3rd, 2004, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Where? When? I recall homos burning Christians at the stake and feeding them to lions, but I don't recall any event in history of Chrisitans burning homos at the stake.


you tell em!

Nineveh
December 3rd, 2004, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

Nice to hear from you Nin, how ya been?

Waiting for a reply on your "reality of evil and hell" thread :) But it doesn't look like I'm going to get a serious one on this thread either...

Frank Ernest
December 4th, 2004, 06:35 AM
The term "faggot" in reference to homosexuals: Romans 1:26-27.

Zakath
December 4th, 2004, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Where? When? ... but I don't recall any event in history of Chrisitans burning homos at the stake.
Why don't you ask Ms. Linda Cloutier-Namdar, editor of the Vermont edition of United Church News, who also serves as the Director of Children's & Youth Ministries at First Congregational UCC in Burlington, Vt....


...In earlier times, one horrible punishment was to tie a person to a stake and then burn him or her alive. In order to get a roaring fire, bundles of sticks—called faggots—were piled around those tied to the stake.

Because those accused of being homosexuals were so frequently burned at the stake, the word faggot eventually became an offensive slang word for a homosexual person. The British slang word for cigarette is fag, a smaller burning torch— and again, in this country fag has come to refer negatively to a homosexual person...

Source (http://www.ucc.org/ucnews/aug01/inmy.htm)

Ask most philologists and they'll agree that exact entymologies of words can be diffcult to pin down. The difficulty with the idea that a "faggot" of wood has anything to do with homosexuals is that calling a homosexual a faggot is only done in English speaking countries while in England homosexuals were hanged, not burned, for their crime. It seems likely that the association of the term with homosexual behavior derived from a mispronunciation of the foreign (to English) word baggage which, in French and Italian, can take the meaning of "slut" or "whore."

On the other hand, there is some historical evidence that the Albingensians recommended homosexuality as a way of not "defiling oneself with women" (as the Bible so charmingly puts it in Revelation). Historical records show that when, during the 13th century CE, Albingensians were burned at the stake, usually after being tried and convicted by Church officials, homsexuality was often one of the charges read.

Another association of homosexuals and burning may have come from the Churches' treatment of those accused as witches during the Middle Ages and later. These peole were often associated with alleged bisexual activity, and they were not infrequently burned at the stake...

IIRC, Joan of Arc was officially convicted and executed for the crime of transvestitism (with its implications of lesbianism) and burned at the stake...

[Zakath settles back and gets ready for the inevitable No True Scotsman argument...]

Crow
December 4th, 2004, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Why don't you ask Ms. Linda Cloutier-Namdar, editor of the Vermont edition of United Church News, who also serves as the Director of Children's & Youth Ministries at First Congregational UCC in Burlington, Vt....



Ask most philologists and they'll agree that exact entymologies of words can be diffcult to pin down. The difficulty with the idea that a "faggot" of wood has anything to do with homosexuals is that calling a homosexual a faggot is only done in English speaking countries while in England homosexuals were hanged, not burned, for their crime. It seems likely that the association of the term with homosexual behavior derived from a mispronunciation of the foreign (to English) word baggage which, in French and Italian, can take the meaning of "slut" or "whore."

On the other hand, there is some historical evidence that the Albingensians recommended homosexuality as a way of not "defiling oneself with women" (as the Bible so charmingly puts it in Revelation). Historical records show that when, during the 13th century CE, Albingensians were burned at the stake, usually after being tried and convicted by Church officials, homsexuality was often one of the charges read.

Another association of homosexuals and burning may have come from the Churches' treatment of those accused as witches during the Middle Ages and later. These peole were often associated with alleged bisexual activity, and they were not infrequently burned at the stake...

IIRC, Joan of Arc was officially convicted and executed for the crime of transvestitism (with its implications of lesbianism) and burned at the stake...

[Zakath settles back and gets ready for the inevitable No True Scotsman argument...]

More on the origins of "faggot" and a few other terms. Too bad the learned whats-her-name didn't quote the source of her speculation on the origin.

source (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Faggot%20(slang)) I didn't go through and connect all of the links--ir y'all are truly fascinated, go to the source link above.



In modern American

United States of America
(U.S. Flag) (U.S. Great Seal)
National Mottos
(1776 - ): E Pluribus Unum
(Latin: "Out of many, one")
(1956 - ): In God We Trust
Official language None at Federal Level,
Some States Specify
English; de facto, Spanish spoken by growing minority, especially in the West
..... Click the link for more information. _and Canadian Canada, historically the Dominion of Canada, is the northernmost country in North America. It is a decentralized federation of 10 provinces and 3 territories, governed as a constitutional monarchy and formed in 1867 through an act of Confederation. It is bordered by the United States to the south and to the northwest. The country stretches from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west. Canada also reaches the Arctic Ocean in the north where Canada's territorial claim extends to the North Pole.
..... Click the link for more information. _usage faggot or fag is a generally pejorative A word or phrase is pejorative if it expresses contempt or disapproval about the thing or person described. Most pejorative expressions may also be used in a non-pejorative way, however, and (as with any implied meaning) determining the intent of the speaker is problematic.

Although pejorative means the same thing as disparaging, the latter term may be applied to a look or gesture as well as to words and phrases.
..... Click the link for more information. _term for gay For people whose family name is Gay see the .

Gay, in addition to meaning "merry", "joyous" or "glad", also means homosexual.

The word gay has had a sexual meaning since at least the nineteenth century (and possibly earlier) – in Victorian England, female and male prostitutes were called "gay" (because they dressed gaily). Eventually,
..... Click the link for more information. _men. The origins of the word in this sense have been clouded by mythology.

It has been frequently said that it derives from faggot in the sense of a bundle of sticks, because homosexual men were burned at the stake for sodomy Sodomy is a term used in sodomy law for various forbidden sex acts. It is commonly used to describe the specific act of anal sex, but has also been used to include non-coital sexual acts such as oral sex and zoophilia.





Etymology

The term sodomy derives from the name of the ancient city of Sodom, which according to the Bible was destroyed by God for its misdeeds (see Sodom and Gomorrah). In today's common language it identifies the practice of anal intercourse, even if Sodom in the Bible was not primarily or exclusively condemned for homosexual acts.
..... Click the link for more information. _and faggots were used as kindling. A variant on this is that homosexual men were themselves used as kindling. The gay liberation The gay rights movement is a collection of loosely aligned civil rights groups, human rights groups, support groups and political activists seeking acceptance, tolerance and equality for non-heterosexuals (homosexual, bisexuals), and the transgendered - despite the fact that it is typically refered to as the gay rights movement, members also promote the rights of groups of individuals who do not necesarily identify as being 'gay'. (Compare Homosexuality and transgender.) These views are considered controversial by some, and the gay rights movement is opposed by a variety of individuals and groups including some religious and political (traditionally though not exclusively right-wing) groups.
..... Click the link for more information. _movement of the 1970s promoted this supposed derivation to highlight the historical oppression of homosexual men.

There is, however, no historical evidence for these supposed derivations, and the use of the term faggot for gay men goes back only to the 19th century. The fact that the word appeared in the United States

United States of America
(U.S. Flag) (U.S. Great Seal)
National Mottos
(1776 - ): E Pluribus Unum
(Latin: "Out of many, one")
(1956 - ): In God We Trust
Official language None at Federal Level,
Some States Specify
English; de facto, Spanish spoken by growing minority, especially in the West
..... Click the link for more information. , and not in Britain The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a state in western Europe, usually known simply as the United Kingdom, the UK or less accurately as Great Britain or Britain. The UK was formed by a series of Acts of Union which united the formerly distinct nations of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland under a single government in London. The greater part of Ireland left the United Kingdom in 1922 and is today the Republic of Ireland, whilst the north-eastern portion of the island, Northern Ireland, remains part of the United Kingdom.
..... Click the link for more information. , where burnings for sodomy did take place until the 17th century, makes this derivation unlikely.

The more likely derivation is that faggot was originally a derogatory term for street prostitutes, female and male, because they were associated with "the gutter," where "faggot-ends" of meat were thrown by butchers. The term "faggot girls" for prostitutes is attested from the late 19th century. It is also possible that the expression "fag" meaning a cigarette-butt, something which is used and thrown in the gutter, contributed to the derivation of the word.

"Fag" was also a term used for a junior boy who acted as a servant for a senior at Eton College Eton College, is a public school (that is, an independent, fee-paying secondary school) for boys in Eton, Berkshire near Windsor.



It boards approximately 1,200 boys between the ages of 13 and 18 who enjoy some outstanding facilities at a cost of over £23,000 (GBP) a year. As at most 'public schools', its pupils achieve very good exam results. 'Public schools' in the British sense are not state funded or run, rather they are the top independent secondary schools.
..... Click the link for more information. _near Eton, Berkshire Eton is a town in Berkshire, England, lying on the opposite bank of the River Thames to Windsor and connected to it by a bridge. Until 1974 Eton was in Buckinghamshire.

The town is best known as the location of Eton College, an exclusive public school.


..... Click the link for more information. , England England
(In detail) ( In detail )
Royal motto: Dieu et mon droit
(French: God and my right)
Official language None; English is de facto
Capital London
Capital's coordinates 51° 30' N, 0° 10' W
Largest city London
Area
_- Total Ranked 1st UK
130,395 km²
Population
_- Total (2004)
_- Density Ranked 1st UK

..... Click the link for more information. . This practice, known as "fagging", was ended in the 1970s.

Faggot has historically been one of the most offensive terms that could be addressed to an American male; even so, in recent years it has come to be used by gay men in a defiant or self-mocking way, rather as African American An African-American is an American predominantly descended from black Africans. Over the years, the term has supplanted, in succession, the equivalent terms, "colored," "negro," and "Negro," and commonly is used interchangeably with "black."

Virtually all persons who refer to themselves as African-Americans are descendants of persons brought to the Americas as slaves or indentured servants between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries.
..... Click the link for more information. _men have taken to using the word "****** The word ****** is a highly controversial term still used in many countries to refer to people with dark skin, particularly those of African origin. It was once used freely in standard English.

It carries a strong connotation of personal inferiority and even unpleasant exoticism, which makes it so highly pejorative that most people no longer use it, particularly in public. See the Wiktionary entry for more relating to this.
..... Click the link for more information. ". When used as a pejorative, however, it is still a powerful term of abuse. (See for example Fred Phelps Fred Phelps is the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, United States, which is best known for its web sites godhatesfags.com and godhatesamerica.com. Gay rights activists have denounced him as a producer of anti-gay propaganda.





Biography

Fred Phelps was born in November 13, 1929, in Meridian, Mississippi. Phelps founded Westboro Baptist Church in 1955. While running the church, Phelps also attempted to work as a lawyer. His peers, however, came to believe that Fred Phelps had little regard for ethics, and he was disbarred by the Kansas Supreme Court for ethical violations.
..... Click the link for more information. _and his "God hates fags" campaign.)

Originally confined to the United States, faggot has been spread by American popular culture to other English-speaking countries, where it has begun to displace British-English terms such as queer "Queer" is a controversial word, literally meaning unusual, used by and for people whose sexual orientation and/or gender identity are against the normative: a unifying umbrella term for people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, transsexual, and/or intersex. In this usage, it is usually a synonym of such terms as LGBT or lesbigay. "The term 'queer' itself, as positive nomination rather than hurtful slur" dates from 1990 (Thomas 2000 and Berlant and Warner 1995) and was popularized by the activist group Queer Nation.


British English is a collective term for the forms of English spoken in the British Isles. In particular, when used by other English speakers, it often refers to the written Standard English and the pronunciation known as Received Pronunciation (RP), the term is often used to make a distinction from American English. In such context the written form is sometimes called International English, since few other English-speaking countries have adopted the changes in spelling introduced by nineteenth century US lexicographers.
..... Click the link for more information. as colloquial or abusive terms for gay men, particularly among heterosexual youth. However, due to the use of the slang term fag in British slang for cigarette A cigarette is a disposable smoke delivery device, used for the purpose of inhaling smoke after being ignited on one end.

A cigarette is a small (generally less than 10cm in length and 10mm in diameter) cylinder of cured and shredded or cut tobacco leaves, wrapped in paper, which is ignited and allowed to smolder for the purpose of inhaling its smoke. Tobacco smoke is being drawn in by the mouth from the non-smoking end. The term, as commonly used, typically refers to a tobacco cigarette, but can apply to similar devices containing other herbs.
..... Click the link for more information. , the usage is nowhere near common, with words such as poof and batty boy Batty boy is Jamaican slang for a homosexual man. It stems from the Patois word batty meaning bottom and means someone who likes anal sex.

Zakath
December 4th, 2004, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Crow

More on the origins of "faggot" and a few other terms. Too bad the learned whats-her-name didn't quote the source of her speculation on the origin. Agreed... I think it has become kind of an "urban legend" type rumination in some circles. Hard to track down where it came from but commonly repeated because it really sounds like it supports the point they want to make...

BTW, what does the Great Seal of the US, etc have to do with the topic??? :think:

Nineveh
December 4th, 2004, 08:13 AM
Z,
I have read so many origins for the word now, to assume it's related to "so often and routinely used by good Christians to burn homosexual people alive at the stake" at some undisclosed time in the past is a very narrow view to take. As I told dave, about the only places that support this narrow view of the origin are homosexual sites. The one you posted is very pro-homo.

Art Deco
December 4th, 2004, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh Art Deco,

Eegads! Now it's "against the law" to excommunicate people? Thanks for pointing out that article :) ( direct link (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/22004b.asp) )


Thanks for providing the direct link Nineveh. My tech skills are shamefully limited. :o

Ecumenicist
December 4th, 2004, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Waiting for a reply on your "reality of evil and hell" thread :) But it doesn't look like I'm going to get a serious one on this thread either...

The question on that thread is resting in your lap. I'm waiting
for your reply.

Have a nice weekend!


Dave

Nineveh
December 4th, 2004, 08:39 AM
dave,
Rather, like most of our other convos, they come to an end when you don't reply. Your exegesis over there is about as accurate as it is over here.

Crow
December 4th, 2004, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Agreed... I think it has become kind of an "urban legend" type rumination in some circles. Hard to track down where it came from but commonly repeated because it really sounds like it supports the point they want to make...

BTW, what does the Great Seal of the US, etc have to do with the topic??? :think:

The copy and paste I did was part of a fairly long discourse about the terms relating to faggotry in several different countries. I don't know why the great seal was considered germaine. It just came along just like some of the other useless info one has to sift through to find the pertinent stuff at that site.

Zakath
December 4th, 2004, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Crow

The copy and paste I did was part of a fairly long discourse about the terms relating to faggotry in several different countries. I don't know why the great seal was considered germaine. It just came along just like some of the other useless info one has to sift through to find the pertinent stuff at that site. OK. Thanks for clarifying. I thought I had missed part of the conversation somewhere... :thumb:

Zakath
December 4th, 2004, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Z,
I have read so many origins for the word now, to assume it's related to "so often and routinely used by good Christians to burn homosexual people alive at the stake" at some undisclosed time in the past is a very narrow view to take. As I told dave, about the only places that support this narrow view of the origin are homosexual sites. The one you posted is very pro-homo. Interesting perspective. Of course if we had been having this discussion about a hundred and fifty years ago you might have accused the congregations that became the UCC of being "antibiblical ****** lovers"... :rolleyes:

Crow
December 4th, 2004, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

OK. Thanks for clarifying. I thought I had missed part of the conversation somewhere... :thumb:

If we were going to label anything or anyone a faggot based on Cloutier-Namdar's line of thinking, it would probably be Christians with unsanctioned views on church doctrine and the occasional indiscrete pagan.

Zakath
December 4th, 2004, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Crow

If we were going to label anything or anyone a faggot based on Cloutier-Namdar's line of thinking, it would probably be Christians with unsanctioned views on church doctrine and the occasional indiscrete pagan. Why hang labels at all? What does that accomplish, except to ostracize some people who don't carry the "correct" label?

Crow
December 4th, 2004, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Why hang labels at all? What does that accomplish, except to ostracize some people who don't carry the "correct" label?

Because labels are a necessary part of speech to convey thought. I'm not going to sit and try to think up a way around "using a label" when I discuss something like "rapists" or "taxpayers" or "nosepickers" or "skateboarders" or "jocks" for example. I'll convey the thought in the most efficient manner possible, hence the use of labels.

Zakath
December 4th, 2004, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Crow

Because labels are a necessary part of speech to convey thought. I'm not going to sit and try to think up a way around "using a label" when I discuss something like "rapists" or "taxpayers" or "nosepickers" or "skateboarders" or "jocks" for example. I'll convey the thought in the most efficient manner possible, hence the use of labels. I guess that efficiency is a larger concern than accuracy, then. Don't you feel a person is much more than any single label you hang on them? For example you might have any one of a number of labels including "mother", "Christian", "heterosexual", "U.S. citizen", etc. Yet not a single one of them sums up who you are, you might be an "atypical" one of any (or all) of the types described by the labels.

For instance, I'd rather live next door to a Muslim (who happens to be peace-loving, god-fearing, family-loving), than a sinlessly perfect Christian (who was a raucous, whiskey-swigging, and wife-beater) anyday. ;)

Crow
December 4th, 2004, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

I guess that efficiency is a larger concern than accuracy, then. Don't you feel a person is much more than any single label you hang on them? For example you might have any one of a number of labels including "mother", "Christian", "heterosexual", "U.S. citizen", etc. Yet not a single one of them sums up who you are, you might be an "atypical" one of any (or all) of the types described by the labels.

For instance, I'd rather live next door to a Muslim (who happens to be peace-loving, god-fearing, pro-family), than a sinlessly perfect Christian (who was raucous, whiskey-swigging, and wife-beating) anyday. ;)

We all fit under more than one label. But we catagorize to understand. When you see a patient, isn't one of the first things you do is to assess them and try to come up with a diagnosis? And isn't a diagnosis a label? Of course that person is more than a label. No one in their right mind thinks a label is a total description, unless, or course, they are a fruitcake.

Zakath
December 4th, 2004, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Crow

We all fit under more than one label. But we catagorize to understand. I'm with you so far...


When you see a patient, isn't one of the first things you do is to assess them and try to come up with a diagnosis? And isn't a diagnosis a label?Yes, but that is a particular circumstance requiring categorization of processes to devise a treatment. One label is used to condemn and drive people away from society, while the other is an attempt to heal and bring understanding.

"God hates fags." is quite a bit different from "Shizophrenics are mentally confused individuals.


Of course that person is more than a label. No one in their right mind thinks a label is a total description, unless, or course, they are a fruitcake. Ahh... there's a Jimmy Buffett song by that title... :guitar:

Crow
December 4th, 2004, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Zakath


"God hates fags." is quite a bit different from "Shizophrenics are mentally confused individuals.


It is different, but do you know exactly what the individual who makes that statement is conveying without furthur explaination?

The purpose of any label is so that we can understand what the other person is talking about. Just as you wish to convey certain information by saying "so and so is BPD" another person conveys other information by "fag."

Now if you don't agree with the viewpoint of the person who is conveying information, sobeit, but it doesn't mean that labels aren't useful and effective.

Lighthouse
December 5th, 2004, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

[Zakath settles back and gets ready for the inevitable No True Scotsman argument...]
What pint is that argument. Especially since any man who is born in Scotland is a Scotsman, no matter what. And when it comes to Christianity, anyone who is born of the Spirit [of God] is a Christian. And than will never change, not for either one of them. So, the true question is, were those who burned certain people at the stake born of the Spirit? Well, if the reasons they put these people to death were for committing capitol crimes, that were against the Mosaic law, and the death penalty was commanded, then I see no reason to believe they weren't born of the Spirit. As long as it was the government who was responsible for the conviction and sentencing. Burning witches and queers at the stake is very Christian. Now, if the claims of Joan of Arc were true, then those who convicted her were not born of the Spirit, or they would have known she was telling the truth. Of course, we are speaking of Catholics in some of these instances, and I do not believe that the Catholic officials responsible for some of these things were truly born of the Spirit, or they would have left the Catholic faith, realizing that the doctrines were contra-Biblical. As Martin Luther did.

Lighthouse
December 5th, 2004, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

"God hates fags." is quite a bit different from "Shizophrenics are mentally confused individuals.
There's a problem with that phrase, though. It's a lie. God doesn't hate fags. Fags hate God. God loves them, which is why He hates what they are. Well, I guess one could say that God hates fags, and be correct. Seeing as how semantics could be an issue. I could say that God loves firechyld, or beanieboy, and that they are both fags, and God hates fags, and it would all be true.

Frank Ernest
December 5th, 2004, 05:40 AM
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
--Stephen Roberts

:darwinsm: I do hope this quote was not meant to be representative of some form of "thought."

Frank Ernest
December 5th, 2004, 06:03 AM
"Yes, but that is a particular circumstance requiring categorization of processes to devise a treatment. One label is used to condemn and drive people away from society, while the other is an attempt to heal and bring understanding."

Which means, of course, that only qualified professional liberal atheists (q.v. :zakath: ) are allowed to use "labels." :chuckle:

Zakath
December 5th, 2004, 04:18 PM
It's the use the labels are put to, not the labeling itself that is the issue...

Of course I didn't expect someone of your intellectual capacity to pick up on that point, frankie. Even thought Crow did so. :rolleyes:

Ecumenicist
December 5th, 2004, 05:08 PM
Labels say alot more about the one who uses them than the one
being described. Someone says "fag" identifies him / herself
as an intolerant, narrow minded bigot. Same as the "n" word
used commonly not so many years back for black people.
Not so long ago, it was absolutely proven in scripture that
black people were "meant" by God to be subservient to
white people.

We never learn.

Dave

Delmar
December 5th, 2004, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Dave Miller


Not so long ago, it was absolutely proven in scripture that
black people were "meant" by God to be subservient to
white people.

A lie from the pit of Hell!

Zakath
December 5th, 2004, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by deardelmar

A lie from the pit of Hell! What's a lie? That it was "absolutely proven" or that it was taught by Christians at all?

If the latter, your ignorance is amazing, dd. Obviously you never grew up in the South.

Blacks, Christians taught, were the children of Ham and bore his curse, to serve as slaves for the "higher" races.


...Josiah Priest, whose Slavery as it Relates to the Negro or African Race (1843) was widely read in America prior to the Civil War. Not only did Priest dwell on Ham’s career and character in a manner that was quite uncharacteristic of antebellum writers, he offered the seamy details of Ham’s offense against Noah. Apparently following the rabbinic midrashic tradition, Priest argued that Ham’s outrage "did not consist alone in the seeing his father’s nakedness as a man, but rather in the abuse and actual violation of his own mother." He continued:

This opinion is strengthened by a passage found in Levit. xviii. 8, as follows: "The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness." On account of this passage, it has been believed that the crime of Ham did not consist alone of seeing his father in an improper manner, but rather of his own mother, the wife of Noah, and violating her.
If this was so, how much more horrible, therefore, appears the character of Ham, and how much more deserving the curse, which was laid upon him and his race, of whom it was foreseen that they would be like this, their lewd ancestor.

Priest’s defamation of Ham and his descendants extended beyond the charge of sexual impropriety. In fact, he asked his readers to imagine a scene in which Noah is explaining to Ham just why his malediction is deserved:
Oh Ham, my son, it is not for this one deed alone which you have just committed that I have, by God's command, thus condemned you and your race, but the Lord has shown me that all your descendants will, more or less, be like you their father, on which account, it is determined by the Creator that you and your people are to occupy the lowest condition of all the families among mankind, and even be enslaved as brute beasts, going down in the scale of human society, beyond and below the ordinary exigencies of mortal existence, arising out of war, revolutions, and conflicts, for you will, and must be, both in times of peace and war, a despised, a degraded, and an oppressed race.
Considering the broad influence of Priest’s text and its relatively early date of publication – not to mention the widespread conception of the "lascivious African" and the popular notions that blacks were more "sensuous" than intellectual, naturally lewd, and in possession of unusually large sex organs16 – it is remarkable that antebellum slavery advocates did not follow Priest in exploiting the theme of sexual impropriety that is foregrounded in the history of interpretation and implied by the biblical text.

Original Dishonor: Noah’s Curse and the Southern Defense of Slavery (http://jsr.as.wvu.edu/honor.htm)

Additionally...


In 1856 Reverend Thomas Stringfellow, a Baptist minister from Culpepper County in Virginia, put the pro-slavery Christian message succinctly in his "A Scriptural View of Slavery:"

...Jesus Christ recognized this institution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties... I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction...

Although many Christians today would be horrified at using the Bible as a support for racism, they should recognize that it was used in just such a fashion by Christians in America in the same way and with the same justification as Christians today use the Bible in their defense of their favorite ideas. Even as recently as the 1950's and 60's, Christians vehemently opposed desegregation or "race-mixing" for religious reasons. The "curse" of poor Ham lingered on in the minds of white Christians who fought to preserve a constant separation of the races.

A corollary to the inferiority of blacks has long been the superiority of white Protestants - something which has not yet dissipated in America. Although "Caucasians" are not to be found anywhere in the Bible, that hasn't stopped members of Christian Identity groups from using the Bible to prove that they are the true "chosen people" or "true Israelites." This may seem bizarre, but it has long been popular among American Protestants to see themselves as being "divinely appointed" to tame the American wilderness despite the "demon Indians." Americans are supposed to be blessed with a special destiny by God, and many read an American role in Armageddon in the book of Revelations. I am ever amazed at the degree to which Christianity encourages extreme egotism and inflated sense of self-importance or personal destiny.

Christian Identity is just a new kid on the block of White Protestant Supremacy - the earliest such group was the infamous Ku Klux Klan. Too few people realize that the KKK was founded as a Christian organization and still sees itself in terms of defending true Christianity. Especially in the earliest days, Klansmen openly recruited in churches (white and segregated, of course), attracting members from all strata of society, including the clergy.

- Source (http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa112598.htm)


...John Saffin, a Puritan leader explained, "God has ordained different decrees and orders of men, some to be High-Honorable, some to be Low-Despicable... yea, some to be born slaves, and so to remain during their lives, as hath been proved..." He reasoned if "parity" or equality is true for all men- slave and free, then God and his order are "wrong and unjust."

Source - (Mathews, Donald G. (1977). Religion in the Old South. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ).

The so-called "curse of Ham", taught from Christian pulpits, was used to justify black slavery for centuries.

Lighthouse
December 6th, 2004, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

Labels say alot more about the one who uses them than the one
being described. Someone says "fag" identifies him / herself
as an intolerant, narrow minded bigot.
Yes, I am intolerant of homosexuality, and all other ungodliness.

And I am very narrow minded, because, "narrow is the way..."


Same as the "n" word
used commonly not so many years back for black people.
Sorry, but black people were born black. Queers were not born that way, anymore than John Wayne Gacy was born a child molesting murderer. So it is not the same.


Not so long ago, it was absolutely proven in scripture that
black people were "meant" by God to be subservient to
white people.

We never learn.

Dave
See what delmar said. Unless you meant that scripture was twisted and misused. Either way, homos are not born that way, and God doesn't want them to be that way. Blacks were born black, and God created them that way, so He has no contention with them. Homosexuality consists of certain actions, black is nothing more than a skin color.

Frank Ernest
December 6th, 2004, 07:07 AM
:zakath:
Of course I didn't expect someone of your intellectual capacity to pick up on that point, frankie. Even thought Crow did so.

FrankiE:
:darwinsm: Another distinction without a difference? Alrighty! I'll assign you the "jerk" label, but I mean it in a nice way. :darwinsm: :p

Art Deco
December 6th, 2004, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by Zakath The so-called "curse of Ham", taught from Christian pulpits, was used to justify black slavery for centuries.


Genesis 9:22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's (Noah's) nakedness and told his two brothers outside.

Genesis 9:24-25 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."

Genesis 9:26-27 He also said, "Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave." (end of citations)


It would appear that Noah's curse required Canaan be subservient to Shem and Japheth be it via full fledged slavery or lesser cultural status.

Frank Ernest
December 6th, 2004, 07:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Miller
Labels say alot more about the one who uses them than the one
being described. Someone says "fag" identifies him / herself
as an intolerant, narrow minded bigot.

FrankiE:
Since we're into political correctness, how about one who says, "homophobe?" Also an intolerant, narrow-minded bigot?

Nineveh
December 6th, 2004, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

Labels say alot more about the one who uses them than the one
being described. Someone says "fag" identifies him / herself
as an intolerant, narrow minded bigot.

Did you read anything Crow said?


Same as the "n" word
used commonly not so many years back for black people.
Not so long ago, it was absolutely proven in scripture that
black people were "meant" by God to be subservient to
white people.

Show me where Scripture says such a thing. Or are you using the same "absolute proof" you've used to show how "fag" came to mean homo?


We never learn.

Speak for yourself.

Try getting into something called reality, it does a body good.

Ecumenicist
December 6th, 2004, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Miller
Labels say alot more about the one who uses them than the one
being described. Someone says "fag" identifies him / herself
as an intolerant, narrow minded bigot.

FrankiE:
Since we're into political correctness, how about one who says, "homophobe?" Also an intolerant, narrow-minded bigot?

Possibly, but more likely a defensive comeback after being
called fag...

gabriel
December 6th, 2004, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by deardelmar

A lie from the pit of Hell!


....deardelmar. i wish it were not true that the bible was used to justify the "superiority of the white race"... however, being a southerner i have heard that from white christians more than i care to admit. as a matter of fact, minutes before i was pushed backwards down a flight of stairs (a point i have mentioned on a different thread) for defending the black race i heard this "biblical justification" spew forth from a white man's mouth - a gaping, evil hole set in the middle of a face red with rage - rage because i had challenged his beloved biblical worldview.

gabriel
December 6th, 2004, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

There's a problem with that phrase, though. It's a lie. God doesn't hate fags. Fags hate God. God loves them, which is why He hates what they are. Well, I guess one could say that God hates fags, and be correct. Seeing as how semantics could be an issue. I could say that God loves firechyld, or beanieboy, and that they are both fags, and God hates fags, and it would all be true.

hmmm, "God doesn't hate fags.................God loves them, which is why He hates what they are." okaaaaaayyyy :confused:


btw, my christian gay friends love god. and he loves them.

Zakath
December 6th, 2004, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Genesis 9:22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's (Noah's) nakedness and told his two brothers outside.

Genesis 9:24-25 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."

Genesis 9:26-27 He also said, "Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave." (end of citations)


It would appear that Noah's curse required Canaan be subservient to Shem and Japheth be it via full fledged slavery or lesser cultural status. I didn't say I agreed with such poor exegesis... merely pointed out that it was being taught by born-again Christians not too different from some folks here.

Art Deco
December 6th, 2004, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by gabriel btw, my christian gay friends love god. and he loves them. Only if they cease acting out their homosexuality and repent of their sin. :angel:

Zakath
December 6th, 2004, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Only if they cease acting out their homosexuality and repent of their sin. :angel: So you're saying that your deity doesn't love sinners until after they stop sinning? :think:

We used to call that type of theology "cleanin' the fish afore ya caught 'em". ;)

Nice and tidy perhaps if you are a fastidious sort, but basically scripturally and logically indefensible. :chuckle:

jeremiah
December 6th, 2004, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Genesis 9:22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's (Noah's) nakedness and told his two brothers outside.

Genesis 9:24-25 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."

Genesis 9:26-27 He also said, "Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave." (end of citations}


It would appear that Noah's curse required Canaan be subservient to Shem and Japheth be it via full fledged slavery or lesser cultural status.


The curse to Canaan through Ham was great! But the curse to the descendants of Shem who did not keep the covenant was greater! read Deuteronomy 28; particularly verses 45-48.
The curse to Yeshua was the greatest. "cursed be everyone who hangeth on a tree" , because He bore "all" our sins. He was the true suffering Servant according to isaiah 53.
If one reaps a curse as the result of sin, then the person who mistreats a servant- slave also reaps a curse in accordance with the Torah, the teaching and instruction of our Creator.
I think that one who adds cruelty to another's curse is in fact more cursed and will reap much more sorrow. That is the message in Genesis 4-15 and 24.
What do you think?
I also think that the son of Ham being punished for the sin of the Father is a foreshadowing of the substitutionary sacrifice of "the" Son for us?

Lighthouse
December 7th, 2004, 03:56 AM
Originally posted by gabriel

hmmm, "God doesn't hate fags.................God loves them, which is why He hates what they are." okaaaaaayyyy :confused:


btw, my christian gay friends love god. and he loves them.
Wrong again. First I'll deal with how God loves them, but hates what they are. He hates what they are, but loves them so much that He sent His Son in order to free them from what they are.

Now, as to whether or not lthey love God, they don't. They hate Him, and spit in His face everytime they "justify" their perversion. Those who are in Christ are such because Christ is in them. And those in whom Christ dwells will not live a life contrary to who they are in Christ. They might fall, sometimes, but they will not live such a life. Why? Because Christ is living in them! Those who live a life contrary to who they would be in Christ are not in Christ, because Christ is not living in them. And they are not allowing Him to. You're friends are not Christians. There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian, for homosexuality is a sin, and Christ frees from sin.

gabriel
December 7th, 2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Only if they cease acting out their homosexuality and repent of their sin. :angel:

.... god's love would be unconditional.

gabriel
December 7th, 2004, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Wrong again. First I'll deal with how God loves them, but hates what they are. He hates what they are, but loves them so much that He sent His Son in order to free them from what they are.

Now, as to whether or not lthey love God, they don't. They hate Him, and spit in His face everytime they "justify" their perversion. Those who are in Christ are such because Christ is in them. And those in whom Christ dwells will not live a life contrary to who they are in Christ. They might fall, sometimes, but they will not live such a life. Why? Because Christ is living in them! Those who live a life contrary to who they would be in Christ are not in Christ, because Christ is not living in them. And they are not allowing Him to. You're friends are not Christians. There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian, for homosexuality is a sin, and Christ frees from sin.

god made them gay but is upset with them for being what he made them ..... yeah, right.

yes, they DO love god.......... "spit in His face.....?" HA!! As if any of my gay friends would deign to spit.

My gay friends ARE christians and no amount of argument from you is going to change that fact.......frankly, i think god is alot less concerned about what goes on in the privacy of one's bedroom than alot of the christians on this board are. why are so many of you christians so obsessed with other's sex lives......??????;

Nineveh
December 7th, 2004, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by gabriel

why are so many of you christians so obsessed with other's sex lives......??????;

It seems the homos are the ones obsessed when they take over city parks, theme parks, have parades aimed at "celebrating" their sexuality, attempting to redefine marriage and family... They are the ones making their "privacy" public. Pardon if it makes me ill.

From what you have said on TOL so far, I don't think you know what being a Christian is. So your judgement about who is and who is not is a little lame.

Ecumenicist
December 7th, 2004, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

It seems the homos are the ones obsessed when they take over city parks, theme parks, have parades aimed at "celebrating" their sexuality, attempting to redefine marriage and family... They are the ones making their "privacy" public. Pardon if it makes me ill.

From what you have said on TOL so far, I don't think you know what being a Christian is. So your judgement about who is and who is not is a little lame.

They have to congregate in groups because when they are
alone they get the crap kicked out of them by good Christians.

Zakath
December 7th, 2004, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

It seems the homos are the ones obsessed when they take over city parks, theme parks, have parades aimed at "celebrating" their sexuality, attempting to redefine marriage and family... They are the ones making their "privacy" public. I think you're painting the entire group with the activities of a few fringe individuals...

... kind of like you do with Roman Catholic priests... :doh:


From what you have said on TOL so far, I don't think you know what being a Christian is. So your judgement about who is and who is not is a little lame. Another variant of "No True Scotsman"... :yawn:

drbrumley
December 7th, 2004, 06:54 PM
god made them gay

Sure He did!!!! That's absurd.:help: :freak:

Nineveh
December 7th, 2004, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

They have to congregate in groups because when they are
alone they get the crap kicked out of them by good Christians.

Dave, they congregate together to beat each other up. But anyway, I seriously doubt you have much more proof of that claim as any other you have made, so I won't ask for any this time.

Zakath,
Are you saying homos don't parade in the streets, hang out in public restrooms and take over family oriented theme parks for days? :thinks: News covers the events every year.... Oh, and homos redefining marriage and family must be a figment, too...

Zakath
December 7th, 2004, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Sure He did!!!! That's absurd.:help: :freak: Your response prompted me to recall a discussion my wife and I recently had...

To summarize our discussion, her questions were...

Doesn't orthodox Christian theology claim that all humans are essentially damned at either conception or birth? (c.f. Rom. 3:23 and the doctrine of Original Sin)

If so, how do Christians avoid the apparent issue that the deity "makes" them evil since all humans are essentially born damned?

From there it isn't a long step to the idea of "making" gays that way...

Zakath
December 7th, 2004, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Zakath,
Are you saying homos don't parade in the streets, hang out in public restrooms and take over family oriented theme parks for days? :thinks: News covers the events every year.... Oh, and homos redefining marriage and family must be a figment, too... There are some behaving like spoiled children who are basking in too much attention, yes. The best solution for such people, regardless of age, is to generally ignore them so long as they are committing no crime. If the media stopped covering the events and the right-wing Christians quit making such a fuss, it might take a lot of the fun out of the events and many people would stay home...

That said, the majority of gays I know don't hang out in public restrooms or parade in the streets. They live quietly and go to work, go out to dinner periodically and take in a movie now and then. Though, like many other humans when presented with a discounted ticket to a theme park, some of them will visit on the days they can save a few bucks... ;)

One Eyed Jack
December 7th, 2004, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by gabriel

....deardelmar. i wish it were not true that the bible was used to justify the "superiority of the white race"... however, being a southerner i have heard that from white christians more than i care to admit. as a matter of fact, minutes before i was pushed backwards down a flight of stairs (a point i have mentioned on a different thread) for defending the black race i heard this "biblical justification" spew forth from a white man's mouth - a gaping, evil hole set in the middle of a face red with rage - rage because i had challenged his beloved biblical worldview.

What makes you think his worldview was Biblical?

Lighthouse
December 8th, 2004, 03:12 AM
Originally posted by gabriel

god made them gay but is upset with them for being what he made them ..... yeah, right.
If this is true, then what I said was false. However, if what I said was true, then this is false.

Hint: God didn't make anyone gay.;)


yes, they DO love god.......... "spit in His face.....?" HA!! As if any of my gay friends would deign to spit.
Gay people spit. However, I was using a metaphor, but I guess it was just too big for your small mind.


My gay friends ARE christians and no amount of argument from you is going to change that fact.......frankly, i think god is alot less concerned about what goes on in the privacy of one's bedroom than alot of the christians on this board are. why are so many of you christians so obsessed with other's sex lives......??????;
First off, I would like to bring everyone's attention to the fact that you used a small c.

Now, how do you define Christian? Because, the way I define it, the Biblical definition, shows that your gay friends are not Christians. In fact, they are the furthest thing from it. And they are also using the Lord's name in vain, by calling them selves Christians. That's adding sin on sin, and that's just stupid. Evenmoreso, it is vile!

Lighthouse
December 8th, 2004, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Your response prompted me to recall a discussion my wife and I recently had...

To summarize our discussion, her questions were...

Doesn't orthodox Christian theology claim that all humans are essentially damned at either conception or birth? (c.f. Rom. 3:23 and the doctrine of Original Sin)

If so, how do Christians avoid the apparent issue that the deity "makes" them evil since all humans are essentially born damned?

From there it isn't a long step to the idea of "making" gays that way...
If Orthodox Christianity makes that claim, then Orthodox Christianity is wrong. People are not born damned. No one is damned, until their first sin, or first denial of Christ, and His Lordship.

Nineveh
December 8th, 2004, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

There are some behaving like spoiled children who are basking in too much attention, yes. The best solution for such people, regardless of age, is to generally ignore them so long as they are committing no crime.

Right. Ignore them in the bathrooms at the city park and parading down the middle of the street.....


If the media stopped covering the events and the right-wing Christians quit making such a fuss, it might take a lot of the fun out of the events and many people would stay home...

Well, ya kint have it both ways, it's either "privacy of the bedroom" or "out of the closet in your face". But I don't agree with you. One time, once, the names and addresses of the perps in the city bathrooms were published on the front page of the local paper. That should happen at least once a year if not once a month.


That said, the majority of gays I know don't hang out in public restrooms or parade in the streets.

The minority of those you know do? And exactly how often to you tail the "majority" to know what they do and don't?


They live quietly and go to work, go out to dinner periodically and take in a movie now and then. Though, like many other humans when presented with a discounted ticket to a theme park, some of them will visit on the days they can save a few bucks... ;)

And the skin flint "majority" all congregate in the public on "celebrate homos" day at the family oriented theme park. Thank you for making my point.

Ecumenicist
December 8th, 2004, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

If Orthodox Christianity makes that claim, then Orthodox Christianity is wrong. People are not born damned. No one is damned, until their first sin, or first denial of Christ, and His Lordship.

Huh?

This is scripture, even I won't deny this...

We are conceived in sin, no one is good enough, etc. etc.
Children are inherently selfish, this is proof of our base
sinfulness.

If you're going to drop scripture from your worldview, then
you're definitely not talking Christianity, but something
else.

Dave

Nineveh
December 8th, 2004, 09:39 AM
ATTENTION DAVE'S CONGREGANTS:


Originally posted by Dave Miller

... no one is good enough ...

Good enough for what? What should they do about it? And what happens if they don't?

Crow
December 8th, 2004, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by Zakath
The so-called "curse of Ham", taught from Christian pulpits, was used to justify black slavery for centuries.

I have to wonder how they explained Moses being married to a black woman.

gabriel
December 8th, 2004, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

What makes you think his worldview was Biblical?

... he told me that it was biblical....

... the bible can be used in any fashion to justify whatever one wants to justify.

gabriel
December 8th, 2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

There are some behaving like spoiled children who are basking in too much attention, yes. The best solution for such people, regardless of age, is to generally ignore them so long as they are committing no crime. If the media stopped covering the events and the right-wing Christians quit making such a fuss, it might take a lot of the fun out of the events and many people would stay home...

That said, the majority of gays I know don't hang out in public restrooms or parade in the streets. They live quietly and go to work, go out to dinner periodically and take in a movie now and then. Though, like many other humans when presented with a discounted ticket to a theme park, some of them will visit on the days they can save a few bucks... ;)

...you are so correct, zakath. my gay friends would not be caught dead parading down a street proclaiming their sexual orientation......they feel their sexual preference is no one else's business....... these men go to their jobs (lawyers, engineers, business owners), pay their taxes, live a monogamous life with one partner, pray for world peace, go to church, live a quiet life and want to be left alone.

Nineveh
December 8th, 2004, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by gabriel

... he told me that it was biblical....

... the bible can be used in any fashion to justify whatever one wants to justify.

Dave! A new congregant!

gabriel
December 8th, 2004, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

If this is true, then what I said was false. However, if what I said was true, then this is false.

Hint: God didn't make anyone gay.;)


Gay people spit. However, I was using a metaphor, but I guess it was just too big for your small mind.


First off, I would like to bring everyone's attention to the fact that you used a small c.

Now, how do you define Christian? Because, the way I define it, the Biblical definition, shows that your gay friends are not Christians. In fact, they are the furthest thing from it. And they are also using the Lord's name in vain, by calling them selves Christians. That's adding sin on sin, and that's just stupid. Evenmoreso, it is vile!

..... i am sure some gay people DO spit; i merely said my gay friends don't deign to do it......it is crass and rude.

... i would also like to bring everyone's attention to the fact that not only do i use a small "c" in the word "christian", i use a small "g" in the word "god", and a small "j" in the word jesus...
i'm not much on capitalization.

.... i don't define christian......i let christians define themselves.....and judging from some of the arguments on this board it looks as if there isn't a clear definition.

One Eyed Jack
December 8th, 2004, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by gabriel

... he told me that it was biblical....

And you believed him?


... the bible can be used in any fashion to justify whatever one wants to justify.

You can do that with any book -- the Bible is hardly unique in that respect.

Art Deco
December 8th, 2004, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

So you're saying that your deity doesn't love sinners until after they stop sinning? :think:

We used to call that type of theology "cleanin' the fish afore ya caught 'em". ;)

Nice and tidy perhaps if you are a fastidious sort, but basically scripturally and logically indefensible. :chuckle: Psalm 5:5 The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong.

Psalm 34:16 The face of the Lord is against those who do evil.

Psalm 97:10 Let those who love the Lord hate evil, for he guards the lives of His faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked... :angel:

Ecumenicist
December 8th, 2004, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

ATTENTION DAVE'S CONGREGANTS:



Good enough for what?


The kingdom of God.



What should they do about it?


accept the gift of God's Grace offered through
Jesus Christ.



And what happens if they don't?

They miss out on the peace and joy that those who partake
of the Kingdom enjoy, here and now and for eternity.

THe only one weeping and gnashing teeth is you Nin.

Dave

Zakath
December 8th, 2004, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Psalm 5:5 The arrogant cannot stand in your presence...So I guess you and lighthouse plan to do a lot of grovelling throughout eternity, eh?

Got any NT quotes by Jesus saying how YHWH hates evildoers, or is all your ammunition from a previous dispensation?

Zakath
December 8th, 2004, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by gabriel

...you are so correct, zakath. my gay friends would not be caught dead parading down a street proclaiming their sexual orientation......they feel their sexual preference is no one else's business....... these men go to their jobs (lawyers, engineers, business owners), pay their taxes, live a monogamous life with one partner, pray for world peace, go to church, live a quiet life and want to be left alone. ... and discredit virtualy every stereotype associated with homosexuals by the maundering maniacs of the religious right.

:chuckle:

Tell 'em to keep up the good work! :thumb:

Zakath
December 8th, 2004, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Crow

I have to wonder how they explained Moses being married to a black woman. Haven't the faintest idea... good question though...

Another question might be, why do you think Moses' wife was black? IIRC, she was a Midianite, an Arab tribe that inhabited the northern part of the Sinai peninsula. To my knowledge they weren't black any more than most Arabs today.

Zakath
December 8th, 2004, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Right. Ignore them in the bathrooms at the city park..[/qoute]Do you often frequent men's restrooms? :think:

[quote]and parading down the middle of the street...If they have a permit, it's legal. Act like an adult and ignore them, so long as they are not breaking the law.


Well, ya kint have it both ways, it's either "privacy of the bedroom" or "out of the closet in your face". Take away their publicity and you've taken away their main reason for public displays. Keep giving them attention and they will keep making themselves a public nuisance. Didn't you learn anything in high school civics class?


But I don't agree with you. One time, once, the names and addresses of the perps in the city bathrooms were published on the front page of the local paper. That should happen at least once a year if not once a month.Your purient interest in other people's illicit sexual activity is part of the problem.



The minority of those you know do?:rolleyes:
No, I wrote "the majority of those I know...". Do try to actually read the posts you're responding to...


And the skin flint "majority" all congregate in the public on "celebrate homos" day at the family oriented theme park. Thank you for making my point. Right along with the skinflint C&W fans who attend the country music day at Kings Dominion; the skinflint military members (and their families) who attend "military appreciation day" at Six Flags and Bush theme parks; the skinflint season pass holders who attend "season pass appreciation day" at Six Flags; the skinflint college students who attend "college appreciation day" at Wet and Wild; or skinflint Cinnicnati Reds fans who attended "fan appreciation day" at their local ball park, etc.

It's a human thing, not a sexual orientation thing.

One Eyed Jack
December 8th, 2004, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Crow

I have to wonder how they explained Moses being married to a black woman.

Maybe they figured Ethiopians were white.


from Numbers
12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

Zakath
December 8th, 2004, 08:48 PM
:doh:

Silly me, I forgot about the god-inspired polygamy back in those days...

Lighthouse
December 9th, 2004, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

Huh?

This is scripture, even I won't deny this...

We are conceived in sin, no one is good enough, etc. etc.
Children are inherently selfish, this is proof of our base
sinfulness.

If you're going to drop scripture from your worldview, then
you're definitely not talking Christianity, but something
else.

Dave
Dave, do you think that an infant that dies of SIDS goes to hell?

Lighthouse
December 9th, 2004, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by gabriel

..... i am sure some gay people DO spit; i merely said my gay friends don't deign to do it......it is crass and rude.
Seeing as how it was a figure of speech, you have no leg to stand on with this argument. They are spitting in the face of God. Bottom line.


... i would also like to bring everyone's attention to the fact that not only do i use a small "c" in the word "christian", i use a small "g" in the word "god", and a small "j" in the word jesus...
i'm not much on capitalization.
We've noticed.


.... i don't define christian......i let christians define themselves.....and judging from some of the arguments on this board it looks as if there isn't a clear definition.
There is a clear definition. One in whom Christ dwells. The problem is that there are people who think they have Christ dwelling inside, all the while He's still knocking at the door.

Nineveh
December 9th, 2004, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

If they have a permit, it's legal. Act like an adult and ignore them, so long as they are not breaking the law.

To your first question, I don't frequent men's rooms, little boys do though.

Only an apostate doesn't see anything wrong with cebrating sodomy in the streets, I guess.


Take away their publicity and you've taken away their main reason for public displays. Keep giving them attention and they will keep making themselves a public nuisance. Didn't you learn anything in high school civics class?

Hetros didn't force them into the public, they did that on their own.


Your purient interest in other people's illicit sexual activity is part of the problem.

I have been talking about public manifestations of their "bedroom lives". Did you need to swap the topic?


:rolleyes:
No, I wrote "the majority of those I know...". Do try to actually read the posts you're responding to...

Right. The "majority of those you know", what about the rest? The minority you know, what about them?


Right along with the skinflint C&W fans who attend the country music day at Kings Dominion; the skinflint military members (and their families) who attend "military appreciation day" at Six Flags and Bush theme parks; the skinflint season pass holders who attend "season pass appreciation day" at Six Flags; the skinflint college students who attend "college appreciation day" at Wet and Wild; or skinflint Cinnicnati Reds fans who attended "fan appreciation day" at their local ball park, etc.

And how many are doing what they do in the name of sex?


It's a human thing, not a sexual orientation thing.

It's not "Human Day" at the theme park, it's "Gay Days".

Nineveh
December 9th, 2004, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Dave, do you think that an infant that dies of SIDS goes to hell?

Check post 86. Dave doesn't believe there is a hell.

Ecumenicist
December 9th, 2004, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Dave, do you think that an infant that dies of SIDS goes to hell?

Of course not, but the infant is not worthy of heaven either.
No one is. By the Grace of God, the infant is taken by God
into paradise.

Dave

Zakath
December 9th, 2004, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

To your first question, I don't frequent men's rooms, little boys do though.Hopefully you don't send little children into any public restrooms without an adult... :shocked:

I suppose you could always pray that your god would protect them...

:doh:

That's right! He doesn't do things like that anymore... :rolleyes:


Only an apostate doesn't see anything wrong with cebrating sodomy in the streets, I guess.Only a fundy religionist doesn't see anything wrong with constantly telling everyone else how they should live their lives. You have a very narrow view... marching in a parade need not be a celebration of any sexual act. ;)


Hetros didn't force them into the public, they did that on their own.Most such activity didn't begin until after the successes of the civil rights movement in the fifities and sixties and the changes in public assembly laws. They act out publicly for the same reason an ill-disciplined child does... because they think it gets them attention and/or their way. Conversations like this one would seem to indicate that they're right. They certainly have your attention riveted to the "action".

If you cannot see that, then there's little purpose in discussing this further.


I have been talking about public manifestations of their "bedroom lives". Did you need to swap the topic?How is marching in a parade a public manifestation of anyone's bedroom life? That's as unrealistsic as comparing a promise keepers' rally to a bunch of heterosexuals trotting out their bedroom lives when they talk about being happily married men.


Right. The "majority of those you know", what about the rest? The minority you know, what about them?I carefully worded my statement to clearly indicate that I was referring to those people I know. If you want to find out what the rest of the world thinks, look elsewhere...


And how many are doing what they do in the name of sex?Somehow I don't think that "gay day" at the local theme park is designed to turn the place into a massive orgy... If your purient interests see it that way, write a complaint letter and stop patronizing the companies that participate in such things. Despite you fundies best efforts, its' still a free country.


It's not "Human Day" at the theme park, it's "Gay Days". So what? They're merely another special interest demographic to the boys and girls in the marketing departments of the companies who sponsor such things... do you really think that if people didn't attend and spend lots of money there on those special group days, that the parks would continue to sponsor them?

:chuckle:

Get realistic, Nineveh! This is the United $tate$! The land of mammon and free enterprise! :greedy:

I think if you checked carefully you'd find that most such things are all about the money... :think:

gabriel
December 9th, 2004, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

And you believed him?



You can do that with any book -- the Bible is hardly unique in that respect.


.... the sad part is that HE believed his worldview to be biblical. hence his propensity to use it to justify his "blacks are inferior" stance.

i agree, oej, that you can do that with any book but the bible is the book of the christian faith....... alot of people are passionate about their religious beliefs and they retaliate if someone disagrees with their beliefs or their religious book (which they use as the basis of said religious beliefs) ..... i hardly think he would have acted so passionately had we been disagreeing on "windows xp for dummies".

gabriel
December 9th, 2004, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Seeing as how it was a figure of speech, you have no leg to stand on with this argument. They are spitting in the face of God. Bottom line.


We've noticed.


There is a clear definition. One in whom Christ dwells. The problem is that there are people who think they have Christ dwelling inside, all the while He's still knocking at the door.

.... LoL... lighthouse i am not arguing with you on the spitting issue.... i was messin' with you ;) - obviously, recognizing dripping sarcasm is not your forte. you need to lighten up, dude......... still, i say they do not spit in the face of god.

... if everyone has noticed ("we've noticed") then why the need to bring it to "everyone's attention".

... the definition of christian can't be too clear: i have asked 5 different (admittedly christian) co-workers the definition of christian and have received 5 different answers.......oh wait, maybe they are not "real" christians.

Nineveh
December 9th, 2004, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Hopefully you don't send little children into any public restrooms without an adult... :shocked:

No, I can't. And the reason why I won't is.. well, basically what we have been talking about.


I suppose you could always pray that your god would protect them...

Yeah, I could, since society can't seem to keep the freaks out of public. Wouldn't wanna be called a bigot now would we.


Only a fundy religionist doesn't see anything wrong with constantly telling everyone else how they should live their lives. You have a very narrow view... marching in a parade need not be a celebration of any sexual act. ;)

Only an apostate would disallow a "religionist" voice in the public sqaure on public issues.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. A "Gay Pride" parade isn't about homosexuality. Thanks for reminding me... :rolleyes:


Most such activity didn't begin until after the successes of the civil rights movement in the fifities and sixties and the changes in public assembly laws. They act out publicly for the same reason an ill-disciplined child does... because they think it gets them attention and/or their way. Conversations like this one would seem to indicate that they're right. They certainly have your attention riveted to the "action".

And I should assume you support the 60's bad ideas like you support the RCC's bad ideas.


How is marching in a parade a public manifestation of anyone's bedroom life? That's as unrealistsic as comparing a promise keepers' rally to a bunch of heterosexuals trotting out their bedroom lives when they talk about being happily married men.

That's right, you reminded me, "Gay Pride" really isn't about homosexuality... :rolleyes:


I carefully worded my statement to clearly indicate that I was referring to those people I know. If you want to find out what the rest of the world thinks, look elsewhere...

You said "majority". That means out of 10, maybe 6 or so were the ones you wanted to use as an example. I wanted to know about the other 4.


Somehow I don't think that "gay day" at the local theme park is designed to turn the place into a massive orgy... If your purient interests see it that way, write a complaint letter and stop patronizing the companies that participate in such things. Despite you fundies best efforts, its' still a free country.

And taking over family oriented theme parks by homos holding hands, kissing and, whatever they wanna do in the public bathrooms, isn't designed to promote a family friendly environment, for... well... you know... kids.

Anyway, I avoid theme parks that have homo day(s) whenever they "allow" us to know it's going on, instead of paying upwards of $60 to get in then finding out.


So what? They're merely another special interest demographic to the boys and girls in the marketing departments of the companies who sponsor such things... do you really think that if people didn't attend and spend lots of money there on those special group days, that the parks would continue to sponsor them?

A couple of days won't harm them much. Especially at Disney. They know families who have saved all year and made reservations can't cancel out at the last minute. I'd like to see a homo theme park exist on 2% of the population funding it.


Get realistic, Nineveh! This is the United $tate$! The land of mammon and free enterprise! :greedy:

I think if you checked carefully you'd find that most such things are all about the money... :think:

I don't think it is. There's no money in a public restroom. Unless you want to accuse homos of turning tricks and public officials getting a cut.

One Eyed Jack
December 9th, 2004, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by gabriel

.... the sad part is that HE believed his worldview to be biblical. hence his propensity to use it to justify his "blacks are inferior" stance.

i agree, oej, that you can do that with any book but the bible is the book of the christian faith....... alot of people are passionate about their religious beliefs and they retaliate if someone disagrees with their beliefs or their religious book (which they use as the basis of said religious beliefs) ..... i hardly think he would have acted so passionately had we been disagreeing on "windows xp for dummies".

He reacted so passionately because he's a bigot, plain and simple. It had nothing to do with the Bible.

gabriel
December 9th, 2004, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

He reacted so passionately because he's a bigot, plain and simple. It had nothing to do with the Bible.


i agree with you oej, the jerk was clearly a bigot..
BUT he was attempting to justify his bigotry through scripture. that is the whole point zakath and i made a few posts back - we have seen more than one case where a bigot was trying to justify the "white supremacy" b.s. by saying it was "biblical" and could be proven through scripture........ i certainly didn't buy his nonsense, hence the bruises the next day.

gabriel
December 9th, 2004, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh



Only an apostate doesn't see anything wrong with cebrating sodomy in the streets, I guess.




:crackup: ......."sodomy in the streets" - isn't that a song from korn's latest cd...?

Zakath
December 9th, 2004, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

No, I can't. And the reason why I won't is.. well, basically what we have been talking about.What a relief... I was wondering there for a minute... ;)


Yeah, I could, since society can't seem to keep the freaks out of public. Wouldn't wanna be called a bigot now would we.I wouldn't worry about being called names... people call atheists names all the time. ;)


Only an apostate would disallow a "religionist" voice in the public sqaure on public issues.I certainly didn't intend to indicate you couldn't call people names or otherwise make your views known... so long as you don't break any laws doing so. In the good ole US of A heteros have just as much right as gays to state their opinions - that's part of the beauty of the system.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. A "Gay Pride" parade isn't about homosexuality. Thanks for reminding me... :rolleyes: Perhaps it hasn't penetrated into your cognitive process but, for humans, sexuality is more than just the desire or ability to have sex. Do you think that if someone loses the ability to have sexual intercourse do they cease being heterosexual or homosexual?

:think:


And I should assume you support the 60's bad ideas like you support the RCC's bad ideas.Which ideas might those be? The non-violent civil rights demonstrations?


You said "majority". That means out of 10, maybe 6 or so were the ones you wanted to use as an example. I wanted to know about the other 4.Let's see... I know about 150 gay people... I can only think of about 20 of them that actually ever mentioned attending a march or public demonstration having to do with sexual orientation... and most all of those twenty are in monogamous relationships. Why is it so important that you know these things? Are you writing a newspaper article or something? :think:


And taking over family oriented theme parks by homos holding hands, kissing and, whatever they wanna do in the public bathrooms, isn't designed to promote a family friendly environment, for... well... you know... kids.

Anyway, I avoid theme parks that have homo day(s) whenever they "allow" us to know it's going on, instead of paying upwards of $60 to get in then finding out.
So vote with your dollars and boycott the parks that sponsor events you don't like. If you don't go to the parks at all, you won't be exposed to something that you don't like. How many times do I have to say it? :doh:


I don't think it is. There's no money in a public restroom. Unless you want to accuse homos of turning tricks and public officials getting a cut. My comment was in regard to theme parks and other for-profit establishments, not public restrooms...

Lighthouse
December 10th, 2004, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

Of course not, but the infant is not worthy of heaven either.
No one is. By the Grace of God, the infant is taken by God
into paradise.

Dave
Do you believe that all are taken into heaven? I do agree that none of us are worthy, but I also believe that it is only those who accept what has been offered them freely by Christ [grace] are taken into heaven. They have to accept the grace, in order for it to work for them.

Lighthouse
December 10th, 2004, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by gabriel

.... LoL... lighthouse i am not arguing with you on the spitting issue.... i was messin' with you ;) - obviously, recognizing dripping sarcasm is not your forte. you need to lighten up, dude......... still, i say they do not spit in the face of god.
Then you are clueless as to how God feels about the issue.


... if everyone has noticed ("we've noticed") then why the need to bring it to "everyone's attention".
Now see, you don't catch sarcasm, either...

Anyway, the comment about the small c had a point, but I guess you missed that one too.


... the definition of christian can't be too clear: i have asked 5 different (admittedly christian) co-workers the definition of christian and have received 5 different answers.......oh wait, maybe they are not "real" christians.
One of them may have been. What kind of answers did you get? They all could have been, and they just gave different perspectives on the same idea.

Nineveh
December 10th, 2004, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

I wouldn't worry about being called names... people call atheists names all the time. ;)

Tell that to the law makers who think it's ok, then.


I certainly didn't intend to indicate you couldn't call people names or otherwise make your views known... so long as you don't break any laws doing so. In the good ole US of A heteros have just as much right as gays to state their opinions - that's part of the beauty of the system.

And what it's boiling down to is heteros with kids are less equal than 2% of the population. Name calling or not. Maybe the new term for 2005 should be heterophobic.


Perhaps it hasn't penetrated into your cognitive process but, for humans, sexuality is more than just the desire or ability to have sex. Do you think that if someone loses the ability to have sexual intercourse do they cease being heterosexual or homosexual?

:think:

Then what is a"Gay Pride" parade for?

Here, let's think about this...

What is a Christmas Parade about? How about the St. Patrick's Day Parade? How about the Rose Bowl Parade? Why is it only a "Gay Pride" parade that really isn't celebrating it's name sake?


Which ideas might those be? The non-violent civil rights demonstrations?

Bad ideas being continued simply because they have been over some period of time.


Let's see... I know about 150 gay people... I can only think of about 20 of them that actually ever mentioned attending a march or public demonstration having to do with sexual orientation... and most all of those twenty are in monogamous relationships. Why is it so important that you know these things? Are you writing a newspaper article or something? :think:

No, I was just curious as to how long it would take for you to answer :)


So vote with your dollars and boycott the parks that sponsor events you don't like. If you don't go to the parks at all, you won't be exposed to something that you don't like. How many times do I have to say it? :doh:

That's the ticket! Families who don't want their children exposed can just stay away from the family oriented theme parks! Gee! What an idea!


My comment was in regard to theme parks and other for-profit establishments, not public restrooms...

Right, and there is no money in that, so homos in public places isn't just about the $.

Ecumenicist
December 10th, 2004, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Do you believe that all are taken into heaven? I do agree that none of us are worthy, but I also believe that it is only those who accept what has been offered them freely by Christ [grace] are taken into heaven. They have to accept the grace, in order for it to work for them.

In that case, babies would burn. So you believe in an age of
accountability, or a developmental stage of accountability,
after which a person needs to openly accept Christ? Just
want to get this straight, no criticism intended...

Dave

gabriel
December 10th, 2004, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Dave! A new congregant!


.... a congregation i would be proud to join if they will have me.

Nineveh
December 10th, 2004, 09:43 AM
dave accepts everyone but Christians. You would fit right in :)

gabriel
December 10th, 2004, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

dave accepts everyone but Christians. You would fit right in :)

... hi nineveh. we are practically "real time"!!

.... well you have already established the fact that i am a pagan so i suppose i would :)

Zakath
December 10th, 2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Tell that to the law makers who think it's ok, then.I have only one consistent communication for my lawmakers - term limits. I do my best to vote every one of them out after one term. It's the only thing that seems to limit corruption and influence peddling...


And what it's boiling down to is heteros with kids are less equal than 2% of the population. Name calling or not. Maybe the new term for 2005 should be heterophobic.Care for a little cheese with your "whine", Nineveh? :chuckle:

It's really tiresome listening to the "98%" whine about how the 2% are stealing their rights away... In a democratic republic the large majority overrules the small minority, or perhaps they didn't cover that in your high school civics classes... :think:

If your deity's so all-fired incensed about this, why doesn't he do something about it since his followers don't seem able to accomplish much of anything unless it's handed to them on a platter wrapped in a bible verse.


What is a Christmas Parade about? How about the St. Patrick's Day Parade? How about the Rose Bowl Parade? Why is it only a "Gay Pride" parade that really isn't celebrating it's name sake?Because, sexuality is more than a sexual act. (That's twice I've posted it. Will you ignore it this time too?)


Bad ideas being continued simply because they have been over some period of time.That seems to desribe your religious views from where I sit...


That's the ticket! Families who don't want their children exposed can just stay away from the family oriented theme parks! Gee! What an idea!So you're not willing to suffer a bit of inconvenience for your religious views? You don't want to have to be inconvenienced and not attend a particular theme park because its owners violate your moral preferences. What a pathetic mockery of the faith of your predecessors...

Sounds like you've already rolled over and let your alleged "enemy" win. All you're doing is looking for a rationalization for your surrender.
:devil:

aharvey
December 10th, 2004, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

They can choose to submit to Christ. Homosexuality is not normal. People are not born that way, and it is not something they have no choice in. They have a choice. They can choose Christ, and He will turn them from their wicked ways. And the reason I can't choose to be a faggot is not because of who I am, but because of who I am in Christ. Homosexuality is contrary to who I am in Christ. If it were not for Christ, I could be promiscuous, and I could be bisexual, for all I know. Heterosexuality is how we were all created to be. It is not contrary to who anyone is in Christ.

Lighthouse,

I am aware of your overwhelming confidence in your belief that no people are born homosexual, and have no interest in trying to argue otherwise. I have been looking into some of the biological research into this question, however, and have a question for you concerning your "formerly homosexual" and now happily married father. If he had participated in a survey during what you might think of as "the dark times," would he have classified himself as "homosexual," "heterosexual," or "bisexual"? How about today? The answers may seem obvious; furthermore, we do have the limitation that what you think he would say is not necessarily what he himself would actually say (if for no other reason that you are not him).

I'm just pondering the various twin studies that clearly show that identical twins show a much higher probability of reporting the same self-categorization than do other pairs of siblings, and yet that probability is less than the 100% expected if * homosexuality was a purely genetic trait. I put the asterisk in the preceding sentence as a placeholder for the idea that led to this query (i.e., "*" = "acknowledging one's").

I don't know about your dad's experiences, but this whole idea that homosexuals "choose" this behavior seems at odds with the fact that there is a fairly substantial burden associated with making this "choice." Y'all whine about how "tolerant" society is of gays today, but look at things objectively and over the long haul (i.e., not just in the recent, er, "tolerant" past). Wouldn't you have to admit that in the vast majority of societies over the vast majority of recorded human history, there has been a huge stigma associated with homosexuality? A stigma, with many and dangerous consequences, that has freely translated into verbal and physical abuse, ostracism, and other things you surely wish were more acceptable today than they are. At the moment, I find the idea that straight people throughout history have"chosen" to put themselves through all that less than compelling.

Nineveh
December 10th, 2004, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

I have only one consistent communication for my lawmakers - term limits. I do my best to vote every one of them out after one term. It's the only thing that seems to limit corruption and influence peddling...

I think most of us would if given the chance.

However the top politician here was a judge. Unfortunatly not one we had the opportunity to vote on. It took getting "caught in the act" to get rid of him. I know some of his "damage". Sad :(


Care for a little cheese with your "whine", Nineveh? :chuckle:

It's really tiresome listening to the "98%" whine about how the 2% are stealing their rights away... In a democratic republic the large majority overrules the small minority, or perhaps they didn't cover that in your high school civics classes... :think:

Did you miss the civil rights movement? C'mon now, I know you've heard of the ACLU.


If your deity's so all-fired incensed about this, why doesn't he do something about it since his followers don't seem able to accomplish much of anything unless it's handed to them on a platter wrapped in a bible verse.

You wanna talk about something really tiresome to hear repeatedly.... (Do you just cut and paste that one now?)


Because, sexuality is more than a sexual act. (That's twice I've posted it. Will you ignore it this time too?)

Zakath, it's not the "Sexuality Parade". (Even if it was, would you be for it?) It's a celebration of homosexuality. Homosexuality is about sex. Homo sexual sex to be perfectly clear about it. But it is a parade, so it juth hath to be GaY!~*.


That seems to desribe your religious views from where I sit...

Right. That silly ol' thou shalt not murder thing, and that oh so prohibitive adulty and honoring parents thing....


So you're not willing to suffer a bit of inconvenience for your religious views? You don't want to have to be inconvenienced and not attend a particular theme park because its owners violate your moral preferences. What a pathetic mockery of the faith of your predecessors...

No, like "family" and "marriage" a "family oriented theme park" is by definition exclusive. Trying to redefine things doesn't make them different, it makes them the same thing with a new name.


Sounds like you've already rolled over and let your alleged "enemy" win. All you're doing is looking for a rationalization for your surrender.
:devil:

It was your bad idea, Z. :)

Lighthouse
December 11th, 2004, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Do you believe that all are taken into heaven? I do agree that none of us are worthy, but I also believe that it is only those who accept what has been offered them freely by Christ [grace] are taken into heaven. They have to accept the grace, in order for it to work for them.
I just realized I missed something. I do beleive that they have to be old enough to understand the message, before they can reject it. So, if they die before then they go to heaven.

Yes, Dave. I forgot that.

Lighthouse
December 11th, 2004, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by aharvey

Lighthouse,

I am aware of your overwhelming confidence in your belief that no people are born homosexual, and have no interest in trying to argue otherwise. I have been looking into some of the biological research into this question, however, and have a question for you concerning your "formerly homosexual" and now happily married father. If he had participated in a survey during what you might think of as "the dark times," would he have classified himself as "homosexual," "heterosexual," or "bisexual"?
Bisexual.


How about today?
Heterosexual.


The answers may seem obvious; furthermore, we do have the limitation that what you think he would say is not necessarily what he himself would actually say (if for no other reason that you are not him).
I've already asked him. And, since I was born before he ever had a relationship with a man, and he loved my mom, it would stand to reason that he would have considered himself a bisexual. Especially since he got married again, while he was in the midst of it.


I'm just pondering the various twin studies that clearly show that identical twins show a much higher probability of reporting the same self-categorization than do other pairs of siblings, and yet that probability is less than the 100% expected if * homosexuality was a purely genetic trait. I put the asterisk in the preceding sentence as a placeholder for the idea that led to this query (i.e., "*" = "acknowledging one's").
:nono:


I don't know about your dad's experiences, but this whole idea that homosexuals "choose" this behavior seems at odds with the fact that there is a fairly substantial burden associated with making this "choice." Y'all whine about how "tolerant" society is of gays today, but look at things objectively and over the long haul (i.e., not just in the recent, er, "tolerant" past).
Okay, let's take a look at my stance. No one is born a homosexual. Something happens to bring about the interest in the same gender. They then choose to act on this desire. And even heterosexuals, this day in age, choose to act on their desires outside of marriage, and that's wrong as well. And perverted.


Wouldn't you have to admit that in the vast majority of societies over the vast majority of recorded human history, there has been a huge stigma associated with homosexuality? A stigma, with many and dangerous consequences, that has freely translated into verbal and physical abuse, ostracism, and other things you surely wish were more acceptable today than they are. At the moment, I find the idea that straight people throughout history have"chosen" to put themselves through all that less than compelling.
Straight people?

Frank Ernest
December 11th, 2004, 06:35 AM
quote:
Wouldn't you have to admit that in the vast majority of societies over the vast majority of recorded human history, there has been a huge stigma associated with homosexuality?

FrankiE:
No doubt about it.

quote:
A stigma, with many and dangerous consequences, that has freely translated into verbal and physical abuse, ostracism, and other things you surely wish were more acceptable today than they are.

FrankiE:
What are the "many and dangerous consequences" and to whom do they apply?

quote:
At the moment, I find the idea that straight people throughout history have"chosen" to put themselves through all that less than compelling.

FrankiE:
:confused:

Zakath
December 11th, 2004, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

I think most of us would if given the chance.What do you mean "given the chance"? Don't you have the chance to vote? :think:


However the top politician here was a judge. Unfortunatly not one we had the opportunity to vote on. It took getting "caught in the act" to get rid of him. I know some of his "damage". Sad :(Since you didn't say what kind of judge, perhaps you could tell us who appointed him or how he got to that position?


Did you miss the civil rights movement?Nope. I participated in it and lived through it...

C'mon now, I know you've heard of the ACLU. Do you mean the same ACLU that defended Bob Enyart's and Oliver North's free speech rights?

The same ACLU that supported Henry Ford's right to distribute anti-union literature to his employees (1925)?

The same ACLU that supported the Jehovah's Witness members right not to be forced to salute the American flag against their religious belief in West Virginia vs. Barnette (1943)?

:think:




You wanna talk about something really tiresome to hear repeatedly.... (Do you just cut and paste that one now?)Then why do you endlessly debate the same topics? But hey, it's still a free country... Bush hasn't taken things that far yet...


Zakath, it's not the "Sexuality Parade". Very good! You can read! Thank a teacher... :)


(Even if it was, would you be for it?)What do you mean "for it"? If you mean would I bother to attend it or give money to it; the answer would be, no. But would I criticize people for having it? As long as they did not break the law or trample my roses, probably not.


It's a celebration of homosexuality. Homosexuality is about sex. Homo sexual sex to be perfectly clear about it. But it is a parade, so it juth hath to be GaY!~*.So what? I don't care about sexuality parades, remember? Your the one that gets your knickers in a knot about sex, not me.;)


Right. That silly ol' thou shalt not murder thing, and that oh so prohibitive adulty and honoring parents thing....If you let it stop at the decalogue then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But your personal choice to apply your cherry-picked version of OT laws to non-Jews is not only against the foundational principle of the Jewish laws themselves (i.e. they are for Jews not the Goyim) but patently ridiculous in that Christians are not subject to Jewish laws either...


No, like "family" and "marriage" a "family oriented theme park" is by definition exclusive. Trying to redefine things doesn't make them different, it makes them the same thing with a new name.Perhaps you don't understand the term "family oriented" as well as you think you do... in the context of an entertainment venue, like a theme park, it usually indicates that it has some entertainment and activities suitable for a variety of ages, including youngsters.


It was your bad idea, Z. :) Then prove me wrong and show the power of your alleged deity by shutting down the offensive parks once and for all...

... or is that another area he doesn't deal with, like not letting kids into public restrooms because your deity can't protect them there?

Zakath
December 11th, 2004, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I just realized I missed something. I do beleive that they have to be old enough to understand the message, before they can reject it. So, if they die before then they go to heaven.

Yes, Dave. I forgot that. Ahh "cuddly theology". Cute, but thoroughly unbiblical... :rolleyes:

Nineveh
December 11th, 2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

What do you mean "given the chance"? Don't you have the chance to vote? :think:

Given the chance to know.


Since you didn't say what kind of judge, perhaps you could tell us who appointed him or how he got to that position?

You aren't familiar with judges being appointed?

The same ACLU that fights God in the public square at every opportunity.


Then why do you endlessly debate the same topics? But hey, it's still a free country... Bush hasn't taken things that far yet...

Because you keep replying :)


But would I criticize people for having it? As long as they did not break the law or trample my roses, probably not.

How gross.

Leth all have a "sex paraaaaaade!"


So what? I don't care about sexuality parades, remember? Your the one that gets your knickers in a knot about sex, not me.;)

Right, I don't like the public arena used to promote sex. : shrug : we ain't all pervs, Z.


If you let it stop at the decalogue then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But your personal choice to apply your cherry-picked version of OT laws to non-Jews is not only against the foundational principle of the Jewish laws themselves (i.e. they are for Jews not the Goyim) but patently ridiculous in that Christians are not subject to Jewish laws either...


You never cease to amaze me with your lack of understanding while claiming to have been a pastor.


Perhaps you don't understand the term "family oriented" as well as you think you do... in the context of an entertainment venue, like a theme park, it usually indicates that it has some entertainment and activities suitable for a variety of ages, including youngsters.

Ages, not sexual perversions.


Then prove me wrong and show the power of your alleged deity by shutting down the offensive parks once and for all...

...yawn


... or is that another area he doesn't deal with, like not letting kids into public restrooms because your deity can't protect them there?

Why blame God? When folks like you could care less what sort of filth gets held up as a standard in our nation.

Lighthouse
December 12th, 2004, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Ahh "cuddly theology". Cute, but thoroughly unbiblical... :rolleyes:
Prove it, :zakath:.

Zakath
December 12th, 2004, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Prove it I suggest it's like your "rock of offense" citation. The Church has been dancing around this topic for almost twenty centuries. It's one of those things you'd like to see in the Bible, but it isn't there.

It all boils down to whether or not YHWH actually damns the ignorant unbeliever...

If you honestly believe that all men are subject to damnation because of Adam's sin, yet you believe that YHWH doesn't damn those who do not repent and accept Christ, then show us where you find that in scripture... :think:

So far as I am aware, there's no age discrimation regarding original sin. If you're human, you've got it. If you've got it, you're damned.

Zakath
December 12th, 2004, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Given the chance to know.That's what "sunshine laws" and FOIA are for... so people can know what goes on in the government. If you choose not to take advantage of them, who is responsible for that?



You aren't familiar with judges being appointed?Yes, if you'd bothered to actually read my reply you'd notice that I used the word... :rolleyes:


The same ACLU that fights God in the public square at every opportunity.And the same one that supports some cases where religious rights are involved. You do remember your hero, Enyart's, case, don't you? The one that the ACLU supported him on???? :think:


Why blame God?Two reasons:

a) he allegedly made the mess in the first place, knowing it would happen due to omniscience, and

b) he allegedly has the power to change it and protect the innocents (like children), yet century upon century refuses to do so.

It's called responsiblity Nineveh... a topic you seem to harp on frequently, except where it applies to your own beliefs.

Frank Ernest
December 13th, 2004, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

I suggest it's like your "rock of offense" citation. The Church has been dancing around this topic for almost twenty centuries. It's one of those things you'd like to see in the Bible, but it isn't there.

It all boils down to whether or not YHWH actually damns the ignorant unbeliever...

If you honestly believe that all men are subject to damnation because of Adam's sin, yet you believe that YHWH doesn't damn those who do not repent and accept Christ, then show us where you find that in scripture... :think:

So far as I am aware, there's no age discrimation regarding original sin. If you're human, you've got it. If you've got it, you're damned.


:shocked: I see you did not do well in remedial English. :doh:

Well, :zakath: , you claim to have been a Christian minister at one time. Why don't you go look it up?

Be that as it may, your "knowledge" of things Biblical seems to be severely lacking. Could be, that's what got you into trouble in the first place.

:darwinsm:

aharvey
December 13th, 2004, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

quote:
Wouldn't you have to admit that in the vast majority of societies over the vast majority of recorded human history, there has been a huge stigma associated with homosexuality?

FrankiE:
No doubt about it.
Our first agreement! And what have been the consequences of that particular stigma to those who have borne it? (Answers your next question)


Originally posted by Frank Ernest

quote:
A stigma, with many and dangerous consequences, that has freely translated into verbal and physical abuse, ostracism, and other things you surely wish were more acceptable today than they are.

FrankiE:
What are the "many and dangerous consequences" and to whom do they apply?
The many and dangerous consequences of being identified as homosexual would only apply to those that identify themselves as homosexual, don't you think?


Originally posted by Frank Ernest

quote:
At the moment, I find the idea that straight people throughout history have"chosen" to put themselves through all that less than compelling.

FrankiE:
:confused:
Both you and lighthouse have expressed confusion over this statement, though I'm not sure why. "Straight" in this context means "heterosexual" (if you're going to be a biblical literalist you at least need to be aware that one word can have several different meanings!). Lighthouse insists that everyone is born straight, er, heterosexual, and therefore that homosexuality has no genetic basis, and therefore that homosexuals are homosexuals because they choose to be so. Are you with me so far? My point is that I find it hard to believe that people "choose" to take on the huge societal stigma that has always accompanied this behavior, and the many and dangerous consequences that can and have followed from this societal disapproval (e.g., verbal and physical abuse, ostracism, and other things you surely wish were more acceptable today than they are). Is that any clearer?

BillyBob
December 13th, 2004, 08:30 AM
Being a homo is gay!

Nineveh
December 13th, 2004, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

That's what "sunshine laws" and FOIA are for... so people can know what goes on in the government. If you choose not to take advantage of them, who is responsible for that?

I'll remind you I said "if given the chance to know" before we have the opportunity to vote.

I'd say no one knew about barney frank before he was elected to office the first time, but even after, it didn't seem any one in his area cared. But, then again, Massachusetts is notorious when it comes to homos and pedophiles.


And the same one that supports some cases where religious rights are involved.

Zakath, I loath the ACLU, they have done far more harm than good, and at the tax payer's expense. If you love 'em, feel free to be a card carrying member.


Two reasons:
a) he allegedly made the mess in the first place, knowing it would happen due to omniscience, and

Is this what you preached? I'm starting to think you know about as much as dave miller when it comes to appologetics.


b) he allegedly has the power to change it and protect the innocents (like children), yet century upon century refuses to do so.

I further think dave should get a good look at you, Z. He would be peering into his own future.


It's called responsiblity Nineveh... a topic you seem to harp on frequently, except where it applies to your own beliefs.

Yes, God instituted government among men, so it's alllllllllllllllll His fault we fail. Talk about shirking responsibility....

You are the #1 example of folks who are told they are "in the faith" and "saved" while never having repented or accepted Christ.

Really, I don't think you are an "apostate" anymore. You can't leave what you never had.

Nineveh
December 13th, 2004, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Being a homo is gay!

I dunno, BillyBob. All the homos I know are never "happy". They are mad, catty, abusive, sullen, and have sharp tongues, but I don't recall ever seeing any of them "gay".

Zakath
December 13th, 2004, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

I'll remind you I said "if given the chance to know" before we have the opportunity to vote.I'd suggest voting them all out anyway. Better to err on the side of caution. ;)


Zakath, I loath the ACLU, they have done far more harm than good, and at the tax payer's expense. If you love 'em, feel free to be a card carrying member.Me? Hang out with a bunch of scum-sucking lawyers? :darwinsm:

Not on your life!


Is this what you preached? I'm starting to think you know about as much as dave miller when it comes to appologetics.No, I strove for orthodoxy when I was in the pulpit. I felt that the people need truths, tested by time, rather than pop-culture Christianity.


I further think dave should get a good look at you, Z. He would be peering into his own future.Only if he's lucky. :D


Yes, God instituted government among men, so it's alllllllllllllllll His fault we fail. Talk about shirking responsibility....So you're not in favor of holding manufacturers responsible for building defective mechanisms like automobiles or drugs and foisting them on unwitting consumers? Seems to be a similar issue to me.


You are the #1 example of folks who are told they are "in the faith" and "saved" while never having repented or accepted Christ.Since you very likely have never even met me or had the opportunity to have watched me minister years ago, I'll chalk your little tirade up to ignorance rather than petty vindictiveness.


Really, I don't think you are an "apostate" anymore. You can't leave what you never had. :yawn: Should I be wounded? :chuckle:

Zakath
December 13th, 2004, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

I dunno, BillyBob. All the homos I know are never "happy". They are mad, catty, abusive, sullen, and have sharp tongues, but I don't recall ever seeing any of them "gay". Oddly enough "mad, catty, abusive, sullen, and sharp tongued" describes a lot of the Christians I've met on Web forums like TOL.

I wonder if there's a connection. :think:

Ecumenicist
December 13th, 2004, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Oddly enough "mad, catty, abusive, sullen, and sharp tongued" describes a lot of the Christians I've met on Web forums like TOL.

I wonder if there's a connection. :think:

Sounded more like an autobiography to me :chuckle:

Nineveh
December 13th, 2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

No, I strove for orthodoxy when I was in the pulpit. I felt that the people need truths, tested by time, rather than pop-culture Christianity.

Then why do you ask such questions as you do? Is it just to "stir the pot" rather than your honest misunderstanding then?


Only if he's lucky. :D

If that's what ya wanna call it.


So you're not in favor of holding manufacturers responsible for building defective mechanisms like automobiles or drugs and foisting them on unwitting consumers? Seems to be a similar issue to me.

Really? Then why don't you think people should hold the government accountable for government failure?


Since you very likely have never even met me or had the opportunity to have watched me minister years ago, I'll chalk your little tirade up to ignorance rather than petty vindictiveness.

Vindictive? Why would I be? As you said, I've never met you or heard you preach back in your pre-selfworship days. I can only judge by what you say now.


:yawn: Should I be wounded? :chuckle:

No, why would you be?

Nineveh
December 13th, 2004, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

Sounded more like an autobiography to me :chuckle:

For the High Priest of Comfort? Surely you jest!

Ecumenicist
December 13th, 2004, 05:23 PM
Looks like I'm in good company:

2 Cor 1:
3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, 4who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God.

Isaiah 40

1 Comfort, comfort my people,
says your God.

2 Speak tenderly to Jerusalem,

and proclaim to her

that her hard service has been completed,

that her sin has been paid for,

that she has received from the LORD's hand

double for all her sins.

Nineveh
December 13th, 2004, 05:31 PM
I think you pick your company well too, dave. I was just talking to Zakath earlier about how I think you are following in his footsteps...

Zakath
December 13th, 2004, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

Sounded more like an autobiography to me :chuckle: Autobiography? Whose? Mine or Ninnies?

Zakath
December 13th, 2004, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Then why do you ask such questions as you do? Is it just to "stir the pot" rather than your honest misunderstanding then?Bingo! Give that woman a see-gar! :BillyBob:

We all post for our own reaons. I post primarily for my own entertainment and secondarily for the illumination of other readers.


Really? Then why don't you think people should hold the government accountable for government failure? Well, you claim your deity made the government in the first place, so if he's not accountable, they're merely made in his image, right? ;)


Vindictive? Why would I be?Insecurity, pride, any one of a number of possible reasons... :think:


As you said, I've never met you or heard you preach back in your pre-selfworship days. I can only judge by what you say now.And I, you - hence the petty and vindictive comment.

Lighthouse
December 14th, 2004, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

I suggest it's like your "rock of offense" citation. The Church has been dancing around this topic for almost twenty centuries. It's one of those things you'd like to see in the Bible, but it isn't there.
Christ is called the 'rock of offence' in a prophecy in Isaiah, and in references to said prophecy by Paul, and Peter.


It all boils down to whether or not YHWH actually damns the ignorant unbeliever...
The Bible is clear that people have to choose. And when one can not make that choice they are not damned.


If you honestly believe that all men are subject to damnation because of Adam's sin, yet you believe that YHWH doesn't damn those who do not repent and accept Christ, then show us where you find that in scripture... :think:
Even though men are subject to damnation [based on their own sin, not because of Adam and Eve's] it is not God who damns them.


So far as I am aware, there's no age discrimation regarding original sin. If you're human, you've got it. If you've got it, you're damned.
I don't see any evidence for the idea of original sin that you're presenting. I'm not a Calvinist, :zakath:.:doh:

Lighthouse
December 14th, 2004, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by aharvey

Both you and lighthouse have expressed confusion over this statement, though I'm not sure why. "Straight" in this context means "heterosexual" (if you're going to be a biblical literalist you at least need to be aware that one word can have several different meanings!).
We know what straight means. We just don't see how you turned to talking about straight people, and choosing to put themselves through anything.


Lighthouse insists that everyone is born straight, er, heterosexual, and therefore that homosexuality has no genetic basis, and therefore that homosexuals are homosexuals because they choose to be so.
Liar! I said no such thing! I said that no one is born gay. Learn to read.


Are you with me so far? My point is that I find it hard to believe that people "choose" to take on the huge societal stigma that has always accompanied this behavior, and the many and dangerous consequences that can and have followed from this societal disapproval (e.g., verbal and physical abuse, ostracism, and other things you surely wish were more acceptable today than they are). Is that any clearer?
So, how do straight people fit into this? They aren't met with disapproval for their heterosexual behavior.

Lighthouse
December 14th, 2004, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Being a homo is gay!
:darwinsm:

Ecumenicist
December 14th, 2004, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Autobiography? Whose? Mine or Ninnies?

Nin's...

Nineveh
December 14th, 2004, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Zakath
Well, you claim your deity made the government in the first place, so if he's not accountable, they're merely made in his image, right? ;)

Well, I almost believed your first paragraph, and then this one.

God delegates authority. What we do with it isn't His fault. You keep wanting to place blame, but never see fit to put it where it belongs.


Insecurity, pride, any one of a number of possible reasons... :think:

1. Disposed to seek revenge; revengeful.

No, I dont feel "vengeful" toward you. You've never done anything to me.

2. Marked by or resulting from a desire to hurt; spiteful.

No, you harm yourself way more than I ever could. If I could be said to have any feeling toward you at all, it would be "pity".


And I, you - hence the petty and vindictive comment.

Ok, so why do you feel compelled to make "petty and vindictive" comments then?

:)

Nineveh
December 14th, 2004, 07:44 AM
Oh that's right dave, I'm not humbling myself before you so you feel I don't pay proper homage to your grace....

:ha:

aharvey
December 14th, 2004, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

We know what straight means. We just don't see how you turned to talking about straight people, and choosing to put themselves through anything.

AH: "Lighthouse insists that everyone is born straight, er, heterosexual, and therefore that homosexuality has no genetic basis, and therefore that homosexuals are homosexuals because they choose to be so."

Liar! I said no such thing! I said that no one is born gay. Learn to read.

So, how do straight people fit into this? They aren't met with disapproval for their heterosexual behavior.
Okay, one of us is completely misreading the other here. There is only one possible difference between "everyone is born straight" and "no one is born gay." And that is "a person's sexual preferences are not determined until after birth." Is that what you are trying to say? That there is no genetic reason why most men are sexually attracted to women and vice versa? That whether we are attracted to men, women, or both is exclusively an environmental event? If not, and if no one is born gay, but everyone is not born straight, then how is it that most people are heterosexuals? Why are so few people homosexual?

And you might want to rein in your trigger finger tendency to call anyone who disagrees with you a liar. You yourself provided a possible alternative explanation: misreading someone. There are others. Think about it.

Lighthouse
December 14th, 2004, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Okay, one of us is completely misreading the other here. There is only one possible difference between "everyone is born straight" and "no one is born gay." And that is "a person's sexual preferences are not determined until after birth." Is that what you are trying to say? That there is no genetic reason why most men are sexually attracted to women and vice versa? That whether we are attracted to men, women, or both is exclusively an environmental event? If not, and if no one is born gay, but everyone is not born straight, then how is it that most people are heterosexuals? Why are so few people homosexual?

And you might want to rein in your trigger finger tendency to call anyone who disagrees with you a liar. You yourself provided a possible alternative explanation: misreading someone. There are others. Think about it.
We are born with certain biological factors that will one day kick in, and cause us to desire sexual gratification. If nothing inhibits the natural progression we will end up heterosexual. However, there are a number of things that can cause someone to be homosexual, or attracted to animals, or any number of things. That is all. We are born to be straight, but we do not have any actual sexual preference when we are born, because we don't have any sexual desire.

Now, how are straight people choosing to put themselves through anything? What were you talking about?

Zakath
December 14th, 2004, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Well, I almost believed your first paragraph, and then this one.

God delegates authority. What we do with it isn't His fault. You keep wanting to place blame, but never see fit to put it where it belongs. Sounds like you're unfamiliar with despotisms like theocracies and military organizations. In either one the senior official is always responsible. That's why they're going to try Hussein, after all...


1. Disposed to seek revenge; revengeful.

No, I dont feel "vengeful" toward you. You've never done anything to me.Only threatened your worldview by disputing your religious beliefs...


2. Marked by or resulting from a desire to hurt; spiteful.

No, you harm yourself way more than I ever could. If I could be said to have any feeling toward you at all, it would be "pity".I notice that you did not deny a desire to hurt... ;) Perhaps I hit the mark after all...


Ok, so why do you feel compelled to make "petty and vindictive" comments then?Well, I've got an excuse... I'm just a poor dumb infidel. You, on the other hand, claim to be lead by a divine spirit...

Allegedly a big difference so far as I can see... unless, of course, you're saying you aren't really led by invisible beings...

Zakath
December 14th, 2004, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Christ is called the 'rock of offence' in a prophecy in Isaiah,...No he's not. It was a reference to king...

... and in references to said prophecy by Paul, and Peter.And your point is, what? I never claimed those texts didn't exist. I merely pointed out that you were in error when you claimed Jesus called himself that...


The Bible is clear that people have to choose. And when one can not make that choice they are not damned.Chapter and verse supporting your position please?

There are any number to support the orthodox view...

"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23)

"There is none righteous, not one." (Rom. 3:10)

"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. " (Is. 64:6)



Even though men are subject to damnation [based on their own sin, not because of Adam and Eve's] it is not God who damns them.Here you depart, once again, from Christian orthodoxy.

I'm certainly not going to waste time arguing the Christian position with you...

I'll leave that to those who actually beleive such things. :D



I don't see any evidence for the idea of original sin that you're presenting. I'm not a Calvinist... Neither is the Roman Catholic Pope, but he believes in original sin. Augustine, the originator of the doctrine wasn't a Calvinist either...

... but you wouldn't know that since you haven't studied Church history. :doh:

Lighthouse
December 15th, 2004, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

No he's not. It was a reference to king...
King who? Is that what you believed when you were an A/G pastor?


And your point is, what? I never claimed those texts didn't exist. I merely pointed out that you were in error when you claimed Jesus called himself that...
You said:

I suggest it's like your "rock of offense" citation. The Church has been dancing around this topic for almost twenty centuries. It's one of those things you'd like to see in the Bible, but it isn't there.
Post #123 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=639756#post639756)


Chapter and verse supporting your position please?

There are any number to support the orthodox view...

"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23)

"There is none righteous, not one." (Rom. 3:10)

"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. " (Is. 64:6)
Orthodox does not teach that those who cannot choose are condemned. If they don't know the law, then their sin is not imputed to them. Do you want those verses?



Here you depart, once again, from Christian orthodoxy.
Are you beginning to seeing a pattern?


I'm certainly not going to waste time arguing the Christian position with you...

I'll leave that to those who actually beleive such things. :D
The idea that we are condemned because of original sin isn't anything I have ever been taught. And I thought it was Calvinism, but Z Man seems to have a different spin, so I don't know.


Neither is the Roman Catholic Pope, but he believes in original sin. Augustine, the originator of the doctrine wasn't a Calvinist either...

... but you wouldn't know that since you haven't studied Church history. :doh:
Do they believe in the idea that we are condemned because of it? Or do they believe that we are condemned based on our own sins?

Frank Ernest
December 15th, 2004, 03:57 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Well, I've got an excuse... I'm just a poor dumb infidel. You, on the other hand, claim to be lead by a divine spirit...

Allegedly a big difference so far as I can see... unless, of course, you're saying you aren't really led by invisible beings...

:darwinsm:

Ok, we have the question of ignorant unbelievers. When do we get to the question of stupid unbelievers?

aharvey
December 15th, 2004, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

We are born with certain biological factors that will one day kick in, and cause us to desire sexual gratification. If nothing inhibits the natural progression we will end up heterosexual. However, there are a number of things that can cause someone to be homosexual, or attracted to animals, or any number of things. That is all. We are born to be straight, but we do not have any actual sexual preference when we are born, because we don't have any sexual desire.
Okay, that's splitting meaningless hairs. That is, for my arguments here "Born straight" and "Born to be straight" are identical. Yes, infants may not experience sexual desire, but their eventual sexual preference is genetically encoded (this is not a hard concept; infant girls do not have periods, but you're not going to argue that menstruation is not under genetic control, are you?). So in less biologically naive terms, you are saying that heterosexuality is genetically hardwired into all humans, and that all deviations from that must come strictly from subsequent environmental, and therefore non-genetic, factors.


Originally posted by lighthouse

Now, how are straight people choosing to put themselves through anything? What were you talking about?
It really is simple, no mental gymnastics required. If heterosexuality is genetically hardwired into all humans (see above), then all homosexuals must be genetic heterosexuals that chose to become homosexual, right?

The only way to disagree with the above italicized statement is to say they didn't have a choice, and I can think of only two reasons why this might be: 1) their homosexuality is (drumroll, please!) genetically based, or 2) environmental factors cause them to express homosexual behaviors despite their genetic heterosexuality against their will. This latter would liken homosexuality to a disease condition, right? Does this help clarify my statements?

Nineveh
December 15th, 2004, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Zakath
Only threatened your worldview by disputing your religious beliefs...

OOoo.. I musta missed it. Would you mind repeating it ?


I notice that you did not deny a desire to hurt... ;) Perhaps I hit the mark after all...

I think you hurt yourself far more and far better than I ever could. Not like I have the desire. If you are feeling massochistic though, you might wanna ring Gerald :)


Well, I've got an excuse... I'm just a poor dumb infidel. You, on the other hand, claim to be lead by a divine spirit...

You said I was being "petty and vindictive". Is there psycho-babble word for someone who refuses to be part of another's delusion? You would be closer to a lable befitting me if there is.


Allegedly a big difference so far as I can see... unless, of course, you're saying you aren't really led by invisible beings...

Ya know what they say faith is the evidence of :)

gabriel
December 15th, 2004, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

We are born with certain biological factors that will one day kick in, and cause us to desire sexual gratification. If nothing inhibits the natural progression we will end up heterosexual. However, there are a number of things that can cause someone to be homosexual, or attracted to animals, or any number of things. That is all. We are born to be straight, but we do not have any actual sexual preference when we are born, because we don't have any sexual desire.

Now, how are straight people choosing to put themselves through anything? What were you talking about?

lighthouse: do you honestly not understand aharvey's point or are you just "playing dumb" for giggles and grins...? let me give you a concrete example: my gay friends have told me that if they, in fact, HAD been born straight then why would they have willingly CHOSEN to "act" gay and willingly subjected themselves to all the ridicule, harrassment, and misery that they have been subjected to because of their sexual orientation.

On Fire
December 15th, 2004, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by aharvey
So in less biologically naive terms, you are saying that heterosexuality is genetically hardwired into all humans, and that all deviations from that must come strictly from subsequent environmental, and therefore non-genetic, factors.


By George, I think you've got it!

On Fire
December 15th, 2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by gabriel

lighthouse: do you honestly not understand aharvey's point or are you just "playing dumb" for giggles and grins...? let me give you a concrete example: my gay friends have told me that if they, in fact, HAD been born straight then why would they have willingly CHOSEN to "act" gay and willingly subjected themselves to all the ridicule, harrassment, and misery that they have been subjected to because of their sexual orientation.

They don't "willingly" act gay. They have been affected by their environment - molded, trained, brainwashed - as we all have.

Ask the smoker why he smokes. Ask the fat man why he eats McDonalds every day. Ask the serial killer why he kills. Ask your neighbor why he ma$turbate$ with p0rn while his lonely wife wonders what's wrong with her.

aharvey
December 15th, 2004, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by On Fire

By George, I think you've got it!

Well, that's what I'd understood from the start, but lighthouse doesn't seem to like the wording for some reason. And he still seems to have trouble with the corollary that if everyone is born heterosexual, then homosexuals are really heterosexuals either choosing to be homosexual or being "forced" to be homosexual. I'm pretty sure that when explaining why someone does something, your options are limited to 1) they do it by default [biologically speaking, genetic hardwiring], 2) they choose to do it, or 3) they have no choice but to do it. I've no idea why these basic points have been so hard to pin down.

Zakath
December 15th, 2004, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

OOoo.. I musta missed it. Would you mind repeating it ?[Restrains self from making comment about porcines and pearls...] :shut:


I think you hurt yourself far more and far better than I ever could. Not like I have the desire. If you are feeling massochistic though, you might wanna ring Gerald :)I'm fine, thank you very much! :thumb: I certainly wouldn't call the "G-man" for any sort of thing like that, it's not his (or my) style... besides "G" and "Z" are on the same team in this arena. :D


You said I was being "petty and vindictive". Is there psycho-babble word for someone who refuses to be part of another's delusion?Perhaps you're thinking of the word "normal"? :chuckle:


You would be closer to a lable befitting me if there is.Unfortunately your alleged experience with imaginary entities takes you well out of "normal"... ;)


Ya know what they say faith is the evidence of :) Yup... either "wishful thinking" or "doing without". :)

Zakath
December 15th, 2004, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest
Ok, we have the question of ignorant unbelievers. When do we get to the question of stupid unbelievers? Think you'd actually be capable of recognizing a difference? :think:

Zakath
December 15th, 2004, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

King who? A yet unborn king. It's prophecy... at least that's what the (Jewish) owners of the book claim.You said:


Orthodox does not teach that those who cannot choose are condemned. If they don't know the law, then their sin is not imputed to them. Do you want those verses?Sure. :)

If you're correct, then why do Christians oppose abortion since it's merely speeding the unborn onto eternal bliss... :think:


Are you beginning to seeing a pattern?That you do not have a good handle on English grammar, yes. :rolleyes:


The idea that we are condemned because of original sin isn't anything I have ever been taught. And I thought it was Calvinism, but Z Man seems to have a different spin, so I don't know.

Do they believe in the idea that we are condemned because of it? Or do they believe that we are condemned based on our own sins? Those who believe in origional sin doctrine believe in both points. It's merely one of the foundational teachings of orthodox Christianity - and the entire reason for the atonment.

:chuckle:

You really do need to get out more and talk to people.

Frank Ernest
December 16th, 2004, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Only threatened your worldview by disputing your religious beliefs...

Well, I've got an excuse... I'm just a poor dumb infidel. You, on the other hand, claim to be lead by a divine spirit...

Allegedly a big difference so far as I can see... unless, of course, you're saying you aren't really led by invisible beings...

:darwinsm:

Nineveh
December 16th, 2004, 09:05 AM
Z,
As a psycho-babbler, you would say, since I'm not willing to be part of your delusion of "vindictiveness" against you, that I'm "normal" yet, I'm not normal for having faith. Anyone who might seek you out for mental council may find themselves worse off...

NavyDude
December 16th, 2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

So you're not willing to suffer a bit of inconvenience for your religious views? You don't want to have to be inconvenienced and not attend a particular theme park because its owners violate your moral preferences. What a pathetic mockery of the faith of your predecessors...

Sounds like you've already rolled over and let your alleged "enemy" win. All you're doing is looking for a rationalization for your surrender.
:devil:

I like the way you think Zakath. You play a good Devil's Advocate. I've personally never understood why 'good christian people' whine about having to live through all the things that the Bible plainly says will happen, or why they try to resist it. A point to ponder: if the Bible says that the end times leading up to the big scha-bang will be full of perversion and sin, is it not defying God's plan -- thus, sinning -- to try and stop it? Too many people I see would rather God's plan adapt to them, than adapt themselves to God's plan. This is true with every denomination, including my own.

Lighthouse
December 16th, 2004, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Okay, that's splitting meaningless hairs. That is, for my arguments here "Born straight" and "Born to be straight" are identical. Yes, infants may not experience sexual desire, but their eventual sexual preference is genetically encoded (this is not a hard concept; infant girls do not have periods, but you're not going to argue that menstruation is not under genetic control, are you?). So in less biologically naive terms, you are saying that heterosexuality is genetically hardwired into all humans, and that all deviations from that must come strictly from subsequent environmental, and therefore non-genetic, factors.
Okay. Agreed.


It really is simple, no mental gymnastics required. If heterosexuality is genetically hardwired into all humans (see above), then all homosexuals must be genetic heterosexuals that chose to become homosexual, right?
They did not choose to have those desires. They chose to act on them.


The only way to disagree with the above italicized statement is to say they didn't have a choice, and I can think of only two reasons why this might be: 1) their homosexuality is (drumroll, please!) genetically based, or 2) environmental factors cause them to express homosexual behaviors despite their genetic heterosexuality against their will. This latter would liken homosexuality to a disease condition, right? Does this help clarify my statements?
See above.

Lighthouse
December 16th, 2004, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by gabriel

lighthouse: do you honestly not understand aharvey's point or are you just "playing dumb" for giggles and grins...? let me give you a concrete example: my gay friends have told me that if they, in fact, HAD been born straight then why would they have willingly CHOSEN to "act" gay and willingly subjected themselves to all the ridicule, harrassment, and misery that they have been subjected to because of their sexual orientation.
I didn't see his point. He explained it more clearly above, so now I know what he meant. And you can see my response to him for the reason your friends are wrong.

IveyLeaguer
December 16th, 2004, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Lucky from Reuters.com During an April, 2003 sermon, Stroud told her congregation that she was living in a committed relationship with another woman. She declined to practice celibacy or transfer to another, more tolerant denomination, and decided to be open about her sexuality. What other denominations are more tolerant?

Nineveh
December 16th, 2004, 03:56 PM
Episcopals?

Zakath
December 16th, 2004, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Z,
As a psycho-babbler, ...Sorry to burst your balloon, Nin, but I've studied the subject to many years to be a "psychobabbler". I'll leave that to the lay folks like you. :)


...you would say, since I'm not willing to be part of your delusion of "vindictiveness" against you, that I'm "normal" yet, I'm not normal for having faith.That wasn't what I wrote... I have no problem with faith, merely misplaced faith.


Anyone who might seek you out for mental council may find themselves worse off... Maybe, maybe not...

Unlike some folks who claim "miraculous" cures through prayer, positive thinking, or reciting verses from some "holy" book, I believe there are too many factors involved in successful counselling to assess a statement like yours wthout actually dealing with a real individual.

Lighthouse
December 17th, 2004, 01:51 AM
Psycho babbler? Is Zakath's true identity Charles Manson?:idea:

aharvey
December 17th, 2004, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Okay. Agreed.


They did not choose to have those desires. They chose to act on them.


See above.

Okay, good, now we're getting somewhere. But just to be painfully clear (after all, look how long it took to get here; I don't want to veer back into the Land of Misinterpretation again!), you are saying that:

1. Everyone is genetically hardwired to be heterosexual. And you are confident that this applies to everyone, worldwide, throughout history, right?

2. Some external forces, and external forces only, can cause some individuals to become attracted to the same sex, even though they are still genetically programmed to be heterosexuals.

3.1. Some individuals who, because of these strictly external forces, become attracted to members of the opposite sex, act against their genes and pursue same-sex relationships.

3.2. Other individuals who, because of these strictly external forces, become attracted to members of the opposite sex, somehow decide to resist their own sexual preferences and either a) have relationships with members of the opposite sex, repulsive as that might now be to them, b) do not have relationships at all, or c) find some sort of "cure," restoring their genetic programming to the forefront.

Is this a fair assessment of your opinions about why homosexuality is expressed?

Nineveh
December 17th, 2004, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Sorry to burst your balloon, Nin, but I've studied the subject to many years to be a "psychobabbler". I'll leave that to the lay folks like you. :)

Are you saying your aren't a psychiatrist?


That wasn't what I wrote... I have no problem with faith, merely misplaced faith.

And who died and made you god? :)


Maybe, maybe not...

Definatly to a Christ follower. Are you this bigoted with your patients?


Unlike some folks who claim "miraculous" cures through prayer, positive thinking, or reciting verses from some "holy" book, I believe there are too many factors involved in successful counselling to assess a statement like yours wthout actually dealing with a real individual.

No thanks, keep your snake oil.

Anyone of faith seeking you out should know up front you think they are a loon from the start.

Zakath
December 19th, 2004, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Are you saying your aren't a psychiatrist?That's correct. I'm a psychologist... actually a fair amount of difference.


And who died and made you god? :)Another profound theological argument disguised as an ad homimen, eh?



Definatly to a Christ follower. Are you this bigoted with your patients?I don't generally discuss religion with my clients. I'm a real psychologist, not a "pastoral counselor" masquerading as a trained professional.


No thanks, keep your snake oil.Wasn't selling any this week... you'll do better finding snake oil at your local religious establishment.


Anyone of faith seeking you out should know up front you think they are a loon from the start. I'll let you in on a "trick of the trade", Nin... not all delusions are harmful. I don't waste time on the harmless ones. ;)

Zakath
December 19th, 2004, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Psycho babbler? Is Zakath's true identity Charles Manson?:idea: No.

I fail to see the connection, though...

BillyBob
December 19th, 2004, 08:33 AM
You guys crack me up. :chuckle:

Zakath
December 19th, 2004, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob

You guys crack me up. :chuckle: Well, we all do our bit to make TOL a "fun" place to be. :D

BillyBob
December 19th, 2004, 08:39 AM
:eek:

:cheers:

Nineveh
December 19th, 2004, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

I'll let you in on a "trick of the trade", Nin... not all delusions are harmful. I don't waste time on the harmless ones. ;)

Physician, heal thyself :)

Lighthouse
December 19th, 2004, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Okay, good, now we're getting somewhere. But just to be painfully clear (after all, look how long it took to get here; I don't want to veer back into the Land of Misinterpretation again!), you are saying that:

1. Everyone is genetically hardwired to be heterosexual. And you are confident that this applies to everyone, worldwide, throughout history, right?
Actually, why reading your post, I thought of something. I am not entirely sure that sexuality is determined genetically, in anyone. But we are all born [genetics] to procreate. And infertile people are the exception to the rule.


2. Some external forces, and external forces only, can cause some individuals to become attracted to the same sex, even though they are still genetically programmed to be heterosexuals.
Aside from the genetinc programming, yes. But I still believe that those who are not affected by these things will be heterosexual. Also, there are other external forces, or events, that can lead to promiscuity, sexual addiction and the like that is expressed in heterosexual behavior.


3.1. Some individuals who, because of these strictly external forces, become attracted to members of the opposite sex, act against their genes and pursue same-sex relationships.
Well, I have come to the idea that it is not agains their genetic wiring. But it is against what they were designed for: procreation.


3.2. Other individuals who, because of these strictly external forces, become attracted to members of the opposite sex, somehow decide to resist their own sexual preferences and either a) have relationships with members of the opposite sex, repulsive as that might now be to them, b) do not have relationships at all, or c) find some sort of "cure," restoring their genetic programming to the forefront.
What?


Is this a fair assessment of your opinions about why homosexuality is expressed?
1-3.1 was, but I have changed my mind. 3.2 doesn't make any sense. It may just be typos, that make it hard to understand, though.

Lighthouse
December 19th, 2004, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

No.

I fail to see the connection, though...
It was a pun. Manson is a psycho, and a babbler...

Frank Ernest
December 20th, 2004, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by :zakath:

I'll let you in on a "trick of the trade", Nin... not all delusions are harmful. I don't waste time on the harmless ones.


Originally posted by Nineveh

Physician, heal thyself :)

:darwinsm: BLOTD!!!

aharvey
December 20th, 2004, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Actually, why reading your post, I thought of something. I am not entirely sure that sexuality is determined genetically, in anyone. But we are all born [genetics] to procreate. And infertile people are the exception to the rule.
Born to breed? Hmm. As an alternative to being born straight, I'm doubtful that your new version makes any biological sense. Typically, and excluding the wonders of modern technology, people make babies because of things they do with people that they find sexually attractive. They do those things because they feel good, not because they want to make a baby. Infertile people have no less of a sex drive than fertile people, as far as I know. Their motivations for wanting to have sex is no different from those of fertile people, as far as I know. No, the way genetics actually works, it makes far more sense that it is the desire to have sex that is in our genes, not the desire to make babies.


Originally posted by lighthouse

Aside from the genetinc programming, yes. But I still believe that those who are not affected by these things will be heterosexual.
In the absence of any genetic basis for heterosexuality? How would this be possible?


Originally posted by lighthouse

Also, there are other external forces, or events, that can lead to promiscuity, sexual addiction and the like that is expressed in heterosexual behavior.
I didn't mean to imply that all external forces lead to homosexuality!


Originally posted by lighthouse

Well, I have come to the idea that it is not agains their genetic wiring. But it is against what they were designed for: procreation.
So, for example, when a man sees a hot woman at a bar, his most basic thoughts are not "Wow, I'd love to sleep with her," they are "Wow, I'd love for her to carry my baby"? And when someone is grossed out at the thought of two men having sex, it's due to the realization that such actions could never lead to a child?


Originally posted by lighthouse

What?
Let's try again. Some heterosexuals are exposed to some external forces that cause them to become attracted to members of the same sex. What do they do? They either:

3.1: follow through with homosexual behavior, or they don't. Instead, they:

3.2.a: have relationships with members of the opposite sex, repulsive as that might now be to them (why repulsive? Because they are now attracted to same-sex)
3.2.b: do not have relationships at all, or
3.2.c: find some sort of "cure," restoring their genetic programming to the forefront.


Originally posted by lighthouse

1-3.1 was, but I have changed my mind. 3.2 doesn't make any sense. It may just be typos, that make it hard to understand, though.
Hope I clarified things a bit. I think you will have a very difficult task demonstrating that sexuality has no genetic basis, but breeding does, and that's why most people, with no genetic disposition one way or the other, end up being functionally homosexual. Do you REALLY think that could explain the instinctive, visceral revulsion most people experience when they visualize two men going at it?

Lighthouse
December 20th, 2004, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Born to breed? Hmm. As an alternative to being born straight, I'm doubtful that your new version makes any biological sense.
What I mean is that we are biologically made up to procreate. Right?


Typically, and excluding the wonders of modern technology, people make babies because of things they do with people that they find sexually attractive. They do those things because they feel good, not because they want to make a baby. Infertile people have no less of a sex drive than fertile people, as far as I know. Their motivations for wanting to have sex is no different from those of fertile people, as far as I know. No, the way genetics actually works, it makes far more sense that it is the desire to have sex that is in our genes, not the desire to make babies.
I didn't say anything about the desire to make babies, you twit. And the desire to have sex is biological, I agree. But sexual preference is not.


In the absence of any genetic basis for heterosexuality? How would this be possible?
Because we are made to procreate. Man and woman. Man and man, and woman and woman can not breed.


I didn't mean to imply that all external forces lead to homosexuality!
I know. I was just making it clear that I did not believe they all did.


So, for example, when a man sees a hot woman at a bar, his most basic thoughts are not "Wow, I'd love to sleep with her," they are "Wow, I'd love for her to carry my baby"? And when someone is grossed out at the thought of two men having sex, it's due to the realization that such actions could never lead to a child?
No.


Let's try again. Some heterosexuals are exposed to some external forces that cause them to become attracted to members of the same sex. What do they do? They either:

3.1: follow through with homosexual behavior, or they don't. Instead, they:

3.2.a: have relationships with members of the opposite sex, repulsive as that might now be to them (why repulsive? Because they are now attracted to same-sex)
3.2.b: do not have relationships at all, or
3.2.c: find some sort of "cure," restoring their genetic programming to the forefront.
Different things can happen. But I surmise that those who are completely homosexual would not have relations with someone of the opposite gender. Some of them may never have sex, if they percieve their desires as wrong, but never know how to deal with them. This would explain a lot about the RCC priesthood.

Then there are those who seek God, and find healing, and are changed, made new creations, in Christ.

And, as well, there are those who act on their sexual desires for the same sex.


Hope I clarified things a bit. I think you will have a very difficult task demonstrating that sexuality has no genetic basis, but breeding does, and that's why most people, with no genetic disposition one way or the other, end up being functionally homosexual. Do you REALLY think that could explain the instinctive, visceral revulsion most people experience when they visualize two men going at it?
I did not say sexuality has no genetic basis. I said that sexual preference has none.

aharvey
December 20th, 2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

What I mean is that we are biologically made up to procreate. Right?

That's a nonsense phrase, I'm afraid. Species whose individuals do not reproduce (same as procreate?) become extinct. As true of asexual algae and bacteria as it is of humans. It is meaningless to refer to a genetic basis for reproduction. What has a genetic basis are those traits that facilitate the process of reproduction. Such as gender-specific cues (e.g., that say "I'm a female!"), and the ability to recognize those cues, and the desire to act upon them. Hey, wait a minute! Aren't those the exact same things that define heterosexuality? I'm sorry, this brings us right back to the idea that sexual orientation has a genetic basis!


Originally posted by lighthouse

I didn't say anything about the desire to make babies, you twit.

Silly me. I thought that that's what you meant by procreate! Perhaps you could tell me what you mean by procreate?


Originally posted by lighthouse

And the desire to have sex is biological, I agree. But sexual preference is not.

The only reason I can see your adopting this view is because you don't like where the alternative is inevitably heading. But I'm sorry, I just don't buy that you, lighthouse, are genetically programmed to want to have sex, but your genes have had no input with respect to who you want to have sex with! How did you figure it out?


Originally posted by lighthouse

Because we are made to procreate. Man and woman. Man and man, and woman and woman can not breed.

See above. This is a biologically naive to bankrupt way to think about this. Species that don't reproduce go extinct, so all living things are, in a trivial sense, "made to procreate," (again, assuming that by "procreate" you mean "reproduce"). It is therefore meaningless to refer to a genetic basis for reproduction. What has a genetic basis are those traits that facilitate the process of reproduction. Such as gender-specific cues, and the ability to recognize those cues, and the desire to act upon them. Hey, wait a minute! Aren't those the exact same things that define heterosexuality? I'm sorry, this brings us right back to the idea that sexual orientation has a genetic basis!


Originally posted by lighthouse

No.

Then why the instinctive gross-out reaction?


Originally posted by lighthouse

Different things can happen. But I surmise that those who are completely homosexual would not have relations with someone of the opposite gender. Some of them may never have sex, if they percieve their desires as wrong, but never know how to deal with them. This would explain a lot about the RCC priesthood.

What do you mean by "completely homosexual"? How can this have a biological and yet nongenetic reality?


Originally posted by lighthouse

Then there are those who seek God, and find healing, and are changed, made new creations, in Christ.

And, as well, there are those who act on their sexual desires for the same sex.

Yes, you've just listed the choices I gave earlier. So we're in agreement here?

Originally posted by lighthouse

I did not say sexuality has no genetic basis. I said that sexual preference has none.
As you read through my quote, it should be clear that I was referring to "sexual preference." If not, then let me make it clear. Your idea that sexual preference has no genetic basis makes no sense biologically.

Zakath
December 20th, 2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Physician, heal thyself :) Already have; it's one of the reasons I abandoned theism. :)

Zakath
December 20th, 2004, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

It was a pun. Manson is a psycho, and a babbler... ... oh, thanks for explaining. :rolleyes:

Lighthouse
December 20th, 2004, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

That's a nonsense phrase, I'm afraid. Species whose individuals do not reproduce (same as procreate?) become extinct. As true of asexual algae and bacteria as it is of humans. It is meaningless to refer to a genetic basis for reproduction. What has a genetic basis are those traits that facilitate the process of reproduction. Such as gender-specific cues (e.g., that say "I'm a female!"), and the ability to recognize those cues, and the desire to act upon them. Hey, wait a minute! Aren't those the exact same things that define heterosexuality? I'm sorry, this brings us right back to the idea that sexual orientation has a genetic basis!
Are we designed with the propensity to reproduce? That is genetic, dumbass. Sexual orientation has no genetic basis. There is no suh thing as a gay gene, or a straight gene. End of story.



Silly me. I thought that that's what you meant by procreate! Perhaps you could tell me what you mean by procreate?
Reproduce. I never said anything about desire.:rolleyes:



The only reason I can see your adopting this view is because you don't like where the alternative is inevitably heading. But I'm sorry, I just don't buy that you, lighthouse, are genetically programmed to want to have sex, but your genes have had no input with respect to who you want to have sex with! How did you figure it out?
It came to me.



See above. This is a biologically naive to bankrupt way to think about this. Species that don't reproduce go extinct, so all living things are, in a trivial sense, "made to procreate," (again, assuming that by "procreate" you mean "reproduce"). It is therefore meaningless to refer to a genetic basis for reproduction. What has a genetic basis are those traits that facilitate the process of reproduction. Such as gender-specific cues, and the ability to recognize those cues, and the desire to act upon them. Hey, wait a minute! Aren't those the exact same things that define heterosexuality? I'm sorry, this brings us right back to the idea that sexual orientation has a genetic basis!
Everything is designed to reproduce. It's in their genes. Bottom line.



Then why the instinctive gross-out reaction?
Because it's disgusting.



What do you mean by "completely homosexual"? How can this have a biological and yet nongenetic reality?
It's not bilogical. Are you stupid? Do you blame that on genes?



Yes, you've just listed the choices I gave earlier. So we're in agreement here?
I don't know that you agree with me, but yes I agree with the choices you gave. However, I would not call freedom from sin a "cure." I have been freed from sin, and so can anyone else.


As you read through my quote, it should be clear that I was referring to "sexual preference." If not, then let me make it clear. Your idea that sexual preference has no genetic basis makes no sense biologically.
How does it not? Sexual preference is not genetic, or biological. Get it now?

Lighthouse
December 20th, 2004, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

... oh, thanks for explaining. :rolleyes:
It had nothing to do specifically with you. Someone called you a psycho babbler, and I made a joke. It was not a commentary on Zakath. Okay?

Melika
December 21st, 2004, 05:25 AM
I think these kind of articles are no-brainers. If you Love Me, you'll keep my commandents. We all know what happened to
the Sodomites in Lot's time. I believe two angels sent by God
to get Lot and his family out of that city before it was destroyed
by fire.

Just be glad that God does'nt rain down fire and brimstone to eleviate the Sodomites today as He did in Lot's day.melika:thumb:

Nineveh
December 21st, 2004, 07:33 AM
Welcome to TOL, Melika :)

aharvey
December 21st, 2004, 09:40 AM
Well, okay, lighthouse, if you're not even going to make an effort to understand, then there's little point in continuing this. I am curious, though, why you assume your understanding of biology and genetics is far superior (hence the "twit," "dumbass," "stupid" insults) to that of a professional biologist. I'm not being arrogant here. I don't know what it is that you do for a living, if anything, but what would you think if someone from a completely different profession from yours made statements concerning your line of work that you knew to be far off base, and that person completely ignored your professional perspective, simply resorting to calling you "twit," "dumbass," "stupid," etc.?

gabriel
December 21st, 2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by On Fire

They don't "willingly" act gay. They have been affected by their environment - molded, trained, brainwashed - as we all have.

Ask the smoker why he smokes. Ask the fat man why he eats McDonalds every day. Ask the serial killer why he kills. Ask your neighbor why he ma$turbate$ with p0rn while his lonely wife wonders what's wrong with her.

..... knowing my neighbors (man-woman-married) they probably both ma$turbate with porn.

gabriel
December 21st, 2004, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Melika

I think these kind of articles are no-brainers. If you Love Me, you'll keep my commandents. We all know what happened to
the Sodomites in Lot's time. I believe two angels sent by God
to get Lot and his family out of that city before it was destroyed
by fire.

Just be glad that God does'nt rain down fire and brimstone to eleviate the Sodomites today as He did in Lot's day.melika:thumb:

.. dear melika... you say god alleviated (??), elevated (??) those nasty sodomites..?

... yes, dear sweet fatherly lot - who threw his virgin daughters out the door to be gang raped....

Zakath
December 21st, 2004, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Melika
... We all know what happened to the Sodomites in Lot's time. I believe two angels sent by God to get Lot and his family out of that city before it was destroyed by fire...Lot? You mean the coward who offered his daughters to the mob for group sex? You mean the drunk who later had sex with his own daughters?

Your deity certainly has an interesting set of values... :rolleyes:

Zakath
December 21st, 2004, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

It had nothing to do specifically with you. Someone called you a psycho babbler, and I made a joke. It was not a commentary on Zakath. Okay? If you say so... it wouldn't be any worse than what you've already called me in the past... :rolleyes:

Nineveh
December 21st, 2004, 11:39 AM
On Fire, garbiel, surely we can find a better way to express our points.

gabriel
December 21st, 2004, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by On Fire

They don't "willingly" act gay. They have been affected by their environment - molded, trained, brainwashed - as we all have.


.....hmmm, doing a little thinking aloud here. i use to work in an institution for the mentally retarded. their chronological ages ranged from approx 14-50 years .. the "residents", as they were called, i worked with had mental ages from approx 2-8 years. just because they were mentally retarded did not mean they did not have sex drives (being as sex is a drive as is eating). these residents were housed in co-ed cottages. there was much sex...... sex with self, male-female sex, and the occasional male-male sex...... in other words, some of the residents preferred sex with males even though they had access to females. being that, in most cases, these residents had been institutionalized most of their lives and we so-called educators had enough trouble trying to mold, train, and brainwash them to do basic skills i am wondering what environmental influences swayed their sexual preferences...... food for thought.

gabriel
December 21st, 2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

On Fire, garbiel, surely we can find a better way to express our points.

... sorry... i must say i was aghast at on fire's choice of words but figured since he wasn't "called on the carpet" then perhaps those words were okay to use.

gabriel
December 21st, 2004, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Lot? You mean the coward who offered his daughters to the mob for group sex? You mean the drunk who later had sex with his own daughters?

Your deity certainly has an interesting set of values... :rolleyes:

:thumb:

Nineveh
December 21st, 2004, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by gabriel

... sorry... i must say i was aghast at on fire's choice of words but figured since he wasn't "called on the carpet" then perhaps those words were okay to use.

T'so k. I thought I had the problem addressed... But anyway, no, it's not acceptable. I have faith you can make your points in a better manner. Same for you OnFire.

Zakath
December 21st, 2004, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

T'so k. I thought I had the problem addressed... But anyway, no, it's not acceptable. I have faith you can make your points in a better manner. Same for you OnFire. So when did you become a moderator? :think:

Nineveh
December 21st, 2004, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

So when did you become a moderator? :think:

January 27, 2004 :)

Zakath
December 21st, 2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

January 27, 2004 :) Well, congratulations... :rolleyes:

Nineveh
December 21st, 2004, 12:04 PM
..thanks... I think....

Zakath
December 26th, 2004, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

..thanks... I think.... You're welcome; I'm sure. :D

HerodionRomulus
December 28th, 2004, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Melika

I think these kind of articles are no-brainers. If you Love Me, you'll keep my commandents. We all know what happened to
the Sodomites in Lot's time. I believe two angels sent by God
to get Lot and his family out of that city before it was destroyed
by fire.

Just be glad that God does'nt rain down fire and brimstone to eleviate the Sodomites today as He did in Lot's day.melika:thumb:


At no place in Scripture does it say that Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality.
If you read the text, you will find that God had decided to destroy the city before the mob of men attacked Lot.
Further, it was Lot that they were after, not the angels.

Why was Gomorrah destroyed? Admah and Zeboiim?

HerodionRomulus
December 28th, 2004, 05:07 PM
Rev. Stroud has now decided to appeal this case, in part because part of her case was not allowed to be made by the "judge."

UM News (http://www.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=2&mid=6373)

Nineveh
December 28th, 2004, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

At no place in Scripture does it say that Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality.
If you read the text, you will find that God had decided to destroy the city before the mob of men attacked Lot.
Further, it was Lot that they were after, not the angels.

Why was Gomorrah destroyed? Admah and Zeboiim?

The mob didn't attack Lot, the "mob" comprised of " all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old" were after the angels. "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

You can keep trying to deny sodomy was one of the sins that drew God's anger. But obviously He found out what He needed to know. "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

NavyDude
December 28th, 2004, 05:15 PM
It may have been because I was small when I first learned the story and so the subject of aberrant sex was avoided, but the meaning I got from the Sodom and Gomorrah story was that the men of the city were trying to physically harm the Angels because they were beacons of the goodness they did not have in them.

Ecumenicist
December 28th, 2004, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

The mob didn't attack Lot, the "mob" comprised of " all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old" were after the angels. "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

You can keep trying to deny sodomy was one of the sins that drew God's anger. But obviously He found out what He needed to know. "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

The sin was attempted gang rape.

Art Deco
December 28th, 2004, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

The sin was attempted gang rape. Of who, Lot's daughters or Lot's male guests?

PureX
December 28th, 2004, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco Of who, Lot's daughters or Lot's male guests? Rape is rape. It doesn't matter who is doing it to whom, or what sex they are.

Galadrial
December 29th, 2004, 12:09 AM
I can't believe there are ppl out there that are believing in things like this.(well, actually I can but it upsets me greatly to know that one of my neighbors could in fact be one of these ppl and I don't even know it.) Not only do I find it wrong but I think god is looking down on these ppl and isn't at all happy with them and the choices they are making. I'm also wondering if they even care about what god thinks of them, and there actions towards others?...........(mind goes blank for a while....) I might add more later but I think thats all for now!

Nineveh
December 29th, 2004, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by PureX

Rape is rape. It doesn't matter who is doing it to whom, or what sex they are.

I guess it only matters to those who care about the accuracy of the event, unlike HR who is always looking to condone sodomy.

firechyld
December 29th, 2004, 08:01 AM
I guess it only matters to those who care about the accuracy of the event, unlike HR who is always looking to condone sodomy.

You honestly feel that the rape of a man by a man is a worse crime than the rape of a woman by a man, or a man by a woman, or a woman by a woman?

Nineveh
December 29th, 2004, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

You honestly feel that the rape of a man by a man is a worse crime than the rape of a woman by a man, or a man by a woman, or a woman by a woman?

I honestly feel HR takes every opportunity to make the event of Sodom into something it isn't. Sort of like you are trying to do with my statement to impurex.

firechyld
December 29th, 2004, 08:17 AM
I asked you with the intent of allowing you to clarify if I had misinterpreted. You objected to HR's statement that:


Rape is rape. It doesn't matter who is doing it to whom, or what sex they are.

Did you object because you disagree with the sentiment expressed, or just because it was HR who expressed it?

Nineveh
December 29th, 2004, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

I asked you with the intent of allowing you to clarify if I had misinterpreted. You objected to HR's statement that:

HR didn't make that statement, impurex did. Perhaps if you paged back you could follow along with the convo.


Did you object because you disagree with the sentiment expressed, or just because it was HR who expressed it?

Go back a page, and you will get a handle on what I am objecting to.

firechyld
December 29th, 2004, 08:32 AM
My apologies, I misnamed the quotee. I did read the entire thread before posting. It was simply a mistype.

I'll restate:

Did you object because you disagree with the sentiment expressed, or just because it was PureX who expressed it?

Nineveh
December 29th, 2004, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

Rev. Stroud has now decided to appeal this case, in part because part of her case was not allowed to be made by the "judge."

UM News (http://www.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=2&mid=6373)

And look (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42104) what happens to denoms that promote such unGodliness in the pulpit.

In case you don't want to look:
85 Episcopal parishes have closed their doors last year and 36,000 members have left.

Nineveh
December 29th, 2004, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

I'll restate:

Did you object because you disagree with the sentiment expressed, or just because it was PureX who expressed it?

: sigh :

I object to HR misreperesenting what happened at Sodom, what part of this are you not understanding?

firechyld
December 29th, 2004, 08:39 AM
He interprets the crime of Sodom as being rape, not homosexuality.

It may disagree with your interpretation, but it's not necessarily incorrect. I think it's more what he's concluding that bothers you.

Still, you objected to his statement that "rape is rape". It's a heinous crime no matter what the gender of the individuals involved... at least by modern standards. Do you disagree?

Nineveh
December 29th, 2004, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

He interprets the crime of Sodom as being rape, not homosexuality.

And he is wrong. For crying out loud, you said you read the thread, yet you seem to have skipped page 14.


It may disagree with your interpretation, but it's not necessarily incorrect. I think it's more what he's concluding that bothers you.

HR is misrepresenting what happened. If you wanna follow along with him, go ahead. But you will be just as wrong.


Still, you objected to his statement that "rape is rape".

impurex said: "Rape is rape. It doesn't matter who is doing it to whom, or what sex they are."

I said: I guess it only matters to those who care about the accuracy of the event, unlike HR who is always looking to condone sodomy.

In this context, you know, HR misrepresenting what happened, it does matter because that's what happened.


It's a heinous crime no matter what the gender of the individuals involved... at least by modern standards. Do you disagree?

I agree you should follow along and at least try to understand what is being said. My objection (still) is trying to make an event into something it's not. Do you really believe I think rape is ok at all? Get serious.

Instead of trying to make me say something I'm not saying so you will have something to go on about, how about you try taking another crack at that Horus thread?

firechyld
December 29th, 2004, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

And he is wrong. For crying out loud, you said you read the thread, yet you seem to have skipped page 14.

I and many others... including many Christians of various denominations over the milennia... do not feel that you can make the assertation that this interpretation is "wrong" based solely on what is presented in the text. *shrug* It's an argument that has been going on for a very long time. I doubt it's going to be resolved here.


HR is misrepresenting what happened. If you wanna follow along with him, go ahead. But you will be just as wrong.


Again, it's an old argument. We're told what happened. It's left to the reader to discern why. Unfortunately(?), we're operating in a completely different culture to those for whom the text was originally written. It's not as simple as "misrepresenting what happened".


I agree you should follow along and at least try to understand what is being said. My objection (still) is trying to make an event into something it's not. Do you really believe I think rape is ok at all? Get serious.

No. I don't think that. I think that you often object to people's comments based on your feelings about the individual in question, rather than the content of the post.

"Rape is rape". You obviously agree with that sentiment, yet you responded in a very antagonistic fashion, without acknowledging that the statement itself was not objectionable. Maybe I've grown unused to your idiosyncrasies in my absence, but it jumped out at me.

Perhaps for the best, I have run out of time. Since I'm not sure when I'll be back online, I'll apologise and back out of this discussion now.


Instead of trying to make me say something I'm not saying so you will have something to go on about, how about you try taking another crack at that Horus thread?

That was the thread where I was supposed to be looking up prophecy for you, no? I didn't know that I was going to be online tonight, so I was unprepared. I'll try to remember it next time I have net access. Failing that, feel free to remind me if I show up empty handed again. As I'm sure you will. :)

Take care, Ninevah and all. I'll hopefully talk to you again soon.

Nineveh
December 29th, 2004, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

I and many others... including many Christians of various denominations over the milennia... do not feel that you can make the assertation that this interpretation is "wrong" based solely on what is presented in the text. *shrug* It's an argument that has been going on for a very long time. I doubt it's going to be resolved here.

Right, well anyway it seems straightforward enough, and I'll repost this for you since page 14 gives you hives:

Gen 19:4-5
Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."


Again, it's an old argument. We're told what happened. It's left to the reader to discern why. Unfortunately(?), we're operating in a completely different culture to those for whom the text was originally written. It's not as simple as "misrepresenting what happened".

Feel free to make those 2 verses say anything you want. HR does.


No. I don't think that. I think that you often object to people's comments based on your feelings about the individual in question, rather than the content of the post.

Speaking of context, which you avoided so you would have something to harp on ....

Seems you are being a bit of a hypocrite at this point.


"Rape is rape". You obviously agree with that sentiment, yet you responded in a very antagonistic fashion, without acknowledging that the statement itself was not objectionable.

That's because it took you to yank it out of context.


Maybe I've grown unused to your idiosyncrasies in my absence, but it jumped out at me.

No, you often yank things out of context and charge full steam ahead.


Perhaps for the best, I have run out of time. Since I'm not sure when I'll be back online, I'll apologise and back out of this discussion now.

lol...

That always seems to happen when that prophecy for idols thing comes up...


That was the thread where I was supposed to be looking up prophecy for you, no? I didn't know that I was going to be online tonight, so I was unprepared. I'll try to remember it next time I have net access. Failing that, feel free to remind me if I show up empty handed again. As I'm sure you will. :)

Yes, I will keep reminding you you keep coming up empty handed :)


Take care, Ninevah and all. I'll hopefully talk to you again soon.

Take care :)

Christine
December 29th, 2004, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Galadrial

I can't believe there are ppl out there that are believing in things like this.(well, actually I can but it upsets me greatly to know that one of my neighbors could in fact be one of these ppl and I don't even know it.) Not only do I find it wrong but I think god is looking down on these ppl and isn't at all happy with them and the choices they are making. I'm also wondering if they even care about what god thinks of them, and there actions towards others?...........(mind goes blank for a while....) I might add more later but I think thats all for now!

That's intersting, Galadrial. You talk as if you condemn homosexuality, yet the church you say you attend (United Church of Christ) which is one of the most accepting denominations of homosexuals. In fact, they were the very first church to ordain homosexuals, transgenders, and lesbians for the ministry.

Galadrial
December 29th, 2004, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Christine

That's intersting, Galadrial. You talk as if you condemn homosexuality, yet the church you say you attend (United Church of Christ) which is one of the most accepting denominations of homosexuals. In fact, they were the very first church to ordain homosexuals, transgenders, and lesbians for the ministry.


well, Christine........I may be a member of a church but it doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with everything that is mentioned in the church, or all that the church says.:-/

Christine
December 29th, 2004, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Galadrial

well, Christine........I may be a member of a church but it doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with everything that is mentioned in the church, or all that the church says

Are you saying you disagree with the United Church of Christ?

If you don't agree with the church you should do one of two things:

1: Leave the United Church of Christ and start attending a more conservative church

2: Conform to and start agreeing with the beliefs of the United Church of Christ.

If you do agree, then you're in the right church.

Galadrial
December 29th, 2004, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Christine

Are you saying you disagree with the United Church of Christ?

If you don't agree with the church you should do one of two things:

1: Leave the United Church of Christ and start attending a more conservative church

2: Conform to and start agreeing with the beliefs of the United Church of Christ.

If you do agree, then you're in the right church.

You've totally confused me , Christine......I'm not sure what you're saying.......I also don't appreciate you telling me what to do!

Christine
December 29th, 2004, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Galadrial

You've totally confused me , Christine......I'm not sure what you're saying.......
I'll try one question at a time. :)

I've shown you that the United Church of Christ openly supports homosexuality. Do you or do you not agree with beliefs and actions of the United Church of Christ? To put it more simply, do you think homosexuality is a sin?

Galadrial
December 29th, 2004, 06:59 PM
Yes, I think homosexuality is a sin and it is morally wrong.

Galadrial
December 29th, 2004, 07:00 PM
I find one thing to be true in that, War only makes things worse. It never solves anything.

Christine
December 29th, 2004, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by Galadrial

I find one thing to be true in that, War only makes things worse. It never solves anything.

Who said anything about war?:confused:

Christine
December 29th, 2004, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Galadrial

Yes, I think homosexuality is a sin and it is morally wrong.

Thank you for answering. :) Now for the next question, why are you attending a church that openly promotes homosexuality?

Art Deco
December 29th, 2004, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Galadrial

I find one thing to be true in that, War only makes things worse. It never solves anything. Another air-head liberal lie, WW II stopped Hitler's war to conquer the world. Only those who read history books know this. The MTV generation are dumber than dog crap...and are a waste of skin.

firechyld
December 30th, 2004, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh
lol...

That always seems to happen when that prophecy for idols thing comes up...

LOL!!

The funny thing is that you probably DO believe that I'd completely log out of TOL and go offline just to avoid answering a question from you. Self important much?

I am, and was yesterday, online from a friend's computer, minus my books, my notebooks, my saved links and stored favourites. I also had limited time, and today have even less. Unlike some, I don't like to "back up" my assertations with poorly researched answers, and I certainly don't like to rely on google for "research". When I have some advanced notice that I will have access to TOL, I'll have a serious crack at that prophecy question. Of course, I'm presuming that you want me to take this seriously and give you a decently researched and verified answer. If you just want a google search, you can do that yourself.


Yes, I will keep reminding you you keep coming up empty handed :)

I keep coming up empty handed? Ninevah, I haven't tried to find material for you yet. I have a life outside of this website. :)

Nineveh
December 30th, 2004, 09:17 AM
firechyld,
Since you have found the other thread, let's keep this one and that one as on topic as possible?

NavyDude
December 30th, 2004, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Another air-head liberal lie, WW II stopped Hitler's war to conquer the world. Only those who read history books know this. The MTV generation are dumber than dog crap...and are a waste of skin.

Did WWII stop Hitler from taking over the world, or allow the U.S. to take over?

Galadrial
December 30th, 2004, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Christine

Who said anything about war?:confused:

I thought you sent me a message but I realized just now that i had read your signature, instead. Whoops!Sorry!

Zakath
December 30th, 2004, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by firechyld
... I have a life outside of this website. :) Well, of all the heresies I've ever seen spouted here, this takes the cake!!!! :shocked:

... a life outside of TOL?!?! Who'dve thought it possible.

:chuckle:

Art Deco
December 30th, 2004, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by NavyDude

Did WWII stop Hitler from taking over the world, or allow the U.S. to take over? Are you an anti-American Secular Humanist Democrat? They all hate America and long for American defeat across the globe. More Americans have died to rescue foreigners from evil dictators and despots than have died to "take over the world." Your liberal revisionist history is showing.

Galadrial
December 30th, 2004, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Another air-head liberal lie, WW II stopped Hitler's war to conquer the world. Only those who read history books know this. The MTV generation are dumber than dog crap...and are a waste of skin.


Some from this generation might be dummer than bricks. however, I am sure that I nore anyone I know is that stupid.
I maybe ingorant but surely not stupid.....
we are not the only generation who thinks they know all and are hugely mistaken.:mad: :nono: (at stupidity of others!) :rolleyes:

Galadrial
December 30th, 2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Christine

Thank you for answering. :) Now for the next question, why are you attending a church that openly promotes homosexuality?

why? you ask?
b/c even though I believe homosexuality is a sin . Their are always going to be ppl out their that believe in it and I might as well face them. Then, go running and hidding from them.:D
Or allow then to control the way I live my life, and where I go......

HerodionRomulus
January 7th, 2005, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

: sigh :

I object to HR misreperesenting what happened at Sodom, what part of this are you not understanding?

I've read the Bible, therefore I know that the sin of Sodom was not sexual orientation.

Gn 13:13 "Now the people of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the LORD." But it does not say why.

In Gn 18 Abraham bargains with God that if only 10 good people could be found, the city would be spared.
Note that before ANYTHING happened at Lot's
THIS occured: "But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man bold emphasis mine

The Bible is full of references to Sodom and often compares contemporary situations to Sodom, condemning current situations and people for doing what Sodom had done.

NONE of the comparisons ever mention anything of a homosexual or homo-erotic nature.

These Scriptues are:
Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32;
Judges 19 & 20;
Isaiah 1:9-11;
3:9; "Their partiality witnesses against them; they proclaim their sin like Sodom, they do not hide it." partiality not sexuality.
13:19;

Jeremiah 5:1;
23:14; " But in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing: they commit adultery and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness; all of them have become like Sodom to me, and its inhabitants like Gomor'rah." adultery and lies, not homosexuality.
49:18;
50:40;

Ezekiel 16:49-50; "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it."

Zephaniah 2:9;
Amos 4:11;
Lamentations 2:6;
Hosea 11:8;

Wisdom 10:6;
19:13-17; "The punishments did not come upon the sinners without prior signs in the violence of thunder, for they(Egypt) justly suffered because of their wicked acts; for they(Egypt) practiced a more bitter hatred of strangers. Others(Sodom) had refused to receive strangers when they came to them, but these(Egypt) made slaves of guests who were their benefactors. And not only so but, while punishment of some sort will come upon the former(Sodom) for having received strangers with hostility, the latter(Egypt), having first received them with festal celebrations, afterward afflicted with terrible sufferings those who had already shared the same rights. They(Egypt) were stricken also with loss of sight just as were those(Sodom) at the door of the righteous man when, surrounded by yawning darkness, all of them tried to find the way through their own doors."
place names added for clarity. Problem: hostility, inhospitality--not a word about sexuality.

Sirach 16:8-11; ""He did not spare the neighbors of Lot, whom he loathed on account of their arrogance...." arrogance not homosexuality.

III Maccabees 2:5;
Revelation 11:8;
Matthew 10:7-15;
11:20-24;

Luke 9:54;
10:12; " "But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.’ I tell you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town." Inhospitality, not sexuality.

Romans 9:29;
II Peter 2:6;
Jude 1:7.

These passages list many wrongs: murder, hatred, hostility, lack of hospitality--but never homosexuality.

Many of these wrong behaviors attributed to Sodom are the same attitudes and actions demonstrated towards gay people in modern society and in certain Christian circles.

Nineveh
January 7th, 2005, 03:26 PM
HR,
I understand you deseperately want to make sodomy a good thing, but it's not. No matter how you go about it. You can ignore the record, but that doesn't change it any.

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

This wasn't Sodom's only sin, I don't recall anyone saying it was. However, trying to down play sodomy being part of it only exposes your agenda.

Granite
January 7th, 2005, 03:38 PM
Funny that the prophets never mention the sex crimes of Sodom when they talk about that town...

HerodionRomulus
January 7th, 2005, 04:04 PM
The city was condemned BEFORE anything happened. There were less than 10, so it did not matter if they stood on their heads and sang "There once was a lady from Nantucket..." the condemnation was fixed BEFORE the verse you like to cite to the exclusion of the rest of the story.

Not ONE OT mention of Sodom mentions sex or homosexuality or anything remotely like it. Ditto for the NT.
Jesus clearly thought it was something else.

Please explain how Jesus, Isaiah, Ezekiel and the rest could be soooooooooooooo ignorant of what happened.

Nineveh
January 7th, 2005, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Funny that the prophets never mention the sex crimes of Sodom when they talk about that town...

But granite, they do.

Read what HR posted:

Jeremiah 5:1;
23:14; " But in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing: they commit adultery and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness; all of them have become like Sodom to me, and its inhabitants like Gomor'rah."

Ezekiel 16:49-50; "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it."

If the actual account of the event isn't enough to convince you sodomy had something to do with it, what good would it do to list sodomy every time Sodom is spoken of?

Nineveh
January 7th, 2005, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

The city was condemned BEFORE anything happened. There were less than 10, so it did not matter if they stood on their heads and sang "There once was a lady from Nantucket..." the condemnation was fixed BEFORE the verse you like to cite to the exclusion of the rest of the story.

Not ONE OT mention of Sodom mentions sex or homosexuality or anything remotely like it. Ditto for the NT.
Jesus clearly thought it was something else.

Except:

"Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Sodomy is most certainly condemned both OT and NT. But you have an agenda to push, so no amount of debate or evidence in the world will convince you of the need for homosexuals to turn from their sin, will it?


Please explain how Jesus, Isaiah, Ezekiel and the rest could be soooooooooooooo ignorant of what happened.

They aren't. You are. And worse, willfully so.

Why is that?

Frank Ernest
January 8th, 2005, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

The city was condemned BEFORE anything happened. There were less than 10, so it did not matter if they stood on their heads and sang "There once was a lady from Nantucket..." the condemnation was fixed BEFORE the verse you like to cite to the exclusion of the rest of the story.

Not ONE OT mention of Sodom mentions sex or homosexuality or anything remotely like it. Ditto for the NT.
Jesus clearly thought it was something else.

Posted by Nineveh
Except:

"Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Sodomy is most certainly condemned both OT and NT. But you have an agenda to push, so no amount of debate or evidence in the world will convince you of the need for homosexuals to turn from their sin, will it?

HerodianRomulus
Please explain how Jesus, Isaiah, Ezekiel and the rest could be soooooooooooooo ignorant of what happened.

Nineveh
They aren't. You are. And worse, willfully so.

Why is that?
BINGO!

HerodionRomulus
January 10th, 2005, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

But granite, they do.

Read what HR posted:

Jeremiah 5:1;
23:14; " But in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing: they commit adultery and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness; all of them have become like Sodom to me, and its inhabitants like Gomor'rah."

Ezekiel 16:49-50; "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it."

If the actual account of the event isn't enough to convince you sodomy had something to do with it, what good would it do to list sodomy every time Sodom is spoken of?


gee but strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness is an odd way to describe sex.

and abominable things are not equivalent to sex. Bearing false witness and slinging insults is pretty abominable, as is advocating mass murder but you do these things all the time and rejoice in your advocacy of death and destruction.


Read the following carefully:
Not one thing in Genesis says that homosexuality is wrong.
Attempted rape in ch 19 is wrong, I never said it wasn't but rape is not the same thing as sexual orientation.

Nineveh
January 10th, 2005, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

and abominable things are not equivalent to sex.

Are you that desperate to save sodomy?

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Acording to you sodomy isn't abominable, but according to God it is.


Bearing false witness and slinging insults is pretty abominable

Yeah, it is, so quit.


Read the following carefully:
Not one thing in Genesis says that homosexuality is wrong. Attempted rape in ch 19 is wrong, I never said it wasn't but rape is not the same thing as sexual orientation.

Ok, so are you saying we can ignore the Law because God didn't put the whole Bible in Genesis?