Lesbian Methodist Minister

[Nineveh]

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]

Originally posted by Zakath

Ahh "cuddly theology". Cute, but thoroughly unbiblical...

Prove it, :zakath:.

 

[Zakath]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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:

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]

Being a homo is gay!

 

[Nineveh]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

Sounded more like an autobiography to me :chuckle:

For the High Priest of Comfort? Surely you jest!

 

[Ecumenicist]

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]

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]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

Sounded more like an autobiography to me :chuckle:

Autobiography? Whose? Mine or Ninnies?

 

[Zakath]

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]

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]

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.