Tentmaker Forum

Hi All

I am only many secular boards and this is a hot topic.  Seeing how UR does not play an ET threat card, how do Universalists view this matter?

My issue with the mainstream is that they cherry pick Leviticus to condemn this yet refuse to stone their children when disobedient and choose to eat shellfish.

Romans 1 does not cut it either for me as that IMO was dealing with believers and NOT unbelievers.  South Africa has gay marriage allowed and the sky did not fall.

So probably the questions are:

1. What does gay marriage directly threaten your marriage/lifestyle?
2. Do you really understand how they think or makes them what they are?

Please remember we have gay members (one I know of). Lurkers will not see this thread.

Seeker, I'm not sure why you keep bringing up shellfish as if that is ridiculous.  Having eaten shellfish all my life, I know about the dangers, and exercise extreme care.  I do love shellfish but it can be dangerous and the types of sicknesses it can cause would most definitely kill people in the days of the Old Testament, and even today among those who are not careful.



Old Testament--No shellfish--

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.

-- Leviticus 11:10



New Testament

Matthew 15:11
What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "


Diseases from shellfish--From the CDC--

What are marine toxins?

Marine toxins are naturally occurring chemicals that can contaminate certain seafood. The seafood contaminated with these chemicals frequently looks, smells, and tastes normal. When humans eat such seafood, disease can result.

What sort of diseases do marine toxins cause?

The most common diseases caused by marine toxins in United States in order of incidence are scombrotoxic fish poisoning, ciguatera poisoning, paralytic shellfish poisoning, neurotoxic shellfish poisoning and amnesic shellfish poisoning.



Here's one example of the type of disease from shellfish--We call it 'Red Tide'--



Amnesic shellfish poisoning is a rare syndrome caused by a toxin made by a microscopic, red-brown, salt-water plant, or diatom called Nitzchia pungens. The toxin produced by these diatoms is concentrated in shellfish such as mussels and causes disease when the contaminated shellfish are eaten. Patients first experience gastrointestinal distress within 24 hours after eating the contaminated shellfish. Other reported symptoms have included dizziness, headache, disorientation, and permanent short-term memory loss. In severe poisoning, seizures, focal weakness or paralysis, and death may occur.





God really does care about the health and wellbeing of his children.  He does not make arbitrary laws.

Shellfish can be dangerous because, among other reasons, they filter the water.  Any contaminants in the water will be present in high concentrations in shellfish.  God knows what he's talking about, since he made everything.

Thanks Molly, that really cleared it up for me  :thumbsup:

What about mixing materials in your clothes?

Oh yeah, that is spiritual, so we don't have to apply it literaly.

What about beastiality? Obviously wrong. Or is just for hygenic reasons? If the cleanliness part is taken care in ways :Whistle: then would it be equal to sanitizing your shellfish now a days?

I could go on and on. I'm glad He said He'd write His laws in my heart so I don't have to try and decipher which ot laws are allowable if modern day hygenic applications can de-sanitize, which are always forbidden, and which are ok because they are really to be applied spiritually.

I don't have the answer to the gay question. In my heart I do not condemn them. I don't think it is a cut and dry issue. Sometimes I think it is a result because of hurts, sometimes because of lust, and sometimes because it is natural. If a person is truly gay because that is how their brain works, it would be hard for me to condemn them to a life of celebasy.

California

Gay marriage was legislated from the bench, a neat trick since judges are not allowed to legislate.

The people of the state have voted it down, but gays don't seem to care what the people of the state want and are continuing to sue in court.


Ct

Gay marriage has just been legislated from the bench.


MA

Gay marriage was legislated from the bench.  The people of the state got thousands of signatures to put the issue on the ballot so they could vote on it,  but the legislators were intimidated by the gay community into blocking it, so the people have been prevented from voting on it.  There are now yearly gay parades through downtown boston with gays in all kinds of undress, drag, women who have had their breasts removed to look like men parading topless, and so forth.

The petitions for putting it on the ballot so people could vote was put on the internet and anyone who signed it got threatening, intimidating, and obscene calls from all over the country--so now people are afraid to get involved.

It is now entering the elementary schools.  One father went to the school in a rage when his kindergartener came home with a book promoting gay marriage.  He was arrested and received a restraining order keeping him away from the school for 6 months.  Parents are feeling violated and helpless because they are being told that they have no say in what their children are taught--more legislation from the bench and the teachers union.

One such book is King and King.  In this book, a Prince is told by his fat, ugly, and altogether unattractive mother that it is time for him to get married.  Although he is treated like a child by his mother, he looks to be about 40 lol.  So they bring princesses from all over the world to present to the prince as a potential bride.  One princess is fat, one princess is ugly and wears glasses, one princess is tall, awkward, and skinny with too long arms, also black, one princess is a total airhead from Texas.   Finally, a princess appears who looks pretty good, with long blonde hair, and the prince is smitten--with her brother.

The prince marries the brother and they live happily ever after, giving each other a big kiss on the lips at the end.

Quite frankly, if I were a six year old girl reading that, I might consider killing myself.  If I were a boy, I'm not sure how I'd feel--probably terrified.

If I had a child in the public schools, I would take him out of school and homeschool him myself if that was the only other option.


FLA and Arizona

The people have voted against gay marriage.  The battle continues.

QuoteChristians and non christians alike judge and maintain the hatred they do for Gays and Lebsians and they are just fighting back.

Huh?  Just fighting back?  Keying people's cars, threatening them, polluting the minds and wellbeing of their elementary school children---is abusive.

There is NO excuse for abuse.  None.

I'm thinking that the only reasonable person, gay or not,  who would actually approve of King and King would be a pedophile.  I bet that book would give a pedophile a big smile.  The little boys are being groomed.  Men kiss men on the lips.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 04:40:28 PM

The book is a symptom of a bigger problem.   

Ever been beaten because someone just thought you was gay?   

Even been thrown out of a church of good ole bible thumpin morons because of the same thing?

Gays have the same rights as every other American--full and complete rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.   They are being used right now as one vehicle to destroy these rights for all Americans.  


Really I personally have no issue with how they want to live their own lives. I think sex should take place behind closed doors.   I strongly object to the indoctrination of children into a gay lifestyle.  I object to the disintegration of the family but that has been going on for decades and is part of the communistic conversion of America.  It started with the woman's movement.  I don't really want to go to church and find a gay pastor when the Bible speaks against the lifestyle.  I wouldn't want to go downtown and see it looking like Sodom and Gomorrah whether it was gays or straights doing it in the streets.  I would grab any Priest by the throat who violated my child.  My heart goes out to those parents.   My heart goes out to the parents who are being told they have no say in what their children are being taught about sex--whether it be gay or straight.

Since I grew up a woman, you can't really pretend that I do not know what it is like to be discriminated against--and hint:  laws do not help.  

Parents in Vermont just discovered that their children are no longer required to say the pledge of allegiance in school.  Hey, that's ok--nobody knows we are a Republic anyways, it will make it easier when we cease to be a sovereign nation, and God is quickly becoming passe.  Communism and God are mutually exclusive.

And the battle continues...

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 04:52:27 PM
Molly why do you think gays are pedophiles.  Seems the church has their fair share of them and men kissing men happens in many cultures.

IMO most folk have more issues with men gays than Lesbians as with the latter there is no "a*al" stuff and they can still reproduce with sperm donors and will likely still have good maternal instincts.

I didn't say that, did I?  I said the only reasonable person who would like that book, in my opinion, would be a pedophile.  If I tried to teach the neighbor little girl that it was good for women to kiss women on the lips, I'd probably be thrown in jail or sued.

Lesbians--just read a story, two lesbians get together, one has a baby (artificial insemination), then they decide to go to another state to get married, move back to their state and decide not to live together anymore.  Fast forward a year or so, and the one lesbian goes to a gay marriage state to divorce the other with the child and demands custody.  Since the one with the child is not in a state that even recognizes gay marriage, she has to travel to the other state to fight the divorce.  She fights it in both courts.   This goes on and on.  Last I heard, the gay marriage state has awarded the non biological mother full custody.  The child is still very young and I don't get the impression she even knows this woman who has just won custody since they separated when the child was an infant.

But, once again, children don't matter.  All must be sacrificed on the alter of adult rights.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 04:48:26 PM
Molly you should answer the questions.  I am not going to post the laws but I am generalizing.

The mainstream use Levitical laws to justify hate for gays but leave off all the rest in the same chapter.

If Jesus can forgive His executors, why not accept the gays?  I am sure Jesus would have dealt with it differently but that is my opinion.

In the same Levitical chapter it talks of adultery too in its various forms yet no one gets literally stoned for that.  Gays are singled out but no one condemns divorce in the same passion and is especially overlooked within their own xian communities.

I do not condone what they do as I am straight yet I really do not know what causes them to be like they are seeing they come from within the xian establishment too.

Prior to the independence here in 1994, the church had influence but now all faiths are treated equal, gays got their rights and we hardly hear about them anymore and no all the teachers are not suddenly teaching gay lifestyle but merely tolerance.

Gays obviously have been with us time immemorial so this is not something new.

well that's a complicated post to answer.  Leviticus is an important book in the Bible.  Nevertheless, we are under grace now, under a 'new' contract (although it's not really new but that's another story).  Jesus stopped them from stoning the Prostitute.  Does that mean that prostitution is a healthy lifestyle that should be promoted?  No.  He said, go and sin no more.  And, anyone that knows anything about prostitution knows that it is exploitative, demeaning, and dangerous.

But, you see, our western culture is slowly being destroyed to the point that nobody even notices it anymore.  

No one is justifying hate.  That is all propaganda.  And, anyone who swallows it is brainwashed.

I worry a lot about the children.

But, here's the plan, you just chip away bit by bit until everything is changed without anyone noticing.  People are first outraged, then they become desensitized.  But, when the totalitarians drop the curtain, believe me, you'll notice.

Quote from: WhiteWings on November 20, 2008, 05:34:18 PM

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 04:58:35 PM
I don't really want to go to church and find a gay pastor when the Bible speaks against the lifestyle.  I wouldn't want to go downtown and see it looking like Sodom and Gomorrah whether it was gays or straights doing it in the streets.

I see some sort of double standard here. Not only you Molly but the whole church.
Sure the Bible is very clear about homosexuality.
But also about many other things. If gay pastors should be kicked out of church then also the lying, stealing, adultering, etc pastors should be kicked out of church.

A lot of churches do kick them out.  I thought Paul was the first to suggest it.  Turn them over to the destruction of the flesh and all that.

Good post Paul

It is ironic that the if you are gay then you are a pedophile and you are a crack user and you are......

If gays got their "rights" they will fade away like they did here in SA after they got their "rights"

I am speaking on their behalf as the sites where I am also discussing from a hetero view are icky so that you all understand my motives.  I have a good idea what they want and influence in schools is not on the agenda.

My cousin was gay and died of AIDS and came from a Christian family, none of the other cousins are gay in the rest of the extended family.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 05:45:31 PM

Quote from: MollyParents in Vermont just discovered that their children are no longer required to say the pledge of allegiance in school.  Hey, that's ok--nobody knows we are a Republic anyways, it will make it easier when we cease to be a sovereign nation, and God is quickly becoming passe.  Communism and God are mutually exclusive.

And the battle continues...

What has communism have to do with gays?  Why is it a battle?

You have not even answered the OP questions yet and as per usual you are trying to distract this to suit your "conspiracy POV"

As for the pledge - that is flag worship and here is a Godwin for you.  Rewind to 1937, which other nation was beset by national identity and flags, flags, flags?  

You probably represent the mainstream more here as last time you were not convinced of UR but it does demonstrate intolerance.  You cite random examples but I really am not interested in the lesbian "ownership" rights of a child.  That happens unfairly in hetero relationships too.

Here are the questions again:

1. What does gay marriage directly threaten your marriage/lifestyle?
2. Do you really understand how they think or makes them what they are?

TY

"What does gay marriage directly threaten your marriage/lifestyle?"

I've already explained that.   I'm actually surprised at how this has turned out.  I wasn't expecting the indoctrination of children--that blindsided me.  I don't think anyone was.

"Do you really understand how they think or makes them what they are?"

No more or no less than I understand anyone.  I had a gay friend do the music at my mother's funeral--in a church, no less.  He was a family friend, very talented, and his music comforted me.  However, he did not do it in drag, which would have upset me.  Nor does he do anything in drag, as far as I know.  If he does, he keeps it to himself.

But, see, you are judging me and making assumptions about me without knowing me at all.  That is a typical way to silence enemies of the program.

QuoteWhat has communism have to do with gays?  Why is it a battle?

Communism has to destroy the family.  The family is the strongest unit of a society which is naturally opposed to a collectivist viewpoint---because the children are taught the values of the parents, rather than indoctrinated by the State.

All collectivist, totalitarian states have to take over the indoctrination of the children to be successful.  It takes a [communist] village to raise a child.

Communism also has to destroy God.  There can be no higher authority than the State.

Fascist Germany took another approach.  The family was ok as long as it was German and as long as it was loyal to the Party.  Otherwise, everyone died.

And, the Christians lost their way completely.

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 06:00:42 PM
All collectivist, totalitarian states have to take over the indoctrination of the children to be successful.  

And of course the fundamentalists Christians want to do just that under the guise of "family values".

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 06:14:52 PM

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 06:00:42 PM
All collectivist, totalitarian states have to take over the indoctrination of the children to be successful.  

And of course the fundamentalists Christians want to do just that under the guise of "family values".

Around 1990, some party operatives noticed that there was this huge segment of the population that was apolitical.  So they moved to harness them with all kinds of brainwashing and lies--to get them to vote as one huge block.

So here again, we have collectivism at work.

Well look who those Christians voted in.   And, look at the results.

And, a double bonus, everyone hates Christians, now.


Hosea 4:6
my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.


Remember--Christians invented freedom of religion.

QuoteWhat has communism have to do with gays? 

Because gays are happy to work against God because they think God is against them.

So they are willing recruits in the battle against the churches and against the Christians, and have been used very successfully to that effect.

You do understand that Communism and Christianity don't mix, don't you?

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 06:19:20 PM

Remember--Christians invented freedom of religion.

Nope,  people who believed in freedom of and from religion did.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 06:34:45 PM

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 06:19:20 PM

Remember--Christians invented freedom of religion.

Nope,  people who believed in freedom of and from religion did.

Well truth be told they really were interested in freedom to interpret the Bible for yourself which is why there are so many protestant sects from the earliest days of our country.

This country started out as a church relocation project.

   The  Gay issue  on a more personal note
 

My Cousin Aaron is gay
 do I love my cousin ? yes !
 he is a wonderful person  , I feel that is what God does judge righteously

 God takes the base /lowest things of this world to confound the wise in their own eyes  , why  dont we judge what is right ?  instead of being judges , everyone is dead  to God till Christ/Life  comes to us  , who is to say when  Christ comes to us /them ?  those awakened to the truth will know  ,  are we supposed to being praying  for all to God who can , will and does make all the difference ,  does one think that high of himself to be as God/ judge  and condemn anyone , without lifting a finger to help ?

 geeezzzz  , the self righteous make me ill  :sigh:...
Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

Jam 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren.


He that speaks evil of [his] brother, and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law, and judges the law: but if YOU  judge the law, YOU ARE NOT  a doer of the law, but a judge.

Jam 4:12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who ARE YOU  that judges another?

 what the folks do in private God knows all  hearts and the intent there of !!! I have no desire to   be nosey and judge anyone in private matters

 we are told not to know  anyone by   the flesh anylonger  
 is being gay of the flesh or not ?

that is so controversial of a question in itself
  do I want my Cousin to be saved ?  Yes , I sure do  
 Jesus is in the saving business and we are the  arms , legs and feet and body parts of the Lord [He is the Head /of all authority]  time to get to work  and move  in the direction  the Head wants us to goooooooooo !

QuoteI think you are talking Marxism, Jesus was a communist in the true sense of the word, all folk common equal et al. Why even your constitution says something of equality or is that equality conditional? (Refer to the original not the recently amended with under God added - even so which god?)

Nobody has said that equality is conditional, and you know it.

I wonder what Jesus would think about Communist (and Godless because they destroyed all the churches and killed the Christians) Russia.  You think he would approve of the 100 million killed by the Communist dictators?

QuoteI am not transfering one behavior in order to justify another, I am saying that the battle that Christians have led people to believe is going on is really a problem of their own doing.

And of course they haven't figured out that it is not the fire they fight that is the problem, it is the GASOLINE they are using to try to put it out.

I really don't get how you can blame one group's behavior on another group.

That's like saying the abusive husband killed his wife because she drove him to it.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions.

The point is molly  is that there shouldn't even be a battle against gays.

There should be a movement to eliminate all social indoctrination in public schools to begin with.

Prayer being taken out of schools was a good move,  lets take what a family should look like out too, and let the families of this country and individuals alone to live those lives outside of government structuring and religious and social pressure.

QuoteI would guess in a school, that straight would always outweigh gay folk and that put to a vote, this would not come up at such a tender age.  However if there were other books that showed different endings viz snow white and the handsome prince, then there would be a balance.  Most extremists wanted disney out and fairy tales.  Last time I looked 6 year olds were pre-schoolers and usually these are not state run, at least here they are not.  Here official school starts the year they turn 7.

You didn't listen to what I said.  The parents were blocked from controlling what their children were taught by the teacher's union.  Then they asked to please tell them when these books were going to be read so they could keep their kids out of school that day.  Refused.  So then they took the matter to court and the Judge legislated from the bench that parents have no rights as to what their children are taught.  Now they are appealing to a higher court--as if they had the money and the time to deal with this nonsense.  They should not have to deal with  it.  But that's our brave new world.

FYI this book is approved by the teacher's union for 5 to 8 year olds.  Here they start kindergarten at 5 years old.  The original father who objected and is now suing had his child in kindergarten when this happened.

Obama wants to start them younger in school.  

I read the book to a friend who has a master's degree in education without telling her what it was about.  Halfway through the book her jaw dropped and stayed dropped all the way to the end.  She couldn't believe it.

So you see it is the majority who no longer has any rights.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 07:15:13 PM
The point is molly  is that there shouldn't even be a battle against gays.

There should be a movement to eliminate all social indoctrination in public schools to begin with.

Prayer being taken out of schools was a good move,  lets take what a family should look like out too, and let the families of this country and individuals alone to live those lives outside of government structuring and religious and social pressure.

Let's vote with our feet and take all our children out of the public schools where they are just being made dumber by the year anyways.  Our stats are the lowest of any western democracy.

Problem is Molly,  the parents that might take enough interest to consider that, raise good smart kids despite what goes on in the schools anyway.

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 07:21:56 PMYou didn't listen to what I said.  The parents were blocked from controlling what their children were taught by the teacher's union.  Then they asked to please tell them when these books were going to be read so they could keep their kids out of school that day.  Refused.  So then they took the matter to court and the Judge legislated from the bench that parents have no rights as to what their children are taught.  Now they are appealing to a higher court--as if they had the money and the time to deal with this nonsense.  They should not have to deal with  it.  But that's our brave new world.

They still have the right to change schools - surely not all schools would teach this?

--snip--

QuoteObama wants to start them younger in school.

Citation - check out his website for the truth not the Hannity spin.

QuoteI read the book to a friend who has a master's degree in education without telling her what it was about.  Halfway through the book her jaw dropped and stayed dropped all the way to the end.  She couldn't believe it.

So you see it is the majority who no longer has any rights.

No, in a democracy, minority also have rights.  That is why you have a constitution.  The right want a theocracy, look how well that works in Iran.

All it comes down to, you want to impose your beliefs on others.  The atheists anyway say we believe in a sky fairy and will never bow down to a xian agenda.

Social/religious issues should be home taught.  If the schools are turning out crazies, then blame the parents.

I was watching on NBC caught on camera where white kids were beating up on other kids initiation and all, by statistics, 80% (or more as they were all white) of them would be Christian thus the problem lies with the moral values instilled in homes.

Gays are generally kind passive folk but will get riled when you mess with their liberties.

You admitted you do not know really what makes them tick yet you wander off judgmentally no problems thus you are not only a bigot but also a hypocrite.  If what they do is sin, what sin did Jesus not cover?  Being gay is only unpardonable in the eyes of the church no one else.  In 5000 years of recorded history, all attempts to disenfranchise them has not made it go away.

While humankind copulate, gays will be born.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 01:09:55 PM
Hi All

I am only many secular boards and this is a hot topic.  Seeing how UR does not play an ET threat card, how do Universalists view this matter?

My issue with the mainstream is that they cherry pick Leviticus to condemn this yet refuse to stone their children when disobedient and choose to eat shellfish.

Romans 1 does not cut it either for me as that IMO was dealing with believers and NOT unbelievers.  South Africa has gay marriage allowed and the sky did not fall.

So probably the questions are:

1. What does gay marriage directly threaten your marriage/lifestyle?
2. Do you really understand how they think or makes them what they are?

Please remember we have gay members (one I know of). Lurkers will not see this thread.

In the past I had problems with homosexuality but the reason I have now concluded, it I was sexually abused by a homosexual and so it was easy to justify Leviticus and Romans's view of homosexuality because they speak of 'unnatural' relations of which I was a victim. I have since realized there are both homosexual and heterosexual relationships which are also 'unnatural', the things that God abhors and which Paul was speaking.

A natural relationship, is one that loves one another, a relationship based on selfless love.

What directly threatens my life when people have unnatural relationships? It feeds lust, it feeds violence, and I was a victim at age of 4. One does not need to understand how they think, it is an abomination to the Lord.

QuoteThe USSR was Marxist.  The Russian orthodox church survived and remained. And there were 100M Christians i.e. non orthodox?  Citation needed.

I brought up the conditional equality because folk like you criticize communism yet the USA constitution has similar sentiments.

Personally, I know too little of the USSR history to make a judgment call, but since they went Capitalist, things have not really improved for the common man either.

Stalin and Co killed around 100 million Russians.  All dissenters--gone.  That is typical of a totalitarian state.  Our Constitution has the Bill of Rights which Stalin would incorporate over his dead body.

You think size matters?  How naive of you.  Here's a bit about Christianity in Communist Russian from Wikipedia:




Russian revolution
In 1914 in Russia, there were 55,173 Russian Orthodox churches and 29,593 chapels, 112,629 priests and deacons, 550 monasteries and 475 convents with a total of 95,259 monks and nuns.

The year 1917 was a major turning point for the history of Russia, and also the Russian Orthodox Church. The Russian empire was dissolved and the Tsarist government - which had granted the Church numerous privileges - was overthrown. After a few months of political turmoil, the Bolsheviks took power in October 1917 and declared a separation of church and state. Thus the Russian Orthodox Church found itself without official state backing for the first time in its history. One of the first decrees of the new Communist government (issued in January 1918) declared freedom of "religious and anti-religious propaganda". This led to a marked decline in the power and influence of the Church. The Church was also caught in the crossfire of the Russian Civil War that began later the same year, and many leaders of the Church supported what would ultimately turn out to be the losing side (the White movement).

The Russian Orthodox Church supported the White Army in the Russian Civil War (see White movement) after the October Revolution. This may have further strengthened the Bolshevik animus against the church.

Even before the end of the civil war and the establishment of the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church came under pressure from the secular Communist government. The Soviet government stood on a platform of antireligion, viewing the church as a "counter-revolutionary" organization and an independent voice with a great influence in society. While the Soviet Union officially claimed religious tolerance, in practice the government discouraged organized religion and did much to remove religious influence from Soviet society.


Under Communist rule
Before and after the October Revolution of November 7, 1917 (October 25 Old Calendar) there was a movement within the Soviet Union to unite all of the people of the world under Communist rule (see Communist International). This included the Eastern European bloc countries as well as the Balkan States. Since some of these Slavic states tied their ethnic heritage to their ethnic churches, both the peoples and their church were targeted by the Soviets. [12]

The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. Orthodox priests and believers were variously tortured, sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals, and executed.[13][14] Many Orthodox (along with people of other faiths) were also subjected to psychological punishment or torture and mind control experimentation in order to force them give up their religious convictions.[15][16]

Thousands of churches and monasteries were taken over by the government and either destroyed or converted to secular use. It was impossible to build new churches. Practising Orthodox Christians were restricted from prominent careers and membership in communist organizations (the party, the Komsomol). Anti-religious propaganda was openly sponsored and encouraged by the government, which the Church was not given an opportunity to publicly respond to. The government youth organization, the Komsomol, encouraged its members to vandalize Orthodox Churches and harass worshippers. Seminaries were closed down, and the church was restricted from using the press.

The history of Orthodoxy (and other religions) under Communism was not limited to this story of repression and secularization. Bolshevik policies toward religious belief and practice tended to vacillate over time between, on the one hand, a utopian determination to substitute secular rationalism for what they considered to be an unmodern, "superstitious" worldview and, on the other, pragmatic acceptance of the tenaciousness of religious faith and institutions. In any case, religious beliefs and practices did persist, in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognized its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[17]

In November 1917, following the collapse of the tsarist government, a council of the Russian Orthodox church reestablished the patriarchate and elected the metropolitan Tikhon as patriarch. But the new Soviet government soon declared the separation of church and state and nationalized all church-held lands. These administrative measures were followed by brutal state-sanctioned persecutions that included the wholesale destruction of churches and the arrest and execution of many clerics. The Russian Orthodox church was further weakened in 1922, when the Renovated Church, a reform movement supported by the Soviet government, seceded from Patriarch Tikhon's church (also see the Josephites and the Russian True Orthodox Church), restored a Holy Synod to power, and brought division among clergy and faithful.

In the first five years after the Bolshevik revolution, 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were executed.[18]

Stalinist era
The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labor camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited.

The sixth sector of the OGPU, led by Eugene Tuchkov, began aggressively arresting and executing bishops, priests, and devout worshippers, such as Metropolitan Veniamin in Petrograd in 1922 for refusing to accede to the demand to hand in church valuables (including sacred relics). In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500. Between 1917 and 1935, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested. Of these, 95,000 were put to death. Many thousands of victims of persecution became recognized in a special canon of saints known as the "new martyrs and confessors of Russia".

Patriarch Tikhon anathematized the communist government, which further antagonized relations. When Tikhon died in 1925, the Soviet authorities forbade patriarchal elections to be held. Patriarchal locum tenens (acting Patriarch) Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky, 1887-1944), going against the opinion of a major part of the church's parishes, in 1927 issued a declaration accepting the Soviet authority over the church as legitimate, pledging the church's cooperation with the government and condemning political dissent within the church. By this he granted himself with the power that he, being a deputy of imprisoned Metropolitan Peter and acting against his will, had no right to assume according to the XXXIV Apostolic canon, which led to a split with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia abroad and the Russian True Orthodox Church (Russian Catacomb Church) within the Soviet Union, as they remained faithful to the Canons of the Apostles, declaring the part of the church led by Metropolitan Sergius schism, sometimes coined as sergianism. Due to this canonical disagreement it is disputed which church has been the legitimate successor to the Russian Orthodox Church that had existed before 1925.[19][20][21][22] In 1927, in order to secure the survival of the church, Metropolitan Sergius formally expressed his "loyalty" to the Soviet government and henceforth refrained from criticizing the state in any way. This attitude of loyalty, however, provoked more divisions in the church itself: inside Russia, a number of faithful opposed Sergius, and abroad, the Russian metropolitans of America and Western Europe severed their relations with Moscow.

After Nazi Germany's attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, Joseph Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church[23] to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. On September 4, 1943, Metropolitans Sergius (Stragorodsky), Alexius (Simansky) and Nikolay (Yarushevich) received a permission to convene a council on September 8, 1943, that elected Sergius Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. This is considered by some violation of the XXX Apostolic canon, as no church hierarch could be consecrated by secular authorities.[19] A new patriarch was elected, theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. The Moscow Theological Academy Seminary, which had been closed since 1918, was re-opened.

Between 1945 and 1959 the official organization of the church was greatly expanded, although individual members of the clergy were occasionally arrested and exiled. The number of open churches reached 25,000. By 1957 about 22,000 Russian Orthodox churches had become active. But in 1959 Nikita Khrushchev initiated his own campaign against the Russian Orthodox Church and forced the closure of about 12,000 churches. By 1985 fewer than 7,000 churches remained active. Members of the church hierarchy were jailed or forced out, their places taken by docile clergy, many of whom had ties with the KGB.


Persecution under Khrushchev and Brezhnev
A new and widespread persecution of the church was subsequently instituted under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev. A second round of repression, harassment and church closures took place between 1959 and 1964 during the rule of Nikita Khrushchev.

The Church and the government remained on unfriendly terms until 1988. In practice, the most important aspect of this conflict was that openly religious people could not join the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which meant that they could not hold any political office. However, among the general population, large numbers remained religious.

Some Orthodox believers and even priests took part in the dissident movement and became prisoners of conscience. The Orthodox priests Gleb Yakunin, Sergiy Zheludkov and others spent years in Soviet prisons and exile for their efforts in defending freedom of worship.[24] Among the prominent figures of that time was Father Aleksandr Men. Although he tried to keep away from practical work of the dissident movement intending to better fulfil his calling as a priest, there was a spiritual link between Fr Aleksander and many of the dissidents. For some of them he was a friend, for others - a godfather, for many (including Yakunin) - spiritual father[25].

By 1987 the number of functioning churches in the Soviet Union had fallen to 6893 and the number of functioning monasteries to just 18. In 1987 in the Russian SFSR, between 40% and 50% of newborn babies (depending on the region) were baptized and over 60% of all deceased received Christian funeral services.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 04:40:28 PM

The book is a symptom of a bigger problem.   

Ever been beaten because someone just thought you was gay? 

Yep, and they were lucky to be alive after I was done defending myself.

QuoteEven been thrown out of a church of good ole bible thumpin morons because of the same thing?

Nope, but don't tell them you were sexual abused by a homosexual, they have this thinking that you are gay and treat you with contempt even though you were the victim.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 07:39:25 PM

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 07:21:56 PMYou didn't listen to what I said.  The parents were blocked from controlling what their children were taught by the teacher's union.  Then they asked to please tell them when these books were going to be read so they could keep their kids out of school that day.  Refused.  So then they took the matter to court and the Judge legislated from the bench that parents have no rights as to what their children are taught.  Now they are appealing to a higher court--as if they had the money and the time to deal with this nonsense.  They should not have to deal with  it.  But that's our brave new world.

They still have the right to change schools - surely not all schools would teach this?

--snip--

QuoteObama wants to start them younger in school.

Citation - check out his website for the truth not the Hannity spin.

QuoteI read the book to a friend who has a master's degree in education without telling her what it was about.  Halfway through the book her jaw dropped and stayed dropped all the way to the end.  She couldn't believe it.

So you see it is the majority who no longer has any rights.

No, in a democracy, minority also have rights.  That is why you have a constitution.  The right want a theocracy, look how well that works in Iran.

All it comes down to, you want to impose your beliefs on others.  The atheists anyway say we believe in a sky fairy and will never bow down to a xian agenda.

Social/religious issues should be home taught.  If the schools are turning out crazies, then blame the parents.

I was watching on NBC caught on camera where white kids were beating up on other kids initiation and all, by statistics, 80% (or more as they were all white) of them would be Christian thus the problem lies with the moral values instilled in homes.

Gays are generally kind passive folk but will get riled when you mess with their liberties.

You admitted you do not know really what makes them tick yet you wander off judgmentally no problems thus you are not only a bigot but also a hypocrite.  If what they do is sin, what sin did Jesus not cover?  Being gay is only unpardonable in the eyes of the church no one else.  In 5000 years of recorded history, all attempts to disenfranchise them has not made it go away.

While humankind copulate, gays will be born.

Oh please, You are so unbelievably naive.

Study history!

Yep molly, and what you wrote is all diguised in fundamentalist christianity.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 07:51:23 PM
Yep molly, and what you wrote is all diguised in fundamentalist christianity.

Disguised?

I am what I am.  I don't even go to church.  I study the Bible as much as I can.  I have a personal relationship with Christ.  I think children should be protected from sex.  And I don't vote with the religious right.

I am an individual, and have greatly enjoyed my freedom to be one.

Quote from: MollyOh please, You are so unbelievably naive.

Study history!

And what makes you think I did not?  Easy cop out again.

FYI, we have the western version and there are always 2 sides to the story.  I studied history till Grade 9 - it was compulsory, my last project was WWII from a German perspective, guess what?  I failed.  We also learned of communism but at the time we were at win the cold war and the British obviously were biased against Russia.

It is all teh ebul communists fault yet after reading what Craig posted goes to show, religion survives and should not be part of govt.  Extreme - yes they were, but history shows the church wanted to over influence government.

Like Paul said, you are trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

I still cannot fathom out what communism has to do with gays.  I am sure gays were not the predominant factor in the Soviet government.

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 07:59:53 PM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 07:51:23 PM
Yep molly, and what you wrote is all diguised in fundamentalist christianity.

Disguised?

I am what I am.  I don't even go to church.  I study the Bible as much as I can.  I have a personal relationship with Christ.  I think children should be protected from sex.  And I don't vote with the religious right.

I am an individual, and have greatly enjoyed my freedom to be one.

You don't have to defend yourself to me.

You can do that for children through reason and logic,  no religious or social perspective needs to be indoctrinated in children.


If the fundamentalist christian movement got its way, there would be kids in school forced to pray, Gays would be in mental wards and the list goes on to the point that it would progress to a Hilter like mentality.  


If you agree with the fundamentalist movement to somehow through law and procedure and indoctrination and government infiltration to shape people who do not agree with them concerning Godly principals and law and how it should be the law of the land, then the shoe fits.



The issue that I am pointing out, is that if the christians have the right to apply their religious pressure through government policy and state the pride in which they wish to do that in Gods name, then homosexuals and pediphiles have the same right to the system.


But the christians then whine when they get beaten in that battle.

In reality at times, the chistians get beaten by the better value.


the book you mentioned is not what I am talking about.   The book is a symptom of Christians choosing the wrong battle front and they were defeated by an unsuspected enemy thats smarter than they are.


It is because they wage the battle of flesh and blood and they are instructed not to.

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 07:59:53 PMI think children should be protected from sex. 

Children need to be educated - age appropriate - which we did in our family.  We also warned them of pedophiles and school should teach the biological side of sex ed not preference.

Teens will be teens thus abstinence teaching is not effective and abstinence is based on home ed not school ed.

Again we are talking children and the OP concerned gay marriage.  This is what the religious right do, they intertwine these things and make a mountain of a mole hill.

I attended a boys only school and my sister a girls only.  We learned of gays from casual peer chatter and not from class.  All we learned there was the biology side.  I really cannot see how gays would press an "agenda" if their rights were given, like I said, here in SA they faded into obscurity.

In one pentecostal church I attended, there was an elder, all three his daughters got pregnant (out of wedlock and as teenagers) and his only son is gay.  How is that for irony?  That said he was very judgmental.

I'm telling you what is going on in these schools and you are not believing me, so I don't know what else I can say.  You don't believe that outraged parents have no say over what their 5, 6, and 7 year olds are being taught.  You don't even believe the parents have a right to be outraged.  You don't believe this is just the beginning.

So, as you see it unfold, remember me.  But I will help the parents fight it.

QuoteI attended a boys only school and my sister a girls only.  We learned of gays from casual peer chatter and not from class.  All we learned there was the biology side.  I really cannot see how gays would press an "agenda" if their rights were given, like I said, here in SA they faded into obscurity.

They have gotten their 'rights.'  They are pressing this agenda in the schools in a gay marriage state.  That is the next step.

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 08:31:57 PM
They are pressing this agenda in the schools in a gay marriage state.  That is the next step.

Big deal.  Do you think that is actually the battle front that is the problem?

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 09:11:31 PM

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 08:31:57 PM
They are pressing this agenda in the schools in a gay marriage state.  That is the next step.

Big deal.

I don't understand your point.

To the parents of these children it's a big deal.

I left off something and was editing...

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 08:31:57 PM
They are pressing this agenda in the schools in a gay marriage state.  That is the next step.

Big deal.  Do you think that is actually the battle front that is the problem?

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 09:15:20 PM
I left off something and was editing...

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 08:31:57 PM
They are pressing this agenda in the schools in a gay marriage state.  That is the next step.

Big deal.  Do you think that is actually the battle front that is the problem?

You have to understand that any state that is going to tolerate gay marriage is very secular to begin with.  They already have one foot in the socialist grave.  There is no religious fundimentalism here and never was.  So this is not even a Christian thing with most.  These are parents who do not want their children exposed to this lifestyle, particularly not in kindergarten.  The only Christians fighting it as Christians are the Catholics.

If I had a 5 year old being exposed to this stuff, he would no longer be in school.

Quote from: MollyTo the parents of these children it's a big deal.

Bingo - and therein lies the problem.  Seems the parents require education in tolerance.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 09:19:19 PM

QuoteThey have gotten their 'rights.'  They are pressing this agenda in the schools in a gay marriage state.  That is the next step.

Like the black folk pre 60's and the black folk here pre 94?

Equal but separate/different is apartheid, no matter how you spin it.  USA may have done away with "racism" before SA but you are waay behind now when it comes to equal human rights.

You can ask them to stop pushing "their" agenda in public in return for allowing marriage and they will agree if you stop pushing "your" agenda.  School is for learning not social issues.  They will parade themselves outlandishly just to piss folk off, they did it here, they no longer do - in public that is.

Remember, prop 8 only passed by 2%. That is not a landslide by any means and the evangelicals, mormons and RCC had to collate when they are arch rivals normally not to mention mormons favor polygamy.

Going back to biblical OT principles, slavery was OK, Polygamy was OK, yet all xians cherry pick to bash the gays using the bible.

If xians were consistent, there would not be a problem, the gays use the bible against you and esp the inconsistent application.

Why does the 10 commandments not mention homosexuality?  Don't use adultery as that is what they throw back in your face wrt divorce and remarriage.  Then why doe Jesus say nothing about it in his two great commandments?

You shall love the Lord your God.. and love your neighbor as yourself.

See when you cannot love your neighbor, it means you do not love yourself.

BTW Jesus taught tolerance except to the religious of His day, the ones that were always judging remember? Beam in the eye and all...

Maybe you could tell me how it's working out for you now in South Africa.  There's no more apartheid is there?  Or are the whites now the object of it?  I know, it's all america's fault.

Again, you are not listening to me.  Read my previous post.  You find it impossible to believe that they might be being used as part of an agenda, despite the fact that you clearly don't understand our culture and you don't know history.  You consider me some crackpot "patriot"  because I believe in the Bill of Rights.

Here is the issue Molly,

I am not for forcing a book telling any child how to have a relationship a certain way in any school.  I am not for structuring a child in a public school that a religious way to have a family is the correct way either. I want both sides to get the hell out.


The problem I see is that Christians and whoever else may hate them have pushed to tell homosexuals how bad and evil they are for years and years,  so, there is more going on that just gay marriage, or just rights of LAW.  They are fighting against a society that paints them as second class citizens.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 09:22:09 PM

Quote from: MollyTo the parents of these children it's a big deal.

Bingo - and therein lies the problem.  Seems the parents require education in tolerance.

Really.  So now you want to dictate what the parents should believe is the best interests of their own children?  You would fit right in, Comrad.

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 09:20:33 PM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 09:15:20 PM
I left off something and was editing...

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 08:31:57 PM
They are pressing this agenda in the schools in a gay marriage state.  That is the next step.

Big deal.  Do you think that is actually the battle front that is the problem?

You have to understand that any state that is going to tolerate gay marriage is very secular to begin with.  They already have one foot in the socialist grave.  There is no religious fundimentalism here and never was.  So this is not even a Christian thing with most.  These are parents who do not want their children exposed to this lifestyle, particularly not in kindergarten.  The only Christians fighting it as Christians are the Catholics.

If I had a 5 year old being exposed to this stuff, he would no longer be in school.

Thinking that this issue is in a vacuum limited to your area is not seeing the greater issue.

Words like secular and such?  What is secular and why is it a problem?

I'm perfectly willing to discuss gay rights after we've discussed infanticide rights, Hitler's rights, theives rights, murderers rights, rapists rights, child abusers rights, blasphemers rights, genocide rights, false religions rights, human sacrifice rights, liars rights, demons rights, necrophilias rights, etc.

The soul that sinneth shall surely die!

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 09:29:10 PM

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 09:20:33 PM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 09:15:20 PM
I left off something and was editing...

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 08:31:57 PM
They are pressing this agenda in the schools in a gay marriage state.  That is the next step.

Big deal.  Do you think that is actually the battle front that is the problem?

You have to understand that any state that is going to tolerate gay marriage is very secular to begin with.  They already have one foot in the socialist grave.  There is no religious fundimentalism here and never was.  So this is not even a Christian thing with most.  These are parents who do not want their children exposed to this lifestyle, particularly not in kindergarten.  The only Christians fighting it as Christians are the Catholics.

If I had a 5 year old being exposed to this stuff, he would no longer be in school.

Thinking that this issue is in a vacuum limited to your area is not seeing the greater issue.

Words like secular and such?  What is secular and why is it a problem?

Most people don't believe in God after a long education of indoctrination.

You don't see the big picture.

No one has the right to educate my children to believe that God is a myth.

No one has the right to teach my children that the theory of evolution is science.

Secularism is a religion.  Read that post I put up on the Russian Revolution.

Do you think the Bolsheviks were the majority?  Most of them were not even Russian!

Proverbs 22:6 Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.

So be careful how you train your children. :)

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 09:33:55 PM
No one has the right to educate my children to believe that God is a myth.

Agreed, and you do not have the right to educate an atheists children that he is real.

QuoteNo one has the right to teach my children that the theory of evolution is science.

It is science, so you are ignorant of science and so are christians that think Creationism is science.

QuoteSecularism is a religion.

Secularism is a label that is given by Christians to anyone who does not march to their drum beat.  And  has nothing to do with the problems this society battles.

The oppression and abuse of others has nothing to do with those labeled as Godless as Godless people have done the same thing in Gods name.

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 09:24:50 PMMaybe you could tell me how it's working out for you now in South Africa.  There's no more apartheid is there?  Or are the whites now the object of it?  I know, it's all america's fault.

Again, you are not listening to me.  Read my previous post.  You find it impossible to believe that they might be being used as part of an agenda, despite the fact that you clearly don't understand our culture and you don't know history.  You consider me some crackpot "patriot"  because I believe in the Bill of Rights.

If you think I do not understand the USA culture, you are sorely mistaken.  We even learned of USA history when I was at school, we do tend to have a bigger world view here in Africa believe it or not.

This is the second time you accuse me of not knowing history.  It is the typical American cop out.  What do you know of Southern Africa History?

QuoteReally.  So now you want to dictate what the parents should believe is the best interests of their own children?  You would fit right in, Comrad.

No the parents need to come into the 21st century.  It is all Obama's fault and what he has done in -61 days, in the meantime it is the communist fault, yet the beam in ey does not allow you to see the mote in your own eye. And now I am a communist? Comrade?

Back to the 1st part, there is no apartheid, it is gone.  Yes there are probably still a few nutjobs out there but in essence we live peacefully.

My daughter is in Grade 10 and I asked her did they teach alternative lifestyles in sex ed and she said no.  BTW she has been in the top 10 of our province (state) ever since she started school.  See there is no gay agenda here anymore, they are allowed to marry.  She is in a public school predominantly black but all schools are predominantly black, they are after all the majority demographic.

In the initial years there were white fears but that has all passed now, the ebul black man is actually just another human being, just like the gays are.

"Give me a child until he is 7 and I will give you the man."

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 09:42:04 PM

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 09:33:55 PM
No one has the right to educate my children to believe that God is a myth.

Agreed, and you do not have the right to educate an atheists children that he is real.

QuoteNo one has the right to teach my children that the theory of evolution is science.

It is science, so you are ignorant of science and so are christians that think Creationism is science.

QuoteSecularism is a religion.

Secularism is a label that is given by Christians to anyone who does not march to their drum beat.  And  has nothing to do with the problems this society battles.

The oppression and abuse of others has nothing to do with those labeled as Godless as Godless people have done the same thing in Gods name.

Evolution is not a science, it's a theory and it should be taught as a theory if taught at all.  Actually this is going to fall of its own weight eventually because there are too many things coming out that contradict it as a theory, even though attempts to suppress the truth continue.

Since words are the first thing to go, let's look at an actual definition

"Secularism"
Religious skepticism or indifference.
The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.


The atheists and the gays telling the schools what they should be educating children about in a Christian country is just more of the tyranny of the minority.  Nevertheless, lots of concessions have been made to them, but parents are drawing the line at indoctrinating elementary children into the gay lifestyle.  Good for them.

I see the assertion of murderers = gays when it comes to the laws and rights in our society.

Would like to see that correlation made with reason and logic and the lack of religious bias.

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 09:54:30 PM


Evolution is not a science, it's a theory and it should be taught as a theory if taught at all.  Actually this is going to fall of its own weight eventually because there are too many things coming out that contradict it as a theory, even though attempts to suppress the truth continue.

Like I said you are ignorant of science.

Quote
The atheists and the gays telling the schools what they should be educating children about in a Christian country is just more of the tyranny of the minority.  Nevertheless, lots of concessions have been made to them, but parents are drawing the line at indoctrinating elementary children into the gay lifestyle.  Good for them

Your missing the whole point, this is not a christian nation, we are not a theocratic society.   The Christians waged the war of theocracy and whine when those they oppose use the same system to promote what they want the same way.

Fight the battle and quit your whining if thats where you want to fight.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 10:00:30 PM

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 09:54:30 PM


Evolution is not a science, it's a theory and it should be taught as a theory if taught at all.  Actually this is going to fall of its own weight eventually because there are too many things coming out that contradict it as a theory, even though attempts to suppress the truth continue.

Like I said you are ignorant of science.

Quote
The atheists and the gays telling the schools what they should be educating children about in a Christian country is just more of the tyranny of the minority.  Nevertheless, lots of concessions have been made to them, but parents are drawing the line at indoctrinating elementary children into the gay lifestyle.  Good for them

Your missing the whole point, this is not a christian nation, we are not a theocratic society.   The Christians waged the war of theocracy and whine when those they oppose use the same system to promote what they want the same way.

Fight the battle and quit your whining if thats where you want to fight.

You refuse to accept that secularism is a religion which is being taught in public schools.

I have an advanced degree in science and yet you call me ignorant.

If you would just look at what happened in the Russian revolution, you would understand that secularism is a religion.  And, unlike the Christians in this country, they kill their opponents if given the chance.

QuotePaul and I seem to be tolerant and understanding and playing "devils advocate".  Heard of the term "shiny mirror"?

I don't find you very tolerant of me, even though I am speaking for the status quo, and what this country was founded on.

Unfortunately, you can be so tolerant that you compromise yourself out of existence.

QuoteI say Jesus would have accepted the gays for who they are - His love was not conditional. His love would bring about change were it a sin but IMO it is not.  How can we preach UR which tolerates much but slams gays? BTW we have a gay member and I sent him an email to join us in this discussion.

This is the only place I know it is mentioned in the New Testament.  Oops is this crimespeak yet?


9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

--1 Cor 6:8


That's a pretty big group.

Bernie,

The Holy Spirit and the Scriptures never call us to be tolerant of something that the Scriptures won't tolerate in both Testaments.  And St. Paul made this an inheritance or noninheritance of the kingdom of God issue.  This isn't one of those things where people are just people, as if we were talking about the simple difference between people that drive Fords and those that drive Toyotas.

2John, while talking about the doctrine of Christ, which would mean or include the things that the New Testament teaches about the things pertaining to the Kingdom says that you can't bid participants in these sins Godspeed, otherwise you're judged as an actual participator in their crimes against God.  This would translate to me that "tolerance" of this sin would likewise equal not inheriting the Kingdom of God.

Tolerance of people?  ALWAYS!!  But this issue of homosexuality is an issue of sin and it's not justified by a trillion books on queer theory or a trillion homosexuals being on the planet.  It's not a legitimate alternative with the blessings of heaven.  Under no circumstances will it ever be.  Easily 5 billion people on the planet lie at least once in a typical week.  Does that make lying an acceptable alternative lifestyle, even with varying laws on the legal books about levels, degrees, and subjects of what lies are along with varying degrees of penalties and where the courts might find something "justifyable"?  No it doesn't.  And let people's emotions be whatever they may ever be, but that'll never give legitimacy to a reprobate mind.

Quote from: Molly"Secularism"
Religious skepticism or indifference.
The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

Your definition.

How is it that you now say it IS a religion and demand it be accepted as such?

"Secularism"
Religious skepticism or indifference.
The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

Earlier you admitted that the USA standard is low.  Who else has a secular approach?  Europe, how do they fair on the world "top 20"?  I'll leave you to determine that.

Secularism would deny Muslims pushing their agenda too and as far as I know, prayer is allowed in schools so long as it does not interfere with other activities like allowed in breaks.  It is the same here.  At the school my daughter attends, the only one in out town (high school) the principal opens Mondays with prayer and a reading from the bible and we are a secular state now.  Atheists are allowed to stand outside during this part of the opening as too are those of other faiths.  Christianity is still the No. 1 religion here

This however is a school by school decision.  Faith is not taught apart from a subject that looks at all faiths (13) of the country.

Quote from: Molly9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

What is sexually immoral?  It comes right back to sleeping with the neighbor. Consistency.

BTW these were Paul's words not Jesus. and notice they are aimed at males.

The gays look at us and see that a minister can be a divorcee, remarry and is accepted - his/her sins are swept under the rug.

You may not find me tolerant but in Jesus' words, "He who is without sin cast the first stone"

Hi Bernie,

I can't cite the particular court cases because I heard this info a pretty long time ago, but the U.S. Supreme Court in different instances has legally defined in the United States that Secularism, Atheism, Humanism, and Witchcraft are religions in U.S. Juris Prudence.  It's one of the few things where what you might consider intolerably right wing organizations would likely be helpful for you 'cause they could probably reply to an inquiry about that in a matter of minutes as to which cases, which years, and what they were about when those definitions of religion became part of the legal rulings.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 10:23:03 PM

Quote from: Molly"Secularism"
Religious skepticism or indifference.
The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

Your definition.

How is it that you now say it IS a religion and demand it be accepted as such?

"Secularism"
Religious skepticism or indifference.
The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

Earlier you admitted that the USA standard is low.  Who else has a secular approach?  Europe, how do they fair on the world "top 20"?  I'll leave you to determine that.

Secularism would deny Muslims pushing their agenda too and as far as I know, prayer is allowed in schools so long as it does not interfere with other activities like allowed in breaks.  It is the same here.  At the school my daughter attends, the only one in out town (high school) the principal opens Mondays with prayer and a reading from the bible and we are a secular state now.  Atheists are allowed to stand outside during this part of the opening as too are those of other faiths.  Christianity is still the No. 1 religion here

This however is a school by school decision.  Faith is not taught apart from a subject that looks at all faiths (13) of the country.

Since words are the first thing to go let's look at the definition of religion

Main Entry: re·li·gion
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith



There you go.  I think secularism and its high priest 'science' would qualify as a religion.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 10:30:33 PM

Quote from: Molly9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

What is sexually immoral?  It comes right back to sleeping with the neighbor. Consistency.

BTW these were Paul's words not Jesus. and notice they are aimed at males.

The gays look at us and see that a minister can be a divorcee, remarry and is accepted - his/her sins are swept under the rug.

You may not find me tolerant but in Jesus' words, "He who is without sin cast the first stone"

well, but if they are openly practicing it, what then?

If the minister is openly having adulterous heterosexual affairs with the congregation, what then?

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 10:34:02 PM

Since words are the first thing to go let's look at the definition of religion

Main Entry: re·li·gion
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

There you go.  I think secularism and its high priest 'science' would qualify as a religion.

The basic principals of science are not faith or any type of religious attitude, what you can point out about individuals who misunderstand the scientific method or operate within the scientific community apart from this should be discussed on an individual basis.

But the core of the scientific method is why science once stated that the earth was flat and now it does not.  The change in what are accepted mainstream scientific statements has nothing to do with dogmatic assertions that something should not be that way.

Creationism could actually be in science class, but the christians will have to accept that their scientific platform points to a God as the cause as much as it does for the universe being a crystal globe on an aliens nightstand.


Secularism.   yes lets talk definitions.


sec·u·lar·ism    (sěk'yə-lə-rĭz'əm)  Pronunciation Key 
n.   
1.Religious skepticism or indifference.


Christians practice secularism because they are skeptical of other religious practices other than their own.

You are practicing secularism because you are skeptical of secularism since you maintain that it qualifies as religious.

I'm waiting for an explaination of the parallel between a gay person and a murderer without religious bias.

Show why secular law should not then jail gays if indeed such a parallel exists.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 10:57:02 PM


I'm waiting for an explaination of the parallel between a gay person and a murderer without religious bias.

Show why secular law should not then jail gays if indeed such a parallel exists.

I don't think there is one.

Being gay is not against the law.

well, there are some old laws on the books like sodomy but I don't they are enforced any more, are they?

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 10:41:06 PM

QuoteYou may not find me tolerant but in Jesus' words, "He who is without sin cast the first stone"

well, but if they are openly practicing it, what then?

If the minister is openly having adulterous heterosexual affairs with the congregation, what then?

He usually gets caught, remember the one that had his assistant/parishioner strip and he had sex in his office with her, a married woman?

I am talking of ministers that are supposed to be leaders and get divorced, remarry and still preach.  We have one megachurch here Rhema and Ray McAuley is now going through his 2nd divorce, the latter he married within 6 months and apparently was having an affair while married to his 1st wife.  He was a student of Kennith Hagen.

It seems to me that when a man has intimate relations with another man, he is abusing the temple of God and using it in a way that it was never intended to be used.  When a man is having an aduterous affair, he is abusing his relationship with his wife, which has severe consequences of it's own, but it's not the same as defiling the temple . . .there is to much that we don't know when it's dealing with some sins being more severe than others in order to pass a judgment of who is more wrong.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 10:54:36 PM

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 10:34:02 PM

Since words are the first thing to go let's look at the definition of religion

Main Entry: re·li·gion
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

There you go.  I think secularism and its high priest 'science' would qualify as a religion.

The basic principals of science are not faith or any type of religious attitude, what you can point out about individuals who misunderstand the scientific method or operate within the scientific community apart from this should be discussed on an individual basis.

But the core of the scientific method is why science once stated that the earth was flat and now it does not.  The change in what are accepted mainstream scientific statements has nothing to do with dogmatic assertions that something should not be that way.

Creationism could actually be in science class, but the christians will have to accept that their scientific platform points to a God as the cause as much as it does for the universe being a crystal globe on an aliens nightstand.


Secularism.   yes lets talk definitions.


sec·u·lar·ism    (sěk'yə-lə-rĭz'əm)  Pronunciation Key 
n.   
1.Religious skepticism or indifference.


Christians practice secularism because they are skeptical of other religious practices other than their own.

You are practicing secularism because you are skeptical of secularism since you maintain that it qualifies as religious.

No lol.  I have my religion, they have theirs.  And, they make sure I know that only an idiot would believe in God.  That's part of their secular belief system so I don't take it personally.

As for science, there is a lot of leap of faith that goes on in science all the time.   But to call the theory of evolution science is too big a leap.  It violates the necessity that science has for proof.  Same thing for Creationism, another equivalent theory.  They should be taught together or not at all.

You would think that after 100 years they would have some proof for evolution other than one they made up by gluing the jaw of an ape to the head of a man which nevertheless stood in the 'scientific' community as proof for 50 years because nobody believes that a scientist would lie (that's part of their secular belief system).

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 10:52:31 PM
But with UR, all will inherit the kingdom in an afterlife scenario, granted it may not happen in the here and now but I defer to what Jesus taught before Paul - the stoning of the adulteress.

Though any kicked out will be restored in a latter age, all will not inherit the Kingdom.  Many will forever forfeit rights, priveleges, power, and the ability to serve creation on the level of Christ. 

Philippians 3:18-19 says: For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things. 

And 1Corinthians 15 says:  As star differs from star in glory, so also is the resurrection of the dead.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 10:52:31 PM
Tolerance of people has to extend to afford them equal rights under secular law.

1Timothy 1 says that the law is for restraining sodomites, otherwise it's a lawless land.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 10:52:31 PM
Preachers that bash the gays invariably are projecting their own weakness but not all the time but high profile ones.

All things do not continue as they were from the foundation of the world.  Preachers that preach the Word are not invariably projecting their own weakness.  When Jesus condemned the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in Matthew 23, was He projecting His own weakness?  When St. Paul said that homosexuals were people under judgment, was he projecting his own weakness?  I know that you said "not all the time," but neither is it always the high profile ones.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 10:52:31 PM
It is our bigotry/hypocrisy  that drives these folk away from God. You say reprobate mind which assumes that you do not give credence to folk being born this way.

All people are born sinners, but we must all likewise repent or be destroyed, both for the ages and with the loss of Kingdom blessings for eternity although all people will be restored.  The Church doesn't drive people away from God.  That's an excuse but not a reason.  Their sin drives them away from God because they're under judgment, fear, and condemnation that has come 1000 times more from the knowledge of their own sin than from anything that anyone has ever said to them.  John 3:20 says that everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.  Ephesians 2:2-3 calls them children of disobedience and children of wrath.  1John 3 says that those that practice righteousness are righteousness, and 1John 3:10 says that these people that commit these sinful acts are not children of God.  1Peter 1:17 says that if these people call upon Him as Father, then they must conduct themselves in their sojourn here on the earth in reverence, and there's nothing reverent about a homosexual lifestyle.  On the contrary, the dozens of them that I've known personally over the years have had the vilest, most blasphemous mouths of anyone that I've ever known.  There is no middle ground regarding sin.  But those that call upon the Name of the Lord will be saved.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 11:10:08 PM

Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2008, 11:01:00 PM

well, there are some old laws on the books like sodomy but I don't they are enforced any more, are they?

Sodomy occurs in heterosexual relationships too.

It looks like you think gays have all rights so long as they remain in the closet - unless you have the kingdom kops like they have in Saudi Arabia,how will anyone know, do we know how many xians practice oral sex?  Do we care?

It all boils down to different strokes for different folks but the xians want to dictate what those are.

The Christians have far too many black eyes with sodomy, pedophilia, and incest in their own ranks to be taken seriously.  So how can we judge them?

without sin here is a stone...

So what are you arguing?

That two wrongs make a right?

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 10:57:02 PMShow why secular law should not then jail gays if indeed such a parallel exists.

The laws were on the books years ago to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were in every state constitution until such and such a date that those laws became unpopular.  I'd be happy to see the prosecutions.  It's lawlessness on the part of the unrighteousness according to 1Timothy 1.

Quote from: MollySo what are you arguing?

That two wrongs make a right?

No. Beam in eye ministry does not work, Jesus taught that.

What the gays are accused of christians do themselves.  The christians get caught and their piousness is exposed, the gays hide nothing and do not pretend to be righteous but revel when a high profile Christan is caught with their pants down and there have been many lately.  Christians cannot live up to the standards by which they judge others hence Jesus said, "Judge not, in the same way you give it you will get it back"

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 11:34:39 PM
Martin go tell this to a gay or a transsexual and see how far that theory flies.

I have.  Some of the leaders in the UR message happen to struggle with this, and they've at first argued with me FIERCELY on this and then have asked for continued prayer as they've fought it tooth and nail to come out from this flesh bondage.  I've had some of them drive hundreds of miles to come and get me and try to set me straight on this [because of what they thought was an obnoxious email on my part] and by the end of the evening they were crying and praying with me for their deliverance.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 11:34:39 PM
Sadly the rest of what you posted is a mantra of the ET camp.  Salvation is dependent on what we do. Armenianism?

I won't change what the book says about individual responsibility, just because the ETers take it to unBiblical extremes with eternal separation and/or torment.  No, God won't fail to fulfill all of His promises of both destruction and restoration just because man drops the ball on his end of things.  But we can limit the number of cookies in our own cookie jars that we get when we get to heaven.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 11:34:39 PM
If God says I create both evil and good, and the famous Romans 9 potter clay Calvinist approach, ultimately, that makes the buck stop with God not man.  Yet both camps ironically have their own special way of condemning the gay.

Romans 9 is about nations, Israel in particular.  The Isaiah passage is about the evils that were coming upon Israel and leading to Babylonian captivity.  Jesus said that the thief comes to steal, kill, and destroy, but God has come so that people would have life and have it more abundantly.  The devil doesn't give life and that more abundantly, and God doesn't steal, kill, and destroy because James 1 says He tempts no man under the New Covenant.

QuoteThough any kicked out will be restored in a latter age, all will not inherit the Kingdom.  Many will forever forfeit rights, priveleges, power, and the ability to serve creation on the level of Christ.

wow I didn't know that. Forever?  So what will they be doing forever?

Quote2John, while talking about the doctrine of Christ, which would mean or include the things that the New Testament teaches about the things pertaining to the Kingdom says that you can't bid participants in these sins Godspeed, otherwise you're judged as an actual participator in their crimes against God.  This would translate to me that "tolerance" of this sin would likewise equal not inheriting the Kingdom of God.

I didn't know this, either.  Despite what people have said to me today, I tend to be very tolerant of everyone, including gays.  This is a mistake?  What do you mean by tolerance?

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 11:34:11 PM
Again,  make the secular case for a homosexual being equal to a murder.

I could make a death penalty argument for it that would be too advanced for where each of our state constitutions would be concerned, in the U.S., and since each state constitution is different under the umbrella of the Federal Constitution, I'll settle right now for making a prosecutable case for even weeks/months in jail since that's what too many crimes are getting anyway these days, as you very well know and as Molly would likely be able to cite recent instances of criminals walking virtually free from what they did after their trial.

Public decency laws, public sanitation laws, wreckless endangerment laws, (digressing on societal responsibility for a second, failure to stop and render aid laws), unwarranted burden to the tax payer issues because it can be proven that such behaviour is riskier than what's considered normal behaviour to where it can be proven that statistically it'll involve hospitalization and often at the tax payer's expense with county hospital, varying other precepts of individual state constitutional laws that still reflect elements of theonomy that haven't been rubbed out by modern liberalism and relativism, citing relevant founding Fathers' quotes that are full to the purpose if not exact in the letter of their wording where their theonomical intent is clearly self evident.

Before I fully put on the Daniel Webster hat with getting much more detailed and citing historical precidents where fines and imprisonment have previously been imposed on such debauchery and filth, it's important to note the corruption of the laws of the land that are making actual prosecution increasingly difficult compared to what would have been easier to accomplish a hundred years ago and back when Supreme Court cases and other lower court cases were naturally affirming and reaffirming that we are a Christian nation.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 21, 2008, 12:41:08 AM
Still doesn't make the case for a lesbian couple which actually have less risk than promiscuous heterosexual activity and non anal activity of any sort.  Of course then we need to add in the heterosexual males who perform anal sex on women.

Be more specific,  bring your websters, you've not made any case at all , you have only added to the pool of people your going to have to execute.


Citing past laws are irrevalent unless we should burn witches at the stake again.

Actually, it would be really good to get rid of the occult from our country at absolutely any cost.  A lot of substance abuse and other types of issues would lift from this country if we succeeded where Salem and other places horribly failed.  (There's layers of history: official versions, historical revisions from later authors, and actual diaries and other primary sources.)

I've had lesbian roommates in years past and they do anything and more than their male counterparts do and I won't get into specifics on the boards.  But trust me, Lesbians do everything the men do and more.  It's misinformation to say that Lesbians don't engage in anal activity.

Quote from: martincisneros on November 21, 2008, 12:49:14 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 21, 2008, 12:41:08 AM
Still doesn't make the case for a lesbian couple which actually have less risk than promiscuous heterosexual activity and non anal activity of any sort.  Of course then we need to add in the heterosexual males who perform anal sex on women.

Be more specific,  bring your websters, you've not made any case at all , you have only added to the pool of people your going to have to execute.


Citing past laws are irrevalent unless we should burn witches at the stake again.

Actually, it would be really good to get rid of the occult from our country at absolutely any cost.  A lot of substance abuse and other types of issues would lift from this country if we succeeded where Salem and other places horribly failed.  (There's layers of history: official versions, historical revisions from later authors, and actual diaries and other primary sources.)

I've had lesbian roommates in years past and they do anything and more than their male counterparts do and I won't get into specifics on the boards.  But trust me, Lesbians do everything the men do and more.  It's misinformation to say that Lesbians don't engage in anal activity.

I am glad salem failed as the whole idea of that nonsense is wrong, if your making the case specific to homosexuals through all of this,  ok.  After you make your full case and add all the other behaviors that fall into place with the same criteria, please, turn yourself in, because they will find you eventually.

Quote from: martincisneros on November 21, 2008, 12:49:14 AM
I've had lesbian roommates in years past and they do anything and more than their male counterparts do and I won't get into specifics on the boards.  But trust me, Lesbians do everything the men do and more.  It's misinformation to say that Lesbians don't engage in anal activity.

Your equating behavior as equal risk to the gender,  the medical stats show another story.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 21, 2008, 12:56:54 AM
I am glad salem failed as the whole idea of that nonsense is wrong, if your making the case specific to homosexuals through all of this,  ok.  After you make your full case and add all the other behaviors that fall into place with the same criteria, please, turn yourself in, because they will find you eventually.

Huh??  For what sin??  No thanks, I'll continue to walk in the light as He's in the light.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 21, 2008, 12:59:14 AM
Your equating behavior as equal risk to the gender,  the medical stats show another story.

You're selectively reading the stats.  Look at the stats of the numbers that [conservatively or minimally] haven't gone to get checked out medically yet.

Quote from: martincisneros on November 21, 2008, 01:00:23 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 21, 2008, 12:56:54 AM
I am glad salem failed as the whole idea of that nonsense is wrong, if your making the case specific to homosexuals through all of this,  ok.  After you make your full case and add all the other behaviors that fall into place with the same criteria, please, turn yourself in, because they will find you eventually.

Huh??  For what sin??  No thanks, I'll continue to walk in the light as He's in the light.

Well, of course they will tell you what you did and you may see your own writing.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 21, 2008, 01:08:27 AM
Well, of course they will tell you what you did and you may see your own writing.

Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Receive me; I have wronged no man, I have corrupted no man, I have defrauded no man. I speak not this to condemn you: for I have said before, that ye are in our hearts to die and live with you. Great is my boldness of speech toward you, great is my glorying of you: I am filled with comfort, I am exceeding joyful in all our tribulation. (2Corinthians 7:1-4)

Quote from: martincisneros on November 21, 2008, 01:03:01 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 21, 2008, 12:59:14 AM
Your equating behavior as equal risk to the gender,  the medical stats show another story.

You're selectively reading the stats.  Look at the stats of the numbers that [conservatively or minimally] haven't gone to get checked out medically yet.

What you find is that this issue is not inclusive to gays.  You cannot accuratly give a stat for speculation which is what you do when you say there are some that have not been checked out.

Promiscuous anal sex carries a risk,  but we are also talking about a behavior that is not exclusive to homosexuals.   You can have anal sex and not be Gay.


Make the case for a monogomous homosexual couple that comes out and wants to get married, they go to the doctor, get tested for disease, they check out.  

Why do they deserve jail time?

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 07:39:25 PM
No, in a democracy, minority also have rights.  That is why you have a constitution.  The right want a theocracy, look how well that works in Iran.

You are referring to a religious dictatorship.  In a theocracy God is the direct and immediate ruler of each person.  In a religious dictatorship there is a religous elite who pull the strings.  Before they had a king, Israel was a theocracy.  Their law said those who had been found in homosexual acts (no consideration was made for their age) were to be taken outside the city and the leaders of that city were to stone them to death.  Papa could then take his child out and show him the pile of stones and explain.  Of course, Scripture notes as time passed they didn't obey their covenant with God and instead had periods (as one of the books of the Kings noted) when "the sodomite was in the land."

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 07:39:25 PM
Gays are generally kind passive folk but will get riled when you mess with their liberties.

13 or the first 15 Roman Emporers were homosexuals.  A passive and kind lot!  When confronted with a particularly gruesome murder, criminal profilers assume it was done by a homosexual until some information to the contrary is known.  Gays commit a significantly higher percentage of murders than the general population.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 07:39:25 PM
You admitted you do not know really what makes them tick yet you wander off judgmentally no problems thus you are not only a bigot but also a hypocrite.  If what they do is sin, what sin did Jesus not cover?  Being gay is only unpardonable in the eyes of the church no one else.  In 5000 years of recorded history, all attempts to disenfranchise them has not made it go away.

The issue is not whether homosexual acts are forgiven or unpardonable.  In the degree that men continue in sin they are just so much against God.  The Church preaches the forgiveness of sin in Jesus' name; but, as a Royal Priesthood and a holy people cannot welcome in their midst (other than fleeting guests) those who would approve of continuing in sin.  This is doubly true of those who would be participting as we minister to one another.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 20, 2008, 07:39:25 PM
While humankind copulate, gays will be born.

Unless their defense of homosexuality being a genetic pre-disposition proves to be right.  Then almost any  happily married certainly heterosexual couple would be sure to have any fetus with that defect aborted.

Quote from: martincisneros on November 20, 2008, 09:29:27 PM
I'm perfectly willing to discuss gay rights after we've discussed infanticide rights, Hitler's rights, theives rights, murderers rights, rapists rights, child abusers rights, blasphemers rights, genocide rights, false religions rights, human sacrifice rights, liars rights, demons rights, necrophilias rights, etc.

The soul that sinneth shall surely die!

AMEN!  That death is offered through Jesus.  We all can have freedom from sins through repentance and following the Holy Spirit.  Devotion to sin is not the condition that benefits from forgiveness of sin.  "The law is for the lawless."  The people of God may draw a line and say, "Not in my church.  Not in my land!"  Love considers others.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 10:57:02 PM
I'm waiting for an explaination of the parallel between a gay person and a murderer without religious bias.

The boy taken advantage of by his whoever was told by those around him it's OK, be gay. So, he did.  The beautiful children he would have raised, their special contribution to humanity never existed because?

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 10:57:02 PM
Show why secular law should not then jail gays if indeed such a parallel exists.

God's rule for the state has no jails.  He mandated death for this crime.  That is part of why Jesus died!

Quote from: martincisneros on November 20, 2008, 11:26:39 PM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 10:57:02 PMShow why secular law should not then jail gays if indeed such a parallel exists.

The laws were on the books years ago to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were in every state constitution until such and such a date that those laws became unpopular.  I'd be happy to see the prosecutions.  It's lawlessness on the part of the unrighteousness according to 1Timothy 1.

Here in Georgia you can still get 35 years in jail for homosexual sodomy.  These were the kind of laws that existed most places until people like Whitman.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 21, 2008, 12:17:09 AM
Crossing the boundries in this issue of secular law and our responsibility as believers to maintain what the bible says does not address the issue.

I can make the case against murder without the bible.

I can make the biblical case to a murderer in terms of sharing that God still loves the murderer.

I am still waiting for the case against homosexuality to be made without the bible.
That issue is no more vital than wanting Porkrind Patty to shed 500 lbs.

..............

We can find that the harmful sins that we wish to use secular law against can be reasoned without religious instruction in the first place.

If there is one concerning homosexuality, bring it.

They have no children.

That is a long term destruction.  Enough people gay = the end of the human race!  Obvious sister sin to murder.

In the short term, having no children, only spending on themselves, they raise the property values as they begin to take over a neighborhood.  People trying to raise children can't afford to live there any longer.  The raising of property values has a domino effect...

Over a period of time, not having the demands to relate to someone other than themselves, only relating to someone like themselves, makes them very intolerant.  This, getting the upper hand through jobs in the government bureaucracies, as in ancient World Empires, makes for cruel societies.

The reality is most male homosexuals are very promiscuous and sexually transmited diseases are rampant.  This destroys childbearing.  This also means they statistically live shorter lives.

and dont forget suicides  ReFormer  , they are High in the gay and lesbian comunity , especially the youth , sad but true  reality  :sigh:

Quote from: reFORMer on November 21, 2008, 02:13:45 AM
Over a period of time, not having the demands to relate to someone other than themselves, only relating to someone like themselves, makes them very intolerant.  This, getting the upper hand through jobs in the government bureaucracies, as in ancient World Empires, makes for cruel societies.

And I have hung out with enough of them and been to enough of their websites, concerts, and other special events, conventions, and whatever to know that this is still the goal.  Besides having a lesbian roommate for a few months, I was free help with carrying and setting up equipment, the computer, printing, and other things for a gay photographer that went everywhere doing photo shoots, if anyone's wondering how I was so deeply emersed in their culture yet without sin in that regard.  My curiosities were mainly regarding photography, but God used it to open my eyes very wide about underlying agendas and paradigms. 

If they were ever classified as a race, then you could easily make the argument that they're on a racial superiority [slightly growing genocidal] kick, for want of a better way of putting it.  They despise and make private demeaning and inferiority jokes all of the time about straights that they view as universally being hypocrites for not letting their inner queer out of the closet.  You can guess what they tried to peer pressure me into more than once, but I wasn't about to go for that!  I eventually won the respect to be able to say whatever I wanted to them, with their knowing full well that I wasn't being a hypocrite about it.  And as soon as all of that was in my life for the first 3 or 4 years of this decade, it vanished as suddenly and I haven't been in contact with any of them since, but they knew about me, my Christian ministry, etc., the whole time.  (I'm not hard to google, and many of them did and asked me about this and that.)  It was a miraculous pulling back of the veil that God did that I never one time asked for, and though you can't stereotype about specific individuals, what I've described and what ReFORMer has described is pretty much "the culture."

Quote from: reFORMer on November 21, 2008, 02:13:45 AM
They have no children.

Many  hetero sexual couples do not ever have children either, some by choice.

Quote
That is a long term destruction.  Enough people gay = the end of the human race!  Obvious sister sin to murder.

You cannot keep increasing the number of gays without heterosexual breeding, so thats not a factor.

Quote
In the short term, having no children, only spending on themselves, they raise the property values as they begin to take over a neighborhood.  People trying to raise children can't afford to live there any longer.  The raising of property values has a domino effect...

Irrevalent to making a law against homosexuality since single people buy homes as well and then you have the couples that never have children. 

Quote
Over a period of time, not having the demands to relate to someone other than themselves, only relating to someone like themselves, makes them very intolerant.  This, getting the upper hand through jobs in the government bureaucracies, as in ancient World Empires, makes for cruel societies.

Irrevalent to laws against homsexuality, people are intolerant across gender, racial and lifestyle lines.

Quote
The reality is most male homosexuals are very promiscuous and sexually transmited diseases are rampant.  This destroys childbearing.  This also means they statistically live shorter lives.

If this is behavior that warrants lawful action I can entertain it to a point, however, you have brought nothing that shows that homosexuals should be jailed for being homosexual.

The reality is irrevalent to the issue since no one is trying to jail promiscuous heterosexuals for engaging in risky behavior that spreads disease.  Why bypass them and start on gays?   If you want to include them both, ok, but you have not shown anything that sets homosexuality apart.

I am not justifying one behavior in light of another, what I am saying is when you can make the justifiable case of jail time for  two monogomous gays that want to be married
, go to the doctor and are shown to be disease free, then spell it out.


You will not be able to.   Risky behavior is another matter all together and that behavior is an issue that goes beyond homosexuality.

Quote from: reFORMer on November 21, 2008, 01:49:49 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 20, 2008, 10:57:02 PM
I'm waiting for an explaination of the parallel between a gay person and a murderer without religious bias.

The boy taken advantage of by his whoever was told by those around him it's OK, be gay. So, he did.  The beautiful children he would have raised, their special contribution to humanity never existed because?

Thats not a parallel to murder.  Who was killed?

What if the kid he raised ended up being a serial killer, maybe the kid he raised killed 20 people on a subway, maybe the kid he has just ends up comitting suicide out of fear of someone finding out he thinks he's gay.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 21, 2008, 02:39:18 AM
The reality is irrevalent to the issue since no one is trying to jail promiscuous heterosexuals for engaging in risky behavior that spreads disease.  Why bypass them and start on gays?   If you want to include them both, ok, but you have not shown anything that sets homosexuality apart.

Agreed.  They should all be prosecuted to the maximum extent.

9 Or are you not aware that the unjust shall not be enjoying the allotment of God's kingdom? Be not deceived. Neither paramours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor catamites, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards; no revilers, no extortioners shall be enjoying the allotment of God's kingdom. (1Corinthians 6:9-10)

Quote from: martincisneros on November 21, 2008, 02:48:53 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 21, 2008, 02:39:18 AM
The reality is irrevalent to the issue since no one is trying to jail promiscuous heterosexuals for engaging in risky behavior that spreads disease.  Why bypass them and start on gays?   If you want to include them both, ok, but you have not shown anything that sets homosexuality apart.

Agreed.  They should all be prosecuted to the maximum extent.

ok, now the monogomous gay couple, checked for disease, disease free and wants to get married?

Quote
9 Or are you not aware that the unjust shall not be enjoying the allotment of God's kingdom? Be not deceived. Neither paramours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor catamites, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards; no revilers, no extortioners shall be enjoying the allotment of God's kingdom. (1Corinthians 6:9-10)

Gods kingdom is spiritual and God has the sovereign right to cleanse and purify all those people.   Can you do so through law?

These are not verses justifying the jailing or executing of people that do not march to our beliefs.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 21, 2008, 02:50:31 AM
ok, now the monogomous gay couple, checked for disease, disease free and wants to get married?

Nope, no cigar.  Nothing in Scripture gives legitimacy to monogomous homosexuality.  It's predamned same as every other sin.  It's like saying that as long as I'm only lying to one person, or only killing one person, or only stealing from one person, then it's supposed to be okay.  By definition in Scripture it's automatically wrong.  The Word wasn't just dealing with prostitution when it condemned these acts, although gay people try to act as though their "lifestyle" is something "new" under the sun that was completely unknown by the ancients.  That's bull.

16 For not ashamed am I of the evangel, for it is God's power for salvation to everyone who is believing -- to the Jew first, and to the Greek as well.
17 For in it God's righteousness is being revealed, out of faith for faith, according as it is written: "Now the just one by faith shall be living."
18 For God's indignation is being revealed from heaven on all the irreverence and injustice of men who are retaining the truth in injustice,
19 because that which is known of God is apparent among them, for God manifests it to them.
20 For His invisible attributes are descried from the creation of the world, being apprehended by His achievements, besides His imperceptible power and divinity, for them to be defenseless,
21 because, knowing God, not as God do they glorify or thank Him, but vain were they made in their reasonings, and darkened is their unintelligent heart.
22 Alleging themselves to be wise, they are made stupid,
23 and they change the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of a corruptible human being and flying creatures and quadrupeds and reptiles.
24 Wherefore God gives them over, in the lusts of their hearts, to the uncleanness of dishonoring their bodies among themselves,
25 those who alter the truth of God into the lie, and are venerated, and offer divine service to the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed for the eons! Amen!
26 Therefore God gives them over to dishonorable passions. For their females, besides, alter the natural use into that which is beside nature.
27 Likewise also the males, besides, leaving the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their craving for one another, males with males effecting indecency, and getting back in themselves the retribution of their deception which must be.
28 And according as they do not test God, to have Him in recognition, God gives them over to a disqualified mind, to do that which is not befitting,
29 filled with all injustice, wickedness, evil, greed, distended with envy, murder, strife, guile, depravity, whisperers,
30 vilifiers, detesters of God, outragers, proud, ostentatious, inventors of evil things, stubborn to parents,
31 unintelligent, perfidious, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 those who, recognizing the just statute of God, that those committing such things are deserving of death, not only are doing them, but are endorsing, also, those who are committing them. (Romans 1:16-32)

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 21, 2008, 03:04:05 AM
Yes Cigar because we are not talking about biblical law.  Try again.

What do you mean try again?  Those that aren't inheriting the Kingdom of God aren't getting God's blessing over it.  He's demanding that they die in the Second Death and the Biblical pattern that was written for our sakes, those of us upon whom the ends of the ages have come, declares that those that are under the curse of God should die from this life as well.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 21, 2008, 03:12:14 AM
So can you make the case against a Gay monogomous disease free couple without the bible or not?

So, you're saying that the Bible is not the standard of the truth for this life?  Then what's the point if it can't be relied upon?  If I can't trust it's standards for this life, then I'd be completely out of my mind to trust it's message about my eternity!

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 21, 2008, 03:27:06 AM
Are you sinless Martin?  What reasoning do you have for not going to the police and turning yourself in for breaking Gods laws?

In Christ, yes, I am the righteousness of God.  What has that got to do with anything that you're talking about?  He never set aside the standards of the Word or made light of them in dispensing compassion, in the way that Bernie would imply or straight out say.  What has my having been set free by the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death got to do with where you're going with this?

I agree with Martin in the type of reasoning being used to prove a point...

So you do deny the Bible's place in all things that pertain to life and godliness.  Just wanted to make sure.  Thanks for clarifying your position.

Quote from: martincisneros on November 21, 2008, 04:04:40 AM
So you do deny the Bible's place in all things that pertain to life and godliness.  Just wanted to make sure.  Thanks for clarifying your position.

If your approval of me in such a matter would mean that I must want some people to be in prison based on your religious bias, then I stand proudly guilty before your court.

Thank you.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on November 21, 2008, 04:10:44 AM
If your approval of me in such a matter would mean that I must want some people to be in prison based on your religious bias, then I stand proudly guilty before your court.

Thank you.

Expecting absolutely all of God's promises of both destruction and restoration to take place to the very last principle of the Word does not mean that I hold any bad opinion of either you or any of them.  It just means that I expect God to keep absolutely all of His Word and to complete absolutely all life in Himself, but I can't deny any part of the process and be faithful to the Word.  I meant nothing that I said in this thread with any sense of animosity, but I wanted things to be clear on an issue that most Christians have no spine about sticking to the Book.  As you very well know, most Christians claim to believe it all and do it all by the Book, but when an issue like this comes around, then "these are different times than back then" and a hundred thousand other bits of nonsense come up.  I love you, brother, and absolutely all of them.  But not one Word of all of God's Word will fail to be fulfilled in each aspect that it relates in each person's life. 

I'm just consistent and growing more consistent everyday with what I've claimed all of this time to believe:

The B--I--B--L--E

The New Testament condones slavery? :mshock:

Average gay life expectancy

Early reports in the 1980's suggested that male homosexuals had an average life expectancy of less than 50 years - more than 20 years less than the overall male population. With the push for "safe" sex and improved treatments for AIDS, one would expect that the life expectancy might have increased since then. However, a Canadian study in 1997 found that male homosexuals have a life expectancy of 20 years less than the general male population (based upon a prevalence of 3% of the male population).1 Using several different measures, including life expectancy determined from obituaries, two large random sexuality surveys (in the USA and Great Britain), and a survey of those never married in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, indicated an average age of death of less than 50 years old.2 A third study, published in 2002, found that the median age of death of 88 homosexually partnered men was 45 years, while for 118 unpartnered homosexual men it was 46 years.3 This latter study put the average life expectancy of male homosexuals nearly 30 years less than the general male population. Another study showed that, on average, ever-married men outlived the ever-homosexually-partnered by 23 years in Denmark (74 yr. v. 51 yr.), and 25 years in Norway (77 yr. v. 52 yr.) Ever-married women outlived the ever-homosexually-partnered in Denmark by 22 years (78 yr. v. 56 yr.), and in Norway by almost 25 years (81 yr. v. 56 yr.).4

1.Hogg RS, Strathdee SA, Craib KJ, O'Shaughnessy MV, Montaner JS, Schechter MT. 1997. Modeling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men. Int. J. Epidemiol. 26:657-661.
2.Cameron P, Cameron K, Playfair WL. 1998. Does homosexual activity shorten life? Psychol. Rep. 83:847-66.
3.Cameron P. 2002. Homosexual partnerships and homosexual longevity: a replication. Psychol. Rep. 91:671-678.
4.Cameron, C. and K. Cameron. 2007. Federal Distortion Of Homosexual Footprint (Ignoring Early Gay Death?) Family Research Institute.
5.Doll, R., R. Peto, J. Boreham, and I. Sutherland. 2004. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors. British Med. J. 328:1519.

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/homosexuality.html (http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/homosexuality.html)

Psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders

A scientific study in the Netherlands revealed that homosexual behavior significantly increases the likelihood of psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders. Youth are four times more likely to suffer major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and more than six times as likely to have attempted suicide.11

A study examining twins raised in the same household revealed in those twins in which at least one twin was homosexual, 80 percent of those twins the other was straight. Those gay-straight twins with same-sex partners were 6.5 times as likely as their co-twin to have attempted suicide. The higher rate was not explained by mental health or substance abuse disorders.12 Other studies have shown that homosexuals seek psychological help at greater frequencies than heterosexuals (see figures to right).13

11.Theo G.M. Sandforte, T. Graaf, R. Bijl, R. Schnabel, P. 2001. Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence. Archives of General Psychiatry 58: 85-91.
12.Herrell, R. et al. 1999. A Co-twin Control Study in Adult Men. Archives of General Psychiatry 56: 867-874.
13.Statistics Canada, Catalogue 82-003. Health Reports, Vol. 19, No. 1, March 2008, page 58. (original data )

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/homosexuality.html (http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/homosexuality.html)

Gay bashers

There is a lot of talk these days about gay bashing, with Christians often being accused of this (I'm sure I will get e-mails from this page). However, government statistics show that homosexuals are nearly 20 times more likely to be abused by other homosexuals than by heterosexuals.9 A recent study showed that nearly one third of practicing homosexuals were abused by their partners.10

9.A U.S. Justice Department study found an annual average of 13,740 male victims of violence by homosexual partners and 16,900 victims by lesbian partners. (U.S. Department of Justice, "Intimate Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-99," Bureau of Justice Selected Findings.) By contrast, the 1999 statistics for hate crimes based on sexual orientation totaled 1,558 victims (U.S. Department of Justice Statistics, Uniform Crime Reports 1999).
10.Eric Houston, E. and D. J. McKirnan. 2007. Intimate Partner Abuse among Gay and Bisexual Men: Risk Correlates and Health Outcomes. Journal of Urban Health 84: 681-690.

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/homosexuality.html (http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/homosexuality.html)

Dangerous lifestyle


The U.S. FDA defines the criteria for blood donation.6 Many forms of sexual behavior prevent blood from being accepted through the Red Cross and other agencies. According to the standard questionnaire, "men who have had sex with another man even one time since 1977," are disqualified from donating blood because of risk of AIDS to the blood supply. No other lifestyle is excluded from donation for only one event in the last 31 years. Obviously, the risk of HIV infection is greater in those who practice homosexuality in the United States. However, other diseases, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus7 and Herpes simplex virus-2 (cause of genital herpes)8 contribute to increasing morbidity among gays.

   1. CBER Blood Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Updated March 15, 2004.
   2. Binh An Diep. 2008. Emergence of Multidrug-Resistant, Community-Associated, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Clone USA300 in Men Who Have Sex with Men. Ann. Intern. Med.
   3. In New York City, the incidence of genital herpes is 32% for homosexual men compared to 18% for heterosexuals. SURVEY FINDS GENITAL HERPES IS COMMON AMONG NEW YORKERS. 2008. From the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/homosexuality.html (http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/homosexuality.html)

Maybe we should read those stats to the kindergartners to be fair and balanced.

QuoteA scientific study in the Netherlands revealed that homosexual behavior significantly increases the likelihood of psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders.

hmmmm. I wonder if this has anything to do with us? I am actually spineless in that I haven't admitted to anyone my doubts regarding the Christian stand on homosexuals in real life because nothing I say would ever matter from that point on. Forget about showing people my revelation of ur and the love and commitment I have to the children in my community! If I were to voice any support in any way for the homosexual, my voice and my influence would be lost. I wonder how it feels for the homosexual?

QuoteA recent study showed that nearly one third of practicing homosexuals were abused by their partners.10

I wonder if heterosexuals would fair any better?

And yes Molly, in the days of Abe Lincoln, many used the bible as a solid support for slavery.

Believe it or not, I'm not sold it is ok, but these types of arguments appealing to fear are not persuading.

Quote from: Sarah on November 21, 2008, 05:41:57 AM



And yes Molly, in the days of Abe Lincoln, many used the bible as a solid support for slavery.

Believe it or not, I'm not sold it is ok, but these types of arguments appealing to fear are not persuading.

Old Testament or New?

It was the Christians that got rid of the slave trade in England.   Did you see Amazing Grace?

Quote from: Sarah on November 21, 2008, 05:04:28 AM
Bernie makes me wonder if this all imagination built by religion due to his perception of the legalization of gay marriage in South Africa.

Bernie's isn't the only opinion about where he lives.  Other people are liable to assess things differently.  Some people may be trying to get out of there as fast as finances and an idea of where to go will allow them to!  I'll minimally say that I severely am not big on the city that I live in.  For other people, it's liable to be their Utopia if they're here, or their Promised Land that they're trying to get to for their own reasons, having their own stories about that, etc.  The one plus about where I live is that if we hit negative zero fahrenheit temperatures once or twice in ten years, it's a total flabberghasting surprise.  Yet, as it's getting close to fall/winter/spring for many other locations, they just brace themselves; it's not a matter of "if," but "when."  Some desert climates even have surprising night times in the winter, as far as how cold it will get.  They might honestly leave Bernie pretty much alone where he lives, except for friendships, whereas in San Francisco he might need a shotgun with him everywhere he went because of a more aggressive homosexual culture, sexually and every other kind of aggression. 

Certain things are going to be a matter of where you live, the local cultural conditioning, etc., as far as whether or not it's going to be like Sodom and Gomorrah where they're going to be demanding at the door anybody you've got with you as in the example of what happened to Lot.  People pretty much being at peace with Bernie where he lives is likely to be both the favor of the Lord and the fact that they've been through so much where he lives that there's a general sigh of relief in the air about certain aspects of previous nonsense no longer being a part of the equation.  And any mellowness that Bernie senses around him could be a reflection of other political and economic matters not the least bit related to the homosexual fight for marriage in his country having been supposedly resolved favorably.  Something being a certain way in a certain area doesn't necessarily make it's cause automatically this or that.  But the issues associated with this issue go far deeper than the right to marry if I'm even remotely correct about what the Bible has to say about it.

Because if marriage would have successfully resolved this issue, why is there nothing in the Bible prescribing it to preserve discipline, cultural order, universal happiness, etc. in a single instance of either Israelite history or as a prescription on the part of one of the prophets to the other nations of the world?  There's nothing to indicate that the ancient Rabbis particularly salivated at the idea of stoning someone over this particular sin more than any other sin.  Had they genuinely believed that God had said otherwise through Moses and the Prophets, they'd of gone with it.  It was the part about the Messiah and the coming Kingdom that they had all jacked up in their thinking and they got weird about the Sabbath, the washing of hands, the swearing of oaths, offerings, and praying to be seen.  But we must NOT presume that they had other areas all screwed up that neither Jesus nor the Apostles and Prophets of the New Testament ever called them on the carpet on. 

The early Christian extra-Biblical writings reinterpret the food laws in terms of associations with people, or bring out more types and shadows from the Old Testament about Christ and the Church, or they got really weird about gnosticism, docetism, arianism, modalism, and amillenialism, but there's never this alternative development of alternative sexual views, although I am aware of the fragmentary document known as 2Clement that gets into the same male/female analogies that Andrew Jukes got into in some of his writings.  But it was never a lack of clarity on sexual issues from a Judeo-Christian standpoint.  The Bible said what it said on that.  UR, the animal gospel, postmillenialism, redemption from the curse through Christ, prosperity theology, justification by grace through faith, sanctification by the Spirit, how to cast out demons, a believer's supernatural identity in Christ, the mysteries of the laying on of hands to deliberately do this or that, the High Priestly ministry of Jesus and our rights to cause the will of God to come to pass through what we say, the operations and manifestations of the Holy Spirit through the believer's faith, and the other wonders of a believer's Spirit-filled life, particularly through the devotional and reconstructive prayer language, are pretty close to the extent of what got suppressed back then through a combination of the Church Fathers, Popes, and Emperors, but there was never confusion on the Bible's stand on homosexuality even if they got into some dark behaviour in some of the monastaries with people being there that really didn't have the calling/gifting to be there without a woman.

---

Accidentally wrote "disciple" instead of "discipline" when I first wrote this post and only caught it a few rereadings later.

Homosexuality and Christians


Men and women are profoundly different in psychological ways. Those who have spent time in homosexual relationships are with somone who is like themselves rather than very other. Love and special aspects of our nature are developed in loving another different from yourself more than in loving what is the same as yourself. Even if there was past involvement in homosexual activity, the longer a man and a woman live in love together the more that something special we're made for is brought forth and established. It's a different demand, often about relationship beyond understanding. Communication is across an impassable abyss or it is ineffable union. It's not the same for two girlfriends or a couple of guys who tend to understand each other. The more a gay couple are like a heterosexual couple the less they are alike.

When the two or more together in His name have the blessing of the Holy Spirit they walk connected to the agent of transcendant change. God brings us out of the human into the Divine which is out everything destroying man into victory even over death. Most marriages where one partner, specially if it's a man, has had these things in their past do not make it something public. They do not proclaim themselves "ex-gay." They just go about their lives, dealing with that along with whatever other difficulties are common to man while finding joy and comfort in God and each other. There are so many that the radical pro-gay loud mouths haven't calculated on how obvious their lies appear and are remarked on in society at large. Being against the changableness of man and reviling the love from those who, though they reject the gay lifestyle yet love those caught in it, are very apparently fraudulent and damaging deceptions. The media may promote another agenda; but, whatever is not of the truth ultimately fails.

Two really horrible lies seem to have taken over much of the modern media. Both lies are absolutely not the human experience. One is that to not approve of the gay lifestyle means you're bigotted with a mental illness called homophobia. What child has not tried this argument with it's parents? "If you don't give me what I want, you don't love me!" Myself, along with very many others know we love people who do not walk according to Godliness. It's alway been denied we loved those who approve of sin. The other lie is that people can't change (which includes God can't change people.) Once gay, always gay. Many people happily testify to the contrary. Who should be believed?

A lot of people enjoy their life: religion, sex, careers and such. They seem relatively unaware they're dead-heads, neither fulfilling the physical human role they were born to play nor realizing their greater gifts given to those pleasing God. If you want God and His truth, stay away from pseudo-christian pro-gay nonsense. They want to defend arguments made by any self respecting alcoholic.

Somebody who says they must be true to themselves rather than God lives in a self made realm, not in the Holy Spirit. How about a man who keeps fornicating with women who says he just can't help himself, he was born that way and must be true to himself? Is there supposed to be some new revelation, a new way to read the Bible and make it all OK? I was born dirtying my diapers but I didn't stay that way.  I didn't make a new religion so I can walk around approved for wearing dirty diapers as an adult.  Attempts to re-invent Christian truth will not succeed but only decieve yourself.  God will have a Royal Priesthood who will reign with Him.

Personal comfort has never been a deciding factor in serving God. Regardless of the lusts that rage in one's heart, Jesus says, "If you would be coming under My discipline to experience what learning of Me produces you must every day take up your cross, DENY YOURSELF, and follow me." Denying yourself is not compatible with self realization and self fulfillment. God realization, to fulfill His desire is another path. Any "carnal" identity if walked after produces death. Whether or not people find some higher pleasure in their bodies or go AWOL from some inner war are not criteria for Divine approval or spiritual development; but, rather quite the opposite. It's not how well I function, certainly not how well my sex works that's the question. It's how well does the Holy Spirit function in my life. Of course, these are matters for those who would be members of Christ, His flesh and bone in the earth. Those only concerned for the utmost of human fufillment have no interst in the kingdom of God.

There are many things that make people have sexual difficulties. These problems are part of marriage. No marriage has an assurance of tomorrow. As long as both give themselves to each other as completely as possible, respecting each other's personal pursuits while they whole heartedly follow Jesus they can expect success, even if it's with a limp.  How many perfect tens are out there? The simple solution to marriage problems is DENY YOURSELF. Sounds like Jesus' qualification for following Him.

As if it basic Christian faith and practice should be something else for a homosexual!  What happily married Christian man doesn't feel attraction to a pretty girl?  He denies himself to follow Jesus. But this should not apply to homosexual attraction?  Are we only Christians if we're not tempted? I feel bad that so many in any walk of life think the call to be turning from their own ways means we don't love them; that forsaking all would be damaging rather than incomparably rewarded by the Holy Spirit. If God didn't give me something so much better in giving me Himself, why would I suffer if need be to serve Him? You just need to get the Holy Spirit. That will spoil you for anything else. He'll discipline you 'til you'd do anything rather than offend or lose Him.


your brother, James Rohde

Quote from: Molly on November 21, 2008, 05:21:21 AM
The New Testament condones slavery? :mshock:

No, it doesn't.  It's the only subject in the Bible with a whole epistle specifically written about it: Philemon.  Some would say, but what about 1John?  What about it?  it gets into the Blood, the Anointing, the Coming of Christ on the New Earth, our no longer needing teachers on the New Earth, walking in the light, distinguishing between light and darkness, etc.  But Philemon's Onesimus's ordination letter where St. Paul says things about him that he never says about Timothy's readiness for every good work.  It's the greatest declaration of independence from human slavery that's perhaps ever been written.  And Onesimus preserved it for our canon when he compiled copies of St. Paul's epistles together with his epistle to the Ephesians that we have in our New Testament.  St. Paul virtually renamed Onesimus with his own name, "Paul" in Philemon, but Philemon's a whole course in theology beyond the scope of this thread and this forum.  Onesimus, according to William Barclay, became Bishop of Ephesus later.  Because of the traditional confusion about the nature and contents of Philemon, it was preached from on both sides of the abolitionist issue in Britain leading up to the story that's presented in the Amazing Grace movie.

Quote from: reFORMer on November 21, 2008, 05:32:19 AM
Dangerous lifestyle

The U.S. FDA defines the criteria for blood donation.6 Many forms of sexual behavior prevent blood from being accepted through the Red Cross and other agencies

ALL donations of blood are screened and only those admitting certain behavior would be refused in the first place.  If a person went and admitted they had heterosexual unprotected sex with multiple partners as often as they had the opportunity, would they take the blood?  You got that stat handy?


The case cannot be made for jailing gays because they are gay.  


In 2004 the known HIV count was spread among 31% of hetersexuals.  Worldwide more heterosexuals have it.  

The stats are skewed in this country because when aids was first recognized they discovered it in  homosexuals and deemed it a homosexual disease, so heterosexuals were not even included in the stats.  Once the stats became more balanced by 2004 31% of hiv cases were in heterosexuals.

When you can make the case for an openly monogomous gay couple deserving jail time and why they should not be allowed to marry, let me know, no one has.

If they don't separate themselves in their behaviour from who they are, then you can't arbitrarily do that for them for a philosophical debate.  A defense of homosexuals is a defense of homosexuality.  Paul, is there a particular reason why you're defending homosexuality?  Because that's what you're doing even if you're making a distinction in your mind that those very people don't make.

Quote from: martincisneros on November 21, 2008, 06:32:49 AM
If they don't separate themselves in their behaviour from who they are, then you can't arbitrarily do that for them for a philosophical debate.  A defense of homosexuals is a defense of homosexuality.  Paul, is there a particular reason why you're defending homosexuality?  Because that's what you're doing even if you're making a distinction in your mind that those very people don't make.

Nope, your missing the point altogether.   Defending a homosexuals rights to liberty and the right to marry is condoning the principals this country was founded upon.

This country was not founded upon the demand that Gods law from the bible be enacted to the land, period. This country was founded on the right to believe what you want and that includes believing that the bible is not true or that any part of it must be followed by anyone who does not want to.

Risky behavior that endangers the public health is not exclusive to homosexuality and being homosexual is not cause for incarceration.  You have implied that you have no problem with a gay person being put into jail, in fact, if you had your way they would be put to death.

What you cannot justly do is take the principals of freedom and equality this country was founded upon and apply it to the justification of murdering gays for being gay without enacting the belief that your religious principals should be the law of the land.

You appear to be saying that you want biblical law to be the law of the land, but then quote scripture as if you would be exempt from being subject to the criteria of your own assertions which implies that you are without sin.   If your going to kill gays for breaking Gods law, you should not be exempt because you think somehow your faith excludes you from being subject to the law of the land.


It is from the perspective of that nonsense that I defend gays and if I step on the toes of someones self righteousness, I am proud to do so.

I welcome the death blow when I'm proven to be living in sin.  This country was founded on the New Testament.  Have you ever read the writings of the founding Fathers of this country?  Or have you watched selectively edited documentary material or writings about the Founding Fathers that were written after the Civil War, particularly from the 1920s onwards when the historical revisionists really took over in doing a hatchet job on the history of this country?  The phrase "separation of Church and state" came out of the Reformation as the Reformers were discussing the need to separate the state's ability to kill someone over their denomination, but it was never meant to indicate that the Scriptures would be separated from the government.  The founding Fathers were ABUNDANTLY CLEAR ABOUT THIS.  That phrase NEVER lost the meaning that it had in the Reformation until the 20th century when the Supreme Court started abusing the phrase roughly in the 1940s.

A 1913 court declared:  Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband. . . . [Marriage] will produce a home and family that will contribute to good society, to free and just government, and to the support of Christianity. . . . It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation "a civil contract" to such a marriage. It is that and more; a status ordained by God." Grigsby v. Reib

Justice James Wilson-" an original Justice on the US Supreme Court and a signer of both the Declaration and the Constitution-" was the father of organized legal training in America. In the law book he authored for law students, sodomy was so disgusting-" was such an obvious violation of "the laws of nature and of nature's God" -  that when it came time to discuss that particular crime in the course of legal studies, Wilson simply declared:

"The crime not to be named [sodomy], I pass in a total silence."

Sodomy was a behavior so reprehensible to "the laws of nature and of nature's God"  that Wilson (along with many other Founders) was ashamed even to speak of it.

So, since you're pro homosexual marriage, Paul, does this mean that you're pro homosexual adoption?  If gay marriage is okay, are you ready to hand over the kids to them as well?  You're kidding yourself if you even remotely think that that wouldn't be indoctrination of children in it.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 21, 2008, 07:44:47 AM
So a minister that divorces, remarries and preaches continues in sin as he and his wife are adulterers every time they have sex.  That is also for remarried divorcees according of course to Leviticus.

According to Moses the first divorce, he gives no reasons for or against, just the first divorce and 2nd marriage is OK.  Certainly Jesus discouraged it.  Moses goes on to allow a 2nd divorce but no marriage thereafter or it would be considered adultery.  Adultery carries a death sentence under Moses.

I relate to home fellowship/every member participation kind of churches.  Whatever sin, people are forgiven.  But if they continue in sin, even seemingly repentant, they're certainly not allowed to minister among us and very possibly a line may be drawn and they may be asked to leave.  Unrepentant, they are certainly not around for long.  This is simple Biblical church disipline.  I've personally been through this even for false accusations, incredibly several times.  Also for serving God I've been disfellowshipped.  I hurt, but I didn't die.  I went on somewhere else God prepared for me.

People don't have to be accepted by other Christians to go on with God.  Watchman Nee reports how sometimes a brother came in among them and gave some of the most impressive sermons they'd ever heard.  After several times they spoke to him about flowing with the brethren and "standing on Church ground" (that's how they translated it, on the foundation or basis of being the Church, wow!)  If he would not, then they suggested he go on somewhere else and do whatever it is he was doing or feels he should do to serve God.  They weren't there to become his work.  They were together building a house for the Lord, not becoming a house for his ministry.

It's a priveledge to be among the people of God.  I've gone through periods where there was not much fellowship.  Most churches don't allow it.  They're an audience for a few professionals.  Too bad the things I had from God were awesome and they never had opportunity to share with me due to traditional religious practices.  For various reasons we must find our identity, affirmation and fellowship with the Holy Ghost without other people.  But what a wonder to be included with the household of God, participating with other saints in the upbuilding of one another.

This fellowship cannot be forced to be with the unholy.  It cannot even be found unless God allows.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 21, 2008, 08:28:05 AM

Quote from: MartinPaul, is there a particular reason why you're defending homosexuality?  Because that's what you're doing even if you're making a distinction in your mind that those very people don't make.

Wow Martin, you sure speak with a forked tongue, earlier you stated the gays riled you to come out the closet and here you are insinuating Paul is "a closet gay"

I never insinuated that Paul was a closeted homosexual.  Never even occured to me 'cause I've never had an accusatory spirit the whole time I've posted to this thread.  If I came across that way, I sincerely appologize.  But my thoughts were more along the line of friends or relatives having the issue when I asked the question.  If I'd honestly thought that about him for a second, I'd of PMed him about it with the question to see if that's where he was coming from, but it never occured to me.

I get where you are all coming from. I see everyones views on this. Yet my views stay the same for a few very simple biblical reasons. Fine lets say being Homosexual is wrong. We take it as the bible says, and we knight it as being wrong. Why is that not the end of it?

We are not meant to:

1. Judge others
2. Cast stones

We are supposed to love our neighbours as we do ourselves. Please don't get me wrong, as I said I get where everyone here is coming from. All I am saying is should'nt we leave the Judgements / Judging up to the only one who is permitted to Judge?

Blessings
Dee

Quote from: DeeDee on November 21, 2008, 08:43:16 AM
I get where you are all coming from. I see everyones views on this. Yet my views stay the same for a few very simple biblical reasons. Fine lets say being Homosexual is wrong. We take it as the bible says, and we knight it as being wrong. Why is that not the end of it?

We are not meant to:

1. Judge others
2. Cast stones

We are supposed to love our neighbours as we do ourselves. Please don't get me wrong, as I said I get where everyone here is coming from. All I am saying is should'nt we leave the Judgements / Judging up to the only one who is permitted to Judge?

Blessings
Dee

Amen!

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 21, 2008, 07:58:28 AM

Quote from: rosered on November 21, 2008, 02:20:48 AM
and dont forget suicides  ReFormer  , they are High in the gay and lesbian comunity , especially the youth , sad but true  reality

Rose, why are suicides higher?  And do not forget teen pregnancies stats either.  It is because the church discriminates against them and they are classed as rejects of society.

We do not have that problem here in SA anymore.

Even with increasing acceptance in the USA there has been no diminishing of gay suicide rates.  Why?  They cannot get the approval they need when they reject their own nature.  Everybody is born with certain assigned projects to deal with in this life.  One of them is a male or female body (mutations, ie., "exceptions" do not determine the rule) and sexual reproduction is based on subjecting yourself to your assigned sex to mate with the opposite sex.  To deny your assigned physical identity is a primary lie.  As a group, a homosexual characteristic is they are liars.  They are also unthankful and often proud.  Additionally, without going along with their Creator, they even more fundamentally cannot obtain the sense of acceptance they realize they lack.  No back slappin' from one another can fill that void.

Someone asked what causes people to be gay.  The answer is better known in Romans 1, but also in Ezekiel 16.49-51:  "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."  The culture in which it is "bred" has lots of food, abundance of liesure time, lack of personal involvement in helping the poor and needy, arrogance . . .

There's much more in that chapter.  One thing you might not notice is God saying (v.7) what the ornament of ornaments is: the beginning growth of hair and breasts on a young girl.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 21, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
What makes you think that whites are still trying to leave?  In fact stats show many that left are returning in spite of the affirmative action which now is largely irrelevant except parastatals like energy, telecoms and water.

I never singled out whites in particular.  I vaguely know a little about the history, but next to nothing about demographics there.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 21, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
How much of your constitution comes from the bible?  The laws governing stuff like speed on the highways? Stuff like environmental issues? Nothing?  I thought so.

Still over 90% of the U.S. constitution is from the Bible to the present day.  Perhaps 100% of it, but I haven't reread it in a while for any additional amendments.  We have the writings of the founding Fathers of the U.S. for the Scripture references on what things were based upon.  There's a difference between the federal constitution, state constitutions, and city constitutions.  State and city laws are more likely where highway speeds, environmental issues are handled, etc.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 21, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
You are basing the entire premise of secular law should equal biblical law.  Not even beloved Israel is biblical and >90% of their citizens are atheist/secular.

And atheists are a great example because.....????

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 21, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
What you are proposing is OT law which boils down to a theocracy.  that would mean if successful, the gay would not be the only victims of your type of thinking but Muslims, Hindus, Native Indians, atheists, too.

The Bible forbids and condemns a theocracy.  Both Testaments come down to a Republican form of government based upon the Scriptures.  The Scriptures, prior to Plato, taught choosing out leaders of 10s, 50s, 100s, and 1000s, which is the local, county, state, and federal system, as interpreted by the founding Fathers of the U.S.  And they were to be men who feared God, hating coveteousness, according to the Bible, ruling based upon Biblical principles.  That's a Republic in the way that the founding Fathers of the U.S. understood it.  It's the furthest thing from what we've got right now, but Article 4, Section 4 forbids us from becoming either a theocracy or a democracy, although a democratic rule is what we've been growing towards since our Civil War, and particularly since historical revisionists began manipulating our history in the 1920s by their arbitrary decision that all people care about is the economic side of history.  When you look at why the U.S. separated from Great Britain, all most Americans can tell you is "taxation without representation," but the Declaration of Independence gives 27 reasons and "taxation without representation" was the least important one.  Religious liberty to have a New Testament Republic was a major reason as you read through the reasons and additionally through the writings of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. that they wrote during that time that it was being drafted.  The Motto of the American Revolution was "No King, but King Jesus!"  When you really really dig into U.S. history it gets really fun with all of the SPECTACULAR miracles that happened that were on par, and sometimes even bigger than the miracles that established Israel as a nation.  Today, we've got a spiritually bankrupt Supreme Court that's trying to rip every shred of our history from us, but the very first session of the U.S. Supreme Court was a 4 hour communion service.

Martin quoted: "26 Therefore God gives them over to dishonorable passions. For their females, besides, alter the natural use into that which is beside nature.
27 Likewise also the males, besides, leaving the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their craving for one another, males with males effecting indecency, and getting back in themselves the retribution of their deception which must be."

Martin, it's obviously not only the OT Levitical laws that teach us that the failure to abstain from active homosexuality is a sin to avoid and will be dealt with in God's judgment.    As you quote, the New Testament is really clear on the matter.  Not just in this passage, but in at least another or two.  As believers aren't we supposed to honor scripture as best we know how and are empowered by God so to do?  IMO, many times we attempt to usurp scripture with our carnal minds, either by simply ignoring it, or casting doubt on its inspiration and trustworthiness.  The same Word that says don't judge and do love, also says to go and sin no more, confess your sins, turn from your wicked ways, etc., etc.  IMO, moral relativism and and adherence to spirit revealed scripture don't mix.  Admittedly we don't always measure up.  The Apostle Paul admitted he didn't either, in his own power.  However, IMO, if we seek obedience to the Father, the Spirit and the Word show us the way..either we believe and adhere to the Book, or we don't.  I'm not talking about legalism or judging.  I'm talking about the relevance and sanctity of scripture as opposed to making it up as we go based on our own deception and carnal minds.  

Thank you Martin, James, Craig, Nathan, DeeDee, Rosered and any others I may have missed that are taking a stand for the Word.  We can love and not judge, yet stand for scriptural truth all at the same time...because it's all in there.  Holding to God's precepts as revealed in and through scripture, and then brought to life in us by the Spirit, does not a Pharisee make.  It's the attitude and spirit, and the love in which its presented...not that it shouldn't be presented.     God's blessing, James.  

I think most people are Gay, because they are supposed to be Gay. Thats just the way God wanted it to unfold. People are of a certain race and culture, because they are supposed to be that way, through  no choice of their own. Many people are goodless in their belief, simply because they are supposed to be that way, God wanted a certain amount of Atheist to be in the population. And he wants that number maintained.

There are a certain amount of Gays, who are Gay by choice, they are far different than those who were born Gay. And I believe that many people are born Gay. In such cases, it is not by choice, but by nature. In such cases as being born Gay by nature, it simply cannot be helped, you are what you are. In these cases, I believe it to be by Gods actual will that this one was born Gay, and I think God wanted a certain number of them to be maintained in the population.

It is God that controls human population and nature, not human choice or sin.

Peace.

Quote from: Mickiel on November 21, 2008, 09:37:34 AM

I think most people are Gay, because they are supposed to be Gay. Thats just the way God wanted it to unfold. People are of a certain race and culture, because they are supposed to be that way, through  no choice of their own. Many people are goodless in their belief, simply because they are supposed to be that way, God wanted a certain amount of Atheist to be in the population. And he wants that number maintained.

There are a certain amount of Gays, who are Gay by choice, they are far different than those who were born Gay. And I believe that many people are born Gay. In such cases, it is not by choice, but by nature. In such cases as being born Gay by nature, it simply cannot be helped, you are what you are. In these cases, I believe it to be by Gods actual will that this one was born Gay, and I think God wanted a certain number of them to be maintained in the population.

It is God that controls human population and nature, not human choice or sin.

Peace.

I just really wish the New Testament had said something about God doing all of this, instead of being so directly to the contrary.

James

I do not have the time or inclination to rebut all the stuff you posted on stats but they will not convince anyone unless you can draw sources that will not appear biased viz godandscience.org.

I mentioned earlier that I found a stat on a xian board that suggested that 67% of folk who had a first same sex encounter turned out to be gay.  That of course to support the premise that it is a choice and not something genetic.  With that stat I should be gay as I did not just have one male encounter in my youth and yes I was brought up xian.

I am not ashamed to admit this but many folk will not hence how these studies are conducted are biased.  If you interview only homosexuals then you will get wrong stats.

Hetero males will likely never admit they had same sex encounters like mutual masturbation due to the embarrassment factor.

There are many folk that were married and had children and if you read their testimonies, it was peer/church pressure that forced them to live a lie.  The fact that folk are no longer ashamed to come out the closet, seems for many as a gay epidemic, but likely the numbers have always been the same.

If stoning them 5000 years ago did not make it go away, I lean to the plausibility that it is a genetic/mental thing.  I certainly would not "turn" gay as I am attracted to women.

Quote from: martincisneros on November 21, 2008, 09:41:43 AM

Quote from: Mickiel l
/quote]
I just really wish the New Testament had said something about God doing all of this, instead of being so directly to the contrary.

Well there are many places in scripture, but it has to be seen. In example, it has already been listed that God " Gave them Over" to dishonorable passions, this scripture I think used by yourself. God is still in control here, he didNOT have to " Give them over", but he did. And it does not say " When" he gave them over, this " When" is not limited to a human that is unborn. I think God giving humans over, certainly includes manipulating their nature before they were born.

And I think he wanted a certain amount of Gay people to be maintained within the human population. Because I know for a FACT, that certain humans are born Gay. If a person is born a certain way, God CANNOT be exculded from responsibility, because he didNOT have to give them over to that birth.

Peace.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 21, 2008, 09:45:18 AM
If stoning them 5000 years ago did not make it go away, I lean to the plausibility that it is a genetic/mental thing.

It is mental illness.  Severe mental illness.  If I cite my couple dozen or so sources, I already figure your rebuttal will be that they're right wing psychologists and psychiatrists or repressed or homophobes, so why bother, right?

Quote from: Mickiel on November 21, 2008, 09:51:01 AM
Well there are many places in scripture, but it has to be seen. In example, it has already been listed that God " Gave them Over" to dishonorable passions, this scripture I think used by yourself. God is still in control here, he didNOT have to " Give them over", but he did. And it does not say " When" he gave them over, this " When" is not limited to a human that is unborn. I think God giving humans over, certainly includes manipulating their nature before they were born.

It says that God gave them over in Romans 1 as a judgment because they blew Him off when they had the opportunity to know Him fully.  It also cites unthankfulness, among the many reasons that it lists.  I've gotten quite a few delivered from it by getting them to give thanks for each detail of the finished work of Christ for a minimum of an hour a day.  There was a little more to it than that, than I'll get into right here, but that was the main thing that turned the key in the lock on their shackles and set them free from their bondage.

No matter what certain christian believers will try to do, no group of humans can be demonized over another. Not because of sexual orientation, not culture, not color. Not Sin. You cannot even use sin to demonize a group of humans over another. I don't care how mentally ill a human is, it was God who gave the birth, thus he cannot be excluded from responsibility for that mental illness, he could have prevented it. Holds PERFECT power to prevent it.

The parent cannot be excluded, the grandparents cannot be excluded, the creator of the Grandparents cannot be excluded from these generations.

It is STILL the tree in the garden, STILL goes back to God, who gave birth to ALL the generations.

Peace.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 21, 2008, 09:56:46 AM
Whats this? Am I excluded because I do not share your or others POV?

How was it hypocrisy because he was thanking folks that were standing for what the Scriptures have to say about it?

Quote from: Mickiel on November 21, 2008, 10:02:29 AM
I don't care how mentally ill a human is, it was God who gave the birth, thus he cannot be excluded from responsibility for that mental illness, he could have prevented it. Holds PERFECT power to prevent it.

God did try to prevent it by telling them what He required from them to obey, to walk in truth, justly, and humbly before their God, but Romans 1 says they refused.  So, when they refused, He backed away and let the devil have them who was seeking whom he could devour.  That's why God was trying to obligate Himself to their protection from it by a covenant union with getting them to do what He wanted them to do.  They turned a deaf ear, so, as in the case of Job, God simply said "Behold, they're in your power."  But He didn't place them there.  They placed themselves there by not taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ and by not casting down imaginations that exalted themselves against the knowledge of Christ and His Word.  There was no covenant connection pertaining to the eon they were living in, but in their refusal of God they were making an alliance, or a covenant with Death and Hell, according to other Scriptures.  There's no question about the fact that God'll ultimately get them out of it, but that's what happened.  God wasn't their temptation according to James chapter 1.

The condemning christians brought a woman to Christ who they caught in an sexual act of sin. Jesus steadfastly refused to condemn the woman. Stoodfast in her forgiveness, this is what he will do to homosexuals, its their destiny to meet Christ, yet also their destiny to be condemned by Christians now.

Peace.

Quote from: SeekerSA on November 21, 2008, 10:05:21 AM
If you can prove to me that there is a culture where gays do not exist, I may change my opinion.  For you to do that will require a non-biblical approach/study/research.

I can cite one before I even hit the books on it.  I know for a fact that there's not a single gay in the whole nation of Iran.

Quote from: Mickiel on November 21, 2008, 10:09:04 AM
The condemning christians brought a woman to Christ who they caught in an sexual act of sin. Jesus steadfastly refused to condemn the woman. Stoodfast in her forgiveness, this is what he will do to homosexuals, its their destiny to meet Christ, yet also their destiny to be condemned by Christians now.

But did Jesus legitimize her sin in the way that you're legitimizing and blessing theirs'?  You've just admitted that He will forgive homosexuals, but a minute ago you said that God created them to be that way.  Why does He need to forgive them if He made them to be that way?

http://bible-truths.com/homosex.htm (http://bible-truths.com/homosex.htm)

Wow this thread has sure brought up some topics (in private chat / e-mail). This and the Sodom and Gommorah issue. I have partially read the scriptures that concern homosexuality again and have come to realise that there is no way around what is said. It is very clearly looked down upon in the bible, in fact I did not realise how much the bible refers to this specific thing. In saying that, I say again that I have honestly met so many wonderful people throughout my life. Some gay and some straight. People are people and we are NOT allowed to judge (as I have said so many times before). Only God is allowed to place judgement. We all have free will and freedom of choice, God does not force us to do anything, not even to accept Him. It is these peoples choice in the end of the day, in saying that I must add as long as they are not hurting anyone else by their actions. As for what will happen to them come judgement time / day, that is ultimately up to God to decide, and since God is always fair and just, each person (not just the gays) will get their fair trial and punishment. We could argue over this "already gone to far" topic for ever and never come to an agreement. All we are doing is hurting others by it and getting ourselves all riled up. It is a delicate issue, I know - and it is a very tough subject, but people I think its time to let this one go.

Blessings
DeeDee