News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

LinearAq,

Are you a Christian?

From my point of view, yes.

I have confessed my sins, accepted that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, and is my Lord.

Does that meet your standard for a Christian?

I've gotta hear this....

(1) Do you believe that Christ died for your redemption from sin?

(2) Do you believe that the Bible was written by God?

(3) Do you believe the Bible has errors, not in translation, but in the original manuscripts?

Yes

No and neither does the most ardent fundamentalist. The tradition is that Moses wrote the first 5 books, under the inspiration of God, and the others were written by various authors also under the inspiration of God.

Since we don't have the original manuscripts, none of us know.
Biblical literalists state that the originals were without error even though there are errors in the oldest known Hebrew manuscripts. From my point of view that belief is merely an assumption without physical evidence.

There are errors in the oldest manuscripts...the number of Solomon's stables...rabbits chewing cud...etc. There are seeming contradictions in the Old and New Testament that cannot be resolved using a literalist stance. Jesus' actions occurring in one order in Matthew, and a different order in Luke. You can say that it is because the accounts are from different witnesses but that explanation makes it an error in the original manuscript. If God wrote the Bible, why would He allow these contradictions?
BTW: I accept that there may be different witness accounts of Jesus in the Bible. It makes the Bible accounts more realistic, in my opinion. However, acceptance of contradictions in the original manuscript means that we must accept that the Bible is not literally inerrant.

Good. I purposefully worded the question simplistically so as to let you sort out the details.

Well done.

Now, do you believe in a literal 6-day creation?

One piece of evidence can be found here.
Later on, as another has noted, Christians are referred to in the third person, and the picture painted speaks for itself.

It got funnier. (a few posts later)
Kinda big stretch...

Thanks for the details CTD.

It's time to begin cracking down on this forum. The tolerance for spinning truth, lying, and strawman is diminishing. Personal insults I don't care about unless someone complains.

I will still await Linear's response:

Now, do you believe in a literal 6-day creation?

Actually, I think Linear's expecting to be banned. Notice the digs against the bible? He knows the one about rabbits chewing cud is bogus, yet he throws it in as a "parting shot".

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=34937#Post34937

It's noteworthy how a particular belief system harbors a particular morality.

And why would be be banned from here for giving his reasons for not believing in the literal infallibility of the Bible? Since when was believing that the Bible is the work of men inspired by God, not Christian? Many Chrisians believe this.

What's more, there are others here who do not even claim to be Christian. They are from other religions or are not theists. Do they need to be banned too?

Is it that uncomfortable for you to be discussing ideas with people whose opinons differ from yours?

Maybe you can clarify this statement.

It could be argued, based on evidence from the crusades, inquisition, witch-burnings, Christian kings and queens who executed thousands, slave owners, etc, that Christianity promotes hatred and immorality. I for one have sense enough to see that what's at fault here is not the religion, but what people choose to do in its name.

Why don't we get right to the heart of the matter here and Russ and CTD, correct me if I'm wrong. Based on recent statements here, you think that the only kind of legitimate Christian is one who is a YEC and who thinks the Bible is the literal, infallible word of God. You also think that anyone who does not subscribe to these beliefs is immoral and either deluded or a liar. If I've misunderstood anything, maybe you could clarify.

Wow, that's not what I said.

Geeze. Spinning is supposed to be subtle. This is out there.

C'mon Linda.

Same goes for the rest of your post.

CTD seemed to be suggesting that Linear ought to be banned.

I'd appreciate it if you answered my other questions, thanks.

Christianity was not responsible for those things. You simply believe that because you've never studied real history. You just believe what you're told.

That's the same reason we still have amalgam fillings and mercury in vaccines.


Good.



No.

First, I am not a YEC.

Second, the only type of Christian that I believe is legitimate is one who believes that Christ is who He claimed to be.

If you're asking these questions because you think I'm coming down on Linear because of his beliefs, you're wrong. I'm coming down on him because there are indications that he's lying about who he is. Opinions are acceptable. Lying is not.



Not true.

Many, many people who are not Christians are very nice and honest people. I have simply found that those who vehimately defend evolution on this system seem to be very self-deceptive; Very; And from a psychological point of view, this makes perfect sense.

Many people are deluded. It is quite common today. Liars are much less common. Immorality is present in everyone.

It's important to love people and be honest. I have little tolerance for liars.

Actually such has been argued. It's the old words-speak-louder-than-actions argument. The same one used by antihistorians again, and again, and again. The same one that you need in this very thread, if you desire to help Linear. You've used it before, so you should be familiar therewith.

You're wrong.

And I think you've misunderstood Russ T's desires regarding derailment of the thread.

Maybe you could pop over to EvC and dig up some evidence? It's sure to be scarce herabouts, but he has an extensive history over there. Perchance he defended the faith on some occasions against the likes of Ringo or jar (both "christians" by EvC's truth-mocking standards).

Linda, your points here are a deliberate misrepresentation. Nobody has ever banned anybody on this forum for different beliefs, nobody has even threatened to do so and I can't imagine they will. Unless Russ decides to keep the forum Christian, looks like it'll continue as it has been.

It's been made more than clear enough on here what it's about with links given to back things up. Looks like you haven't really been reading properly. Is deliberately misinterpretating the point a form of distraction/damage control? Trying hard to arouse sympathy for a case that doesn't exist?

Whether one believes in the literal "6 day" creation in 24 hour days, or much longer, was not the original point of this thread. Let Linear answer that if Russ is interested in Linear's point of view on it.

The point of this thread I thought was? - finding out if someone is lying about their Christian status. And what reason would they have for lying? Since we know this practice occurs on other forums, the agendas behind it are deceptive and deliberate. Why should it be allowed here? If in fact it's really happening.

Problem (benefit) on this forum is, the edit time is limited, so past posts can't be tampered with. And what we have seen has been contrary to what Linear has told us....things do not add up. And you guys have also used his "Christianity" all this time to hit against us a number of times on here, as though that in itself should soften us to buy into the theory. It's the only time any of you seem to suddenly take the faith "seriously" - which is rather sickening considering the ongoing contempt and sarcasm towards it the rest of the time isn't it? Even around Linear, none of you are the least bit concerned of offending his Christian beliefs. How interesting. He doesn't seem bothered either....

Again, I cannot state for sure what's in someone's heart, only God can. That's between Linear and God. But I think Russ, as the owner, has a right to find out if a member is playing games on the forum. Using a person's faith to arouse sympathy to the evolution theory is sadly not uncommon and I would hope Linear isn't part of this.

People do indeed get banned for false pretenses on forums. Manipulation games etc.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=6&t=782&m=92#92


and
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=6&t=748&m=143#137

Those were my relevant finds. It'll be interesting to see what LindaLou turns up.

CTD said:



It's good to see that this apparently doesn't mean what it appeared to mean.

I've never seen evidence anywhere that Linear AQ is anything other than a devoted Christian, and he is not a troll. But yes he is quite capable of defending himself so I will allow him to do so (forsooth, therewith, anon).

Such loyalty! Or... abandonment? Tough call.

When it gets to this point CTD, when even links to their own quotes goes over their heads, you just have to shake your own!

Talk about persistance in the face of undeniable admissions/evidence. It couldn't actually be more clear for anybody.

Persistence, yes. Assistance, no.

True to form, Linear's support will come in words, but not deeds.

You, as a participant on an internet forum, are in no position to comment on someone's "deeds" here. You also appear to be accusing Linear of being a troll, or stating that you hope he will be banned. I'll make a few ambiguous statements myself shall I, and when people aren't sure what they mean I will claim that it's gone over their heads. Measuring you by that yardstick, CTD, you're a genius.

No. Mole ain't troll.

By my actions, one could readily support the contention that I desire to see Linear exposed. As for banning, there are pro's and con's. It's not up to me, so there's no need to hope either way.

Ultimately, one hopes for the salvation of sinners. Contrary to all the "hate" talk, I doubt anyone would fail to experience joy in the event they meet Linear or any of the others in heaven. Myself, I would prefer to have some reason to hope this will happen. But that's not up to me either.

I knew the putting words in mouths couldn't be resisted. Another tactic to divert the thread, and so hopefully it detracts from the quote exposures and shifting the burden of guilt. We have simply brought this to others attention and you don't like it. We have not called him a troll, that's for Russ to decide. If his behaviours suggest he is one, then whose fault is that? Ours???? I guess you could sit and have a tantrum and blame us for exposing a member for blatant contradictions about his Christian status.

The word "mole" as CTD has pointed out, "may" be more appropriate. Either way, it's Russ' call in the end.

Either you're not reading the posts properly and avoiding all the links/quotes from Linear in preference for diverting the discussion. Or you are reading them properly and preferring to divert the discussion. Certainly diversion is the key.

CTD, I missed the earlier post where you gave more quotes of the contrary admissions. It's just steadily building. Linda can keep trying to bury it in newer posts of more whingeing, but it's there and it aint going away.

I believe that it is possible that God could have created everything in 6 days. However, the evidence that He left outside of the Bible indicates that He did it differently over a much longer period of time.

Therefore, I don't believe in a literal 6-day creation.

At the time CTD had indicated that everyone who believed that the theory of evolution was true was an atheist or at least not a Christian. From his point of view, insulting me was meeting his weekly quota.

This was about hard line fundamentalists wanting to impose their morality on those that don't believe as they do. The "they" refers to those fundamentalists. Note that I used the word "ours" to describe God. That would include me in the mix.

I don't expect to be banned. Why would you bring it up?
Is this RussT's typical method of inquisition prior to excommunication or did you help build this railroad through private talks with him?

The reference you make about rabbits and their reprocessing of partially digested food fails to take into account that the Hebrew word that is translated "cud" is interpreted by most Hebrew scholars as referencing something coming up from the throat. Clearly, this is not the method that rabbits retrieve their partially digested food. Plus rabbits swallow that partially digested food immediately without chewing it. So they don't "chew their cud". Please start another thread regarding this bunny stuff if you wish to provide evidence for your case or to refute my statements.

Impose our morality? are you aware that it doesn't stem from us, but Christ??? What part of morality that we preach, that Christ has not? Give me an example of a "moral code" that we've made up.

Now since you've stated this, I notice that you fail to mention the world imposing their secular sinful lifestyles upon the rest of us via media, magazine, newspaper, lifestyle everywhere etc. Since we are not forced to read it, we can choose. You can do the same, as can anybody in the end. But I'd say you rely on a good deal of morality, as most people do for the guarding of their own lives.

It's just certain "aspects" of it that you would wish was left out because..? So most would like a smorgus board morality. One of their own choosing. Well, they already do Linear. You'll note most people live according to how they wish, which is mostly against God's moral code in the bible anyway. So where is the imposing? Since they don't seem to be in chains to me or forced to view the bible or religious televison, things have never been freer and if what you say is true? Then perhaps things should be better and happier than ever, yet this is not what we are seeing at all. You behave as though it's "FREE" when one is living how they wish against the moral codes Christ pointed out. Do you realise that truth and holiness are what sets a person free. You talk about being Christian, yet you contradict it continually.

In fact, most TV and media is secular. So I could claim it's imposing it on us...how come you see morality as imposing, and secular sinful "free" lifestyles as.....not imposing?

See, I can turn this around as much as you do. Since nobody is FORCED to accept either. We have a choice and we can choose to vote for those that stand for Christ, or those that are worldly and do not care for the morality Christ pointed out.

Time and time again on here, I see you claim one thing, yet you speak against it and seem resentful and irritated by it. If it really annoys you and you feel nobody has a right to impose anything, then you also do not have a right to impose your liberal views on me either.

Of course, you'll claim you're not but just giving an opinion. See how the "imposing" word is used by you where and when it suits. Yet the Christ you claim to believe in, set out those moral codes for our own good and for the RELEASE of sin (which is imposing). Sin itself does not liberate anybody Linear and living according to God's laws does not enslave anybody.

if this is what you believe, that how can you then claim you follow Christ who pointed these things out in the bible?

Should I be bothered by what they say? Shouldn't I be looking at what they say and analyzing whether it points out failures of particular Christians or if it points out failures of the basic Christian theology? Most of the time they are disagreeing with the literal interpretation of particular parts of the Bible. I disagree with that same interpretation in most cases, so how does that insult me or my beliefs?
Then again, if you have a particular insult that they have stated and you feel I should have responded angrily to, please point it out.

My faith is not related to evolution's truth or falseness. I agree that Russ has the right to find out if a member is playing games. I would, however, appreciate being told which forum guideline I am being investigated under.

You mean like not answering direct questions and posting purposeful misinterpretations and misleading information?

A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke

Linear is apparently unable to apply this wisdom to his own beliefs when confronted by numerous others concerning them. I think he just uses the quote for decoration in his signature. Either that or he knows he has a faith that is not worth many regrets since it cannot survive a collision with truth and he is saying so directly. That was the difference between Moses and Pharoah too and we know where that led.

You use the work "we" as if I included you as one of the people I was talking about. This does not have anything to do with what Christ said to do or didn't say to do.

Are you lobbying your political leaders to make homosexual conduct illegal? Are you trying to influence your lawmakers to require Christian prayer in your public schools? The people I was referring to certainly are doing those things. My disagreeing with the actions of particular Christians does not mean I disagree with the beliefs of all Christians. I doubt that you agree with all the tactics used by some Christians to influence others.

I am happy that you mitigated your statement with the realization that you can choose your morality despite the morality of those around you. You will note that the purveyors of this sinful lifestyle don't try to make it a law for you to participate in their lifestyle. The people I was referring to, are trying to make laws to force people to live by their moral code.

Because you cannot be jailed, fined or have some rights taken away for refusing to participate in their sinful lifestyle.

There are such things as rights for individuals in my country. The right to believe whatever you wish to believe is a basic one. To punish someone for acting under their particular morality and is not violating the rights of another person, is wrong.

My voicing or writing my "liberal views" is not imposing them on you.

I never said sin liberates anyone. Christ set those moral codes but never forced anyone to obey them. Why should I support legislation that forces others to act as if they believe as I do? Forcing people to go to church doesn't save them and forcing people obey strictly Christian moral codes doesn't make the want to be Christians.

Because Christ stated that the law doesn't save you. He loved and showed compassion to people who weren't moral and then taught them to live morally. He even stated that it is the thoughts that must be brought under control. If you even want to do something wrong then you have already sinned.
How is telling people people they are repugnant supposed to show love? Do you expect that someone you have tried to hurt (from their point of view) will come running to your beliefs if they need help?
I have heard people in my own church state that they don't care if those people come running to Christianity in a time of crisis. Now, how can that type of attitude be considered Christ-like? Doesn't that violate the Great Commission?
I am not claiming that these are things you, Bex, do. However, this is the attitude I see in most of the people who support laws that require a Christian moral code to be followed.

BTW: Don't conflate this to mean I am against laws that prevent the violation of other peoples rights...ie murder, rape....etc.

Yes. Pharaoh's faith didn't survive the collision.

When you have shown that my faith conflicts with the truth, then I will consider giving it up. Until then your unfounded and inaccurate remarks have little meaning.

My remarks are neither unfounded nor innacurate.

For instance, like you do many times in many ways, you make a broad statement such as this one above:



When in fact, anyone who reads the news knows that this is a false statement. Consider the laws regarding homosexual lifestyles that are being promoted in California. These LAWS, as just one example, force others who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle to participate in it by forced legislated teaching to children, and by forced legislated silence of dissent.

The only thing that makes your 'faith'. as you pronounce it. stand. Linear, is your obliviouness to the facts, or truth as it may be.

Here you state



..but you fail to mention that he showed to compassion to people who were stuck in sin, ailing in it, and likewise repentent of it. He did not run after people who loved their sin, those he left in it and warned them of their imminent destruction. Show me one example of where Jesus saved a person who loved their sinful state, just one. There aren't any. He would also tell those he healed.. 'go and sin no more...' ... and he also said things like... the cow that returns to the mire (after being saved from it) becomes ten times worse off than before... I cannot find that exact quote at the moment but here is a similar one

Matthew 9:16 -
No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse

If sin has no meaning whatsoever, if sin as defined by the law has no meaning whatsoever, then it would seem appropriate for you to tear those pages from your bible, since they are all meaningless. Since, in thought, you have done this already, it is not an abject statement to say, your faith is not the one that Jesus taught.

There is something very important about the faith and salvation that Jesus did teach that seems to be missing from your dialogue, Linear. As far as I can tell it is the repentent part, as often is with most people who desire salvation but refuse to fully believe that God can save us from our sin, from ourselves, and turn us into a new creation that looks back upon our lives of sin with utter disgust, not longing. Most people that get saved, today and even in the bible, have already reached a state of repentence on their own, perhaps with God's help, they have realized that they are separated from God by their sin. The realization that God is holy, and that holy is not a meaningless word either, is essential.

The fact that you seem ok with this or 'they' seem ok with that, does not in anyway mean that God is ok with it or approves of it in any way, shape or form. You would be much better off seeking Him and his help with these issues than constantly trying to prop up your pride in yourself and your conflicting, and they truly are conflicting, beliefs on a daily basis. If you truly believe then seeking his help with these issues should not be an utterly overwhelming task. Of course if you only look to yourself as the answer for all things and never bother to inquire of the Lord then it should not surprise you that others say, your faith is not true.

.. and the fact that the NT does not contain any direct statements from Jesus concerning homosexuality speaks volumes.. there was no homosexuality to speak of among the hebrews. It was not an item of discussion.

There are places in the OT and elsewhere in the NT concerning it.

If you are so sure the laws in the OT are meaningless then you should go ahead and break every single one, repeatedly to prove it. If you are still alive in 5 years let us know how you are doing.

Which laws? Could you state a specific law that prevents free speech in California?
SB777? I read it and I don't see anything banning free speech except that teachers cannot teach anything that is derogatory to a particular race, religion, gender, handicap or sexual orientation. Do you disagree with this? Should teachers be allowed to teach derogatory opinions of particular races, religions, genders, handicaps or sexual orientations?

Maybe that's not the law you are referring to. The only way I will know is if you tell me what law and where in the law it states what you are saying it states.


And you are in a position to determine which person involved in sin is "ailing" and which person loves their sin? Well, you're better at discernment than I am. Those people didn't become repentant until after they met Jesus and He showed them the example. If they were repentant before they met Him then they would have tried to change already.

I never said that sin was meaningless. However, forcing people to not sin, does nothing to stop their desire to sin. It is only by experiencing the grace and love from Christ that they can get the desire to turn from their sin. You cannot influence people that you have no relationship with. Forcing people to do things that they don't want to, has a tendency to stifle the growth of a relationship with them.


So you repented of your sins after people you didn't know told you how disgusting and awful you were? Do you think that's a good recipe for saving people?

I never said I was ok with the lifestyle of others so your argument falls apart right there.
What I pray for is the ability to reach those around me in love and not rejection. I seek guidance in fostering relationships without getting mired in their lifestyle. Be in the world but not of the world. Salt cannot preserve unless it is placed on the item to be preserved.

So Jesus only came for the Hebrews? I doubt it. Infanticide and homosexuality was common among the Romans. Are you saying He was unaware of these practices. I understood the lack of mentioning those things to mean that they weren't as important as teaching that we need to love God and love each other, that we need to help others who are in need, that we need to treat others how we want to be treated, and that we need to work on our own hearts and minds to seek God and not sin.

When did I ever say that the OT laws are meaningless. If you think it is so important to have people obey these laws, why don't you support the idea of a Christian theocracy for the US. Why don't you support the banning of all other religions from the US?

Your actions are not supporting what you are saying.

If you have to ask this question, then you have not read the bible very well because Jesus specifically states that he came for the Jews and the Jews alone. Of course when the Jews rejected him, salvation came to the rest of us through him... better read your bible again. Jesus healed a roman or two or 2 but he never evangelized them. Find me where he preached to the Romans, Linear, please, I'd love to see it.

I would support banning all other religions from the US. However I have never been given a chance to vote on it. I wouldn't support a theocracy though.

You did state the OT laws were meaningless. Someone else said to you


and you replied


If your reply does not indicate that the law is meaningless what does it imply?

The term 'King of the Jews' was not for nothing you know.

I wonder how long we have to wait begore being allowed to vote to ban all other religions from the US. I am tired of voting on things like rights for homosexuals.

I betcha most Christians would vote yes on that. Save us the trouble of having to worry about islamic terrorists...

I would be ok with allowing Jews to build temples though. as long as they didn't discriminate against Christians.

You should study the history of Lebanon. It was once a Christian nation and then just by sheer numbers (huge families, many children) the muslims took over and they made every other religion illegal. It could happen here too you know, it will probably happen in England first. But you would probably be ok with them doing that because they are not Christians. Everyone except Christians should get their way that is your philosophy is it not?

You didn't address the fact that repect for and teaching of homosexuality is legislated, required by law, in places, but Christians are being ignored and silenced in those same places.

Do you have nothing at all to protect in your so-called christian corner that defends the rights of everyone except Christians? Usually... when you stand on one side of the fence or the other ... with one certain group or another... your associations tend to define you.

Where does Jesus say this?

I never said He preached to the Romans.

Why?

Why not?


I could not find where Christ stated that following the law would not save you so perhaps I was wrong about Him making actually saying that. However, in Romans, Paul states that the law doesn't save you unless you follow every letter of it for our whole life. It is only through coming to Christ that we can be saved.
Christ indicates that following the law unwillingly is also a sin (angry with your brother = murder, looking at a woman in lust = adultery). So making laws that force others to outwardly follow the precepts of the Christian religion, does nothing to save them. I didn't say the laws were meaningless...I said they don't save someone.

The sign on the Cross was meant to be derogatory.


That vote will probably come right before the one to ban free speech and free press but after the one to ban weapons ownership by individual citizens.

I can see why you're tired. Homosexuals shouldn't have any of the rights that real citizens of the US have.

Why? They're not Christians and some are adamantly opposed to Christian teaching.

When did this happen? I'm sure it would come as a surprise to the Maronite Christians.
The Mideast Monitor might be concerned that they are reporting false information.

No, it is not.

I looked at the law that I thought you were referring to, and saw that it covered discrimination. I saw no place that restricted free speech. You have not provided any substantiation that individuals were being silenced by the California government. You brought it up, you support it with some verifiable facts.

That's a nice little saying and it has some validity. However, if I stand on the side of the fence that allows freedom and rights for both you and your enemy, then where does that put me...on the fence? I don't think so, because if your enemy tries to infringe on your rights then I am on your side. If you try to infringe on their rights then I am on their side.
If that makes me your enemy then so be it. Your claim to being a follower of Christ doesn't excuse poor treatment of your fellow man.

What's it to you?



So is the story of the 3 wise men I guess. And the story of Herod killing all the hebrew babies for fear of that king.

I am convinced, like the others, at this point, that you have never read the bible or else read a completely different one, and one does have to wonder why you call yourself a christian.

you should at least read the bible before attempting that, it would help your case a lot.

I would love to sell you a car.. a porsche.. nevermind that old VW monogram on the rearend just focus on the porsche sticker near the windshield. How much will you give me for an old VW wrapped up in a porsche sticker? Just remember, I said, I SAID, it's a porsche. Does the fact that the engine is in the trunk mean anything at all to you? It should if you know your cars, Yep, like I said, it's a porsche. Needs some work.

And you know me well enough to judge my treatment of my fellowmen huh? says a lot too...

You really need to study history, recent history... Lebanon is good place to start... it's heading straight at you better wake up soon.

your silly willy ideas are dreams and may someday turn into nightmares. I prefer to live in the real world thanks, i got tired of thieves and murderers a long time ago.

Yes, I will protect my own even if it seems rude to you. I have no other choice. On the other side of the fence are liars and thieves and murderers and by golly, I even know many of them on a first name basis!!

If it seems rude to you btw... consider the fact that you haven't tried very hard to be my friend.

Tell me whats ruder anyway.. a queer gay male claiming to have PMS and screaming for attention or a straight heterosexual woman walking away and never lending the weird fella a hand?

A woman, I know for sure that if it's really PMS, it will pass. Homosexuals never quite get that. They had a term once, it was penis envy, freud I think.. how do you define a man claiming to have PMS? Penis phobia or menstruation envy?

That actually happened to me a few weeks ago I was in this store and this weird gay guy starts saying he has PMS and is crying for attention... you know what Linear/.. I wish I really really wish that every gay man on this planet would really suffer PMS and menstrual cramps like clockwork every 25-28 days. It would be a great reality check for them all.. I'm sure many would even start to pray.

they are a lot like you claiming to be christian.. they want all the benefits they perceive others get but they have never walked in the shoes or earned the benefits of the others they accuse.

When gay men give up a year of their life and sacrifce their health to bring a new life into this world I may feel differently about these so-called rights you think they deserve.

In the meantime I'd be more apt to spend my time focusing on women's right's thanks, they are in need of more attention than gay rights. I would like to see women given the equivalent of each and every right homosexuals demand.

beginning with teaching respect for women beginning in kindergarten. and speaking rudely of women, it should also be a hate crime.

of course, I could take a similar position as you, but from the opposite direction, and ask and accuse, you, of why you so hate families, plain old mom and dad families with children, that you seek to destroy them with homosexual lies and pandering and nonsense.

maybe it hasn't occured to you yet, but every single homosexual you ever met has a mother.. a father... possibly brothers, sisters... families Linear.. and you know who those families are? it's us Linear.

next time you accuse someone of hate or making enemies better check the playbill. you just never know who's hiding in the wings. or how many skeletons are in the closet.

go on now and test those laws in the OT, i dare you. They certainly won't 'save' you I know you know that but 'saved' has yet to be defined in your 'christian' thesis. saved from what? sin saved from sin// sin.. those things the law defines??? Noooo, could it be.. sin the wages of... death is the wages of...

duh


thanks for the silly conversation it was fun.

Actually sosick we had this conversation or similar to on another forum and you will find it gets you nowhere. Even if you use quote and verse, he'll take you in circles.

I'm not interested in allowing him to drag me down the same neverending arguments to be honest. Either one is faithful to God's teachings and stands up against that wish God spoke against and stand for Christ and the biblical word and morality, or one sits on the fence and hopes to have his cake and eat it too. God is highly offended by all sins and if we are Christians, we would be also. Does this mean we don't fall into them? No. Since we need Christ! But how can one "ok" something that offends God so grieviously?

Since when do we have RIGHTS to sin? We have the freedom to commit sin, but since when is it a right? Do I have a right to kill someone? I can make the choice to do it yes, but do I have rights? Do you know that the homosexual lifestyle is an affront to the living God? It offends Him and since such sin leads a person to eternal separation from God if it is not repented of, how is this any less a sin than murder? The death of the soul is worse than the death of the body. Murder doesn't just kill the body, but deliberate malice involved in that murder can also kill the soul, unless a person turns and repents. It depends on the circumstances.

So since when does anybody have a license/right to sin?

Linear picks and chooses which sins from the bible he agrees with, and the others that he doesn't like being "sin", he has issues with. So linear's thoughts come before God's? Sorry, if Linear wishes to live that way and tell himself what he wants to make himself feel better, that's his problem and let him deceieve himself.

Basically it is just heresy. There truly are people around sosick that preach there is no such thing as Hell, and no problem with the homosexual lifestyle and that abortion is ok, who will then say "I'm a Christian" (you know this yourself). They are a Christian in name only. They ok the very sins that are an abomination to the very Lord and Savior they claim to believe in and play a part in the confusion of others also. Instead of standing for morality, they give their own swing on it. Those that fall for it, or them, have themselves to blame. The bible is readily available for everybody to read.

Who comes first? The world's view? Or our Lord and Savior's view? Living in the world amongst all kinds of sin and temptation is a trial for any Christian and an ongoing temptation, which is part of the journey and tests before judgement. If we don't stay strong in our own faith, how then can we expect to help others? A liberal watered down gospel is not what Christ taught, it is instead what heretics preach.

Homosexuals can vote for their homosexual lifestyle being worthy of marital status, (since it seems everybody is free to an opinion and a vote) and we have every right to vote against that (since we are free to an opinion and a vote). If I vote for it? Since it is an affront to God and an affront to the holy sacrament of marriage, then how is that being a Christian? I don't condemn them, I don't hate them (I know some homosexuals and I like them as people). Just as much as I find those living in relationships before marriage, not much better. However, doesn't seem to be anybody voting against that though eh? So Linear, the world has a heck of a lot of freedom in regards to offending God.

So, it seems for the most part, you have your wish. The majority of sins are freely practised and accepted as normal and "ok", though they offend God greatly. Now if only they could get all states to accept homosexual marriage....and if they do manage to achieve that? What next I wonder? hang in there Linear, you might get your wish! It's already happening in some areas. Keep your fingers crossed, it might just happen everywhere.

If you get your wish, they'll be homosexuals marrying everywhere freely, offending God and offending the meaning of marriage, which was meant for one woman and one man and exposing this to children around the world who will also see this and decide it's normal and it's ok. Just an "alternative lifestyle" Like Mummy and Daddy! Husband and husband. Forget about what Christ thinks eh?

Personally sosick, when I get into arguments with a person who is honestly on the side of the world's view, rather than Christ's, I tend to let them go and have the last word eventually. As if sinful lifestyles haven't had freedom? Wow, just look around us! They're rampant. So much for the imposing of Christianity....

I really don't think he has ever read the bible completely.. anyone who has delved into Christian teachings at all.. would not say that Jesus ... King of the Jews.. was only a derogatory sign posted on the cross.

it really shows a complete lack of familiarity with the Jesus story altogether. I mean really, christian 5 year olds know better, Jesus born king of the jews is the basis of so many Christian movies and kiddie Jesus cartoons.. if he could miss that it really shows a complete aversion to christian teaching because.. it's impossible to miss that...

and the fact that he EVEN attempts to say that Jesus came to teach and preach to the romans.. well.. I have no idea where he has been studying but it isn't in a christian church and it isn't the bible I have been reading.

theres a lot of it around i mentioned above.. people who desire, more than anything, salvation (whatever they imagine that is), but refuse to give up the rich man's goods... so they invent their own salvation and their own Jesus... there's a lot of it around.

Hi sosick,

"Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" was a sign from the Romans to mock Him, and the jews were screaming for it to be taken down. They were insulted, yet ironically it was true. The Romans put it up sarcastically because it was Jesus who proclaimed Himself as a King and being one with the Father. So the Jews became angry because it indicated He was indeed the Messiah!

Before He was crucified, the Romans mocked Him by crowning Him with thorns, a purple Roman cloak as a robe and a reed in his hand to symbolise kingship. They beat Him, whipped Him, spat at Him and completed the mockery with the sign above His cross proclaiming His Kingship. The Romans refused to take it down, regardless of the Jews indignation. Indirectly, they were also mocking the Jews!

Who knows what else was actually done to Him. The King of Kings and Lord of Lords allowed Himself to be humiliated, tortured and condemned by those He had come to save. I wonder how many of those people who did this repented in the end? Perhaps only a few. I'd say we will find out oneday and be amazed.

What I get from the bible is that Christ came for ALL sinners, Jews, Romans, everybody. All of are in need of the blood sacrifice redemption of Christ. "Everybody is welcome at My Father's table"!!!!

In the bible it speaks about one of the Roman centurions who came to Jesus believing in Him and asked if he would heal one of his servants back home. He had so much faith, that he believed Christ only had to say the word and it would be done and even felt he was unworthy that Christ should enter under his roof. Christ used this man as an example of faith. Of course, the servant was healed! The enemy of Jews had more faith in Christ than many of us! The Roman Centurion believed! Another example that the good people were not all Jewish like the good Samariton and that the Jewish rulers and priests were largely hypocrites! Christ's miracles and healings were for all!

Well inherently yes Bex, but he never once preached to the Romans or gentiles nor did he try to evangelize them. Thus he did not confront homosexuality among the Romans or other people. He commissioned the apostles to do that, go to the nations and tell them of him. At which point Paul did confront the issue of homosexuality.



Not at first Bex..

Mark 7: 26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. 27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. 28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs. 29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter. 30 And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.

And Herod slaughtered the children of Bethlehem for this reason:

Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. 3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

it is the subject of dozens of childrens movies, Jesus King of the Jews, even you should know Bex.

The story of Jesus riding the mule into town.. the king born humbly in a manger.. riding a mule as the people waved palms... these are important signifigant events that fulfill OT prophecy Bex, you should know this...

Luke 19: 38 Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.

The phrase was not concocted by either the Jews or the Romans for the crucifixion. And Jesus said his kingdom is not of this earth for a reason too.

There had been a prophecy of this king that God would send to the Jews and they did eagerly expect him.. but Jesus simply was not what they expected.. and a big part of the reason they wanted to see him crucified was to test him to see if he would die.

John 1: 49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

I am not sure Jesus ever called himself King of the Jews, it was what he was called by them. Likewise, he never called himself the Son of God. He only ever called himself the son of man.

Matthew 27: 11 And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.

Matthew 26: 63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Read the bible Bex.

I don't know. How is it that you find the strength to allow all those other religions to run rampant across your country without rising up and burning those temples of iniquity to the ground or at least demanding that your government take steps to limit their influence?

This confused me because it seems that you believe I am advocating allowing people to physically harm other persons.
You are confusing the rights that are provided by the government of my country with the requirements regarding sin in the Bible. Certainly God does not give the right to sin. He allows it and punishes those who partake and don't repent. I never said that people have the right to sin. However, individuals have certain rights in my country regardless of their religion, race, handicap, gender or sexual orientation. If I am to obey the rulers placed over me as Paul said then I should not allow laws that discriminate. I may believe that Satanism is evil but the rules of my country say that I cannot allow discrimination by my government based on religion so I cannot ask them to make Satanism illegal or ask to have the rights of Satanists infringed. The chain that we forge to limit the rights of our brothers will eventually become our own.

Did I say my thoughts come before God's? You don't even read what I say with any sort of comprehension and you claim I am deceiving myself?

I have said many times that I don't think these things are ok. I just don't agree that it is our place to punish people for doing them. You apparantly believe we should punish sins and leave God out of the picture.

Yes...we should go with the Lords view as interpreted by....uh...Jerry Falwell...maybe...Pat Robertson...hmmmm...Jack Hayford? Well never mind, what is important is getting rid of that liberal watered down gospel like treating your neighbor as you would like to be treated. Oh! and that messy religious freedom thing...surely that must go.

Amazingly, in an environment like Ephasus where sin abounded and some of their practices would make the homosexuals of our day blanch, Paul started a lil' ol' church that could keep themselves pure in that environment. Strangely, our church now-a-days needs the rule of law to keep ourselves pure.

The majority of people could vote to enslave all Muslims within the United States but I doubt that it would become law. Basic rights are not accountable to the majority vote.



And of course they will force you to marry a person of your sex and force you to be a homosexual....don't forget that part.

ha ha ha , Take a look around Linear.. that's your role you are describing. we don't have to do it, there are plenty of people like you around.



He punishes us for sinning? I haven't noticed much of that. Maybe a little bit, like he doesnlt pay much attention to me if I am sinning a lot, knowingly sinning... and that is a dark place.. without God.. What I have noticed A LOT is that He allows me to suffer the consequences of my sin and stupidity. makes a better lesson that way I guess. The lesson being.. I am, or my ignorance is, the cause of my own suffering much of the time...

Far as I know sin is things which cause harm to ourselves or others. Repeated offenses seem to often result in physical illness or even death.



yeah don't forget that part Bex. what logic. wally whoop.

Linear, go buy a house next to the local landfill or water treatment plant or something. and don't complain about the smell. It's merely the stench of your fellowman afterall.

You know, they really need to balance a lot of this pro-homosexuakl stuff with realistic facts about the health problems associated with anal sex and stuff.

Linear, can you count how many various different parasites, viruses and bacteria live in the average person's colon? Do you think it's more than in a barrel of untreated sewage or less or roughly equivalent?

That's why i think you would enjoy living next to a sewage treatment plant Linear. You are ok with all of that. Just think of it like a big swimming pool.

why do homosexiuals have such short lifespans anyway? Do you think God is punishing them or do they suffer the consequences of their own stupidity just like I often have? Stupidity is not a good thing. We do need to educate people about homosexuality for sure.

Hey SoSick

Well, the main difference between your colon and untreated sewage is location. The second is temperature, and many of the fecal organisms cannot survive the colder outside temperatures for too long, so the chances are that there is more inside where it is nice and cozy for bacteria to live.

It's probably about the same order of magnetude as live in the average person's mouth, having passed that way first. Of course 99% of them are benign, and many actually assist to make the human body function.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Dental/story?id=119221
(bold for empHAsis)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flora
(bold for emPHAsis)

Does that help? You can't be healthy without bacteria.

Enjoy.

Ya think? Like staph and strep, ecoli.. they live in most people's mouths? hookworms, they live in most peoples mouths, ascaris? Maybe you should do some research. I have never heard anyone mention that death starts in the mouth though it's an old colliquialism concerning the colon. Any idea why that is RAZD? Can you explain why John Waynes colon contained close to 50 pounds of old poo when he died yet his mouth was empty?

Why you are at it maybe you can research and expain to us all why San Francisco has the largest number of flesh eating staph/strep infections yearly (mersa I think it's called, something like that) and why it is also that the CDC traces the very first cases of that type of staph or strep to the homosexual community of SF as well.

I eagerly await your soon to be educated response and hope you will enjoy your research.

Even.. you know.. I have spent plenty of time around swimming pools.. many public swiming pools even.. and I have noticed with my plebian brain and poor eyesight that most swimmers get water in their mouths and spit it back out. This happens all day long at public swimming pools. There are chemicals in the water, like chlorine, that take care of most of that type of oral bacteria... yet.. if someone poops one little poop in the pool they evacuate it.

Common sense has dictated to my plebian brain that even the health dept has determined that there is a big difference between spit and poo. maybe you can give them a call and inquire as to what the difference is RAZD.

If they gasp and laugh at you as if you are a moron do not be surprised, even though you are not a moron. most young mothers would do the same concerning your suggestion that poo is as safe for a baby to eat as spit is to swallow.

common sense has dictated that to my plebian brain.

Just a few extra moments of thought on this subject from this perspective and it has occurred to my plebian brain that the average person with a likewise plebian brain does not have to ask past this point why a parent would say to another person with beliefs and lack of knowledge of the differences between poo and spit, such as yourself or Linear, RAZD, stay away from my kids!

We plebian but observant and never too cautious parents all learned these essentials in basic training at the swimming pool in infant swim class. Unfortunately many college grads and even California state certified teachers do not know these basic truths yet. they'll figure it out though. Perhaps from migrant workers with dirty hands picking spinach, perhaps from their gay lover with likewise dirty hands that brings them their favorite cup of tea unwittingly laced with ecoli or hepatitus from their own behind.

glad to see you did a bit of research RAZD, but my answer to your post as it stood originally prior to your edit, wherein you claimed that oral bacteria and lower intestinal bacteria are both benign and neccesary to good health, remains.

Considering your original statement and now a few short moments of research just opening your eyes for apparently the very first time, I can only suggest that you continue to research because your response is still extremely naive. 2 Minutes of research and a stop at wiki does not earn any applause, RAZD.

It's interesting how these topics always migrate at an alarming speed towards homosexuality, even when it's not connected with the original point. It's interesting how certain posters who claim to oppose homosexuality bring it up time and time again and refuse to stray far from the topic.

As regards certain methods of intercourse, there are just as many heterosexual couples engaging in them. Moreover, some homosexuals do not engage in them - one cannot assume two gay men are going to have sex the way one expects them to. Also, the use of condoms can easily remedy any hygenic issues.

At the end of the day, I don't want to know what anyone is doing behind closed doors and in their bedroom. That's why it's behind closed doors and why it's their bedroom! So for me to insist that I don't want someone as my neighbor due to their sexual preferences means I care enough to know what's going on in the first place! Rest assured, there are countless straight couples engaging in unusual, unconventional sex acts (some of which I REALLY don't want to know about). How does one ward off the heterosexual couples from living next door to them when they aren't privy to which specific sex acts they engage in?

I find this whole conversation disturbing. We've got at least one person here who wants the only religion in the US to be Christianity, which presumably would mean throwing everyone else out (and I'm sure they'd say good riddance along with it). We've got, yes, the usual hatred of homosexuals. And, above all, this belief that Christianity is the one and only way to believe and live because presumably all other beliefs are false and all behaviours not sanctioned in the Bible are sinful.

I learned a bit about Hinduism when I worked in a multicultural school years ago. We studied the different religions of the students and visited local temples, mosques, etc. Hinduism is one of the most tolerant religions I've had the pleasure to come across. Hindus don't claim that their religion is the only true one and all others are false. They believe that other religious figures -- Mohammed, Jesus, Buddha, etc -- are all avatars of the transcendent (Brahman). All the Hindus I've known have also been happy, laid-back people with no chips on their shoulders. I think they set a wonderful example.

Intolerance is something I loathe. Credit, at least, to Linear AQ. He's made it clear that despite his personal beliefs, whatever they may be, he supports tolerance in secular law. Unfortunately, this enlightened view means that he's going to continue to get a hammering here from people less disposed to allowing other points of view to exist.

Mind you, I suppose I might be giving the impression that I think "anything goes." It's up to a society to draw up their own rules and you'll find that they all have at least some common values, Christian or not. Murder and stealing, for example, are generally seen as bad things -- and how could they not, as they would be detrimental to the cohesion of any society.

I personally think there is too much sexuality in the media, and things have gone downhill for women post-feminism. It seems you can't be a female pop star, for example, without dressing like a whore and making soft-porn videos, and this is a poor role model for young people. As a teacher, I've also seen the knock-on effects of many broken relationships and marriages. But I'm not sure how far you'd curb these tendencies simply by passing laws or censoring. People's beliefs are central to how they behave. Now you might think that the answer to this is to convert everyone to fundamentalist Christianity, but that's not going to happen, and Russ2's statistics show that this isn't necessarily going to produce any significant change in how people behave. (And by the way, there's plenty of literature out there about what people get up to behind closed doors when they live in strict religious communities.) I'm not sure what the answer is myself, but it does seem that it's complicated. In the meantime, as long as we're free to live how we choose, we can always make good choices for ourselves and our families.

ACtually Linda, I didn't speak of intolerance. I spoke of the sins Christ pointed out. Of which, I am sure, most (if not all) of us are guilty to differing degrees.

Since there is the need to put Christians constantly in a class of these apparently forceful people who are intolerant and nasty, I wonder if you have seen the way homosexuals have also behaved towards Christians? Televised spitting and attempts at bruality including threating children where Christians were standing up for God's moral code. Wow, what a reaction HOW DARE THEY RIGHT?. It's interesting to me that you guys ignore much of that, but focus hard on trying to misrepresent the opposition, because you don't really like sin being spelt out. You're attempts at demonising Christians or accusing us of imposing our view, whilst you spit out your liberalism is the epitomy of hypocrisy.

I do not hate homosexuals and I am so sick of repeating myself on this. For goodness sake, I know some of them and am friendly with them also. What people do behind closed doors? Very much their business and between them and God. However, when it comes to a vote? Christians also have a right to vote and if they do not wish to vote FOR gay marriages, then they have the choice to vote against them.

There is very little Christian influence around to every make anybody feel imposed upon. It's quite the opposite in fact and people most definitely have freedom to do as they wish. We see this daily, on TV, in reality, movies/magazines, the lot. Nobody is forcing anybody, so let's drop the Christian axe grinding for awhile eh?

It's amazing that people bring up Christianity and you have referred to Linear as Christian, yet somehow you expect what? That we behave like luke warm, watered down quiet Christians and simply shut up or tell you what you want to hear, whilst we put up with the liberal immoral push in society that we' get daily? You gotta be kidding!

Nobody is forcing anybody to stop doing anything, unless they are committing an act against a child, or murder, rape, etc. Sexual immorality between adults, is not a crime in our world because it's consent between adults. But it is certainly an offense to God, but that doesn't stop people from doing their thing anytime they wish. However, in the end, only He can judge them. To warn a person, is not forcing something on them. They can ignore that and continue. To share the gospel and to share what sins offend God with a person, is right for any Christian to do, or they are failing poorly. It gives those people the chance to hear and if possible repent. It gives them the chance to also turn away and continue on.

Are you also aware that we might feel the imposing of secularism? I have had people sometimes scoff or sympathise with me, because I'm not being loose in morals! Somehow that's ok for them to probe and push? yet I'm not allowed to express any form of Christian belief or morality to anybody, or I'm being judgemental, prudish, etc etc. Yet the loose of morals can do and speak as they wish. It seems the in thing! Perhaps I'm just not buying into it and that means Im imposing my view because I just might stand up for my faith too sometimes. Wow!

Sorry guys, but your attempts at blacking the name of Christianity simply fall flat. It's a nice try I guess, but it's not an honest portrayal at all. Nowhere have I pushed my own religion onto anybody, but there is no way I'm going to shut my mouth and never stand up for Christ or my faith, simply because you or anybody have decided it's the secular way or NO WAY. Forget it. You have your way mostly in society anyway.

You can of course pick out the worst of Christians and then portray the rest of us this way, I can't stop you doing that, whilst you ignore the vast Christian organisations helping humanity across the glove. Gotta love the ommissions of that one eh? .

I guess by doing this, it helps make homosexuals look like the poor victims and the Christians look like the bad guys welding and brandishing bibles with violence and perhaps a sack of stones to stone them to death? Or drag them off to jail, chained hand and foot because of what they do behind closed doors? Actually, try looking up the persecution of Christians in certain countries today for a change. I wonder if you're ever bothered by that as much as you are by a homosexual getting into a tizzy because he's demanding marriage rights. I can't stand persecution of anybody, homosexual and otherwise and violence against people because of their lifestyle/belief is abhorrent to me. But please do not expect a genuine Christian to keep their mouths closed when the question of such sins come up in conversation.

Even Jesus saved an adulterous woman from being stoned to death by forcing those about to do so, to examine their OWN consciences. Since he is fully aware of how many of us are sinful ourselves. Homosexuality was not actually started by me on this forum Pwcca, I simply responded. I dont' focus on homosexuality, because there are many sexual sins that people commit daily that offend God and I have mentioned those also. I respond because I refuse to sit back, shut up and okay it. It's NOT okay with God. Hey, if you don't believe in the Christian God? that's your decision and your acceptance of homosexuality shouldn't be surprising but your ideas of us imposing our view, could then equally be turned around. Either way, God is offended by it, therefore I too feel obligated to stand up if I am asked my opinion, OR somebody proclaims it as being "oK' or why should Christians oppose it. We oppose it because God Himself has opposed it.

I've seen people try and catch us out on here when we slip up as Christians with our faults and often certain biblical quotes will be brought up to perhaps shame us? Which is fine, who doesn't need that? But, how is it, that on the next hand, one goes from trying to catch us in the act of not being very Christian, but then we get criticised when we stand strong on the teachings and sin? Linda, I have seen you and the others say "oh how Christian of you" sarcastically when someone has been harsh with you. Yet, then you do the opposite when we ARE being Christian by standing up for sin.

Interesting.

Two points here, Bex. First, I do not believe that Christians as a group are intolerant. We are hearing some intolerant attitudes here but the number of people talking in this thread is small and it would be silly to say that they are representative of Christians as a whole. The majority of Christians I have known personally have been tolerant and caring, though I've encountered various attitudes towards members of other (or no) religions.

Secondly, you can choose any subset of people you want and post comments, links and videos claiming to prove that they are evil, insane, etc. Whatever you or anyone else claims about homosexuals, they are people. Some do good things, some do bad things. You might believe they are immoral. There are others who don't. I don't think it would be accurate to make any blanket generalisations about them here other than that they are human beings.



Please tell me where I have misrepresented the opposition, and who you are taking my opposition to be in this thread. I do not oppose Christianity or religion in general.



Yes, that's your right.



Like I said, I am not opposed to Chrstianity or religion in general. What I really don't like is when I hear people say that members of other religions should clear out of the country. I am aware that is not a Christian doctrine, it's prejudice on the part of various people who think that their way is the only "right" way. If this is not your own view, then, obviously you are not included on that list. I find it particularly humorous that SoSick, who does not live in my country, seems to think we're going to be under Shariah Law sometime soon because we're overrun with crazy Muslims. I work with these people every day and reality is rather different.



Can you provide some evidence that secularism = loose morals? I'm aware of some pretty immoral acts that have been perpetrated by religious folk too.



This is a typical post from you, Bex. Something I/we have said has rankled, you've worked yourself up, and as usual are now claiming that whatever has been said is an attempt to insult Christians. Why not look again at what I said in my previous post and try to consider it with less emotion. I am not insulting Christians; I was making a statament about my feelings toward intolerance. I also admitted that I see disturbing behaviour in society too, but I am not looking at it through a religious lens and I personally don't see any answers being provided by fundamentalist religions. Changing even one or two of a culture's beliefs or ways of thinking is not simple or easy.

Hi Bex,

Just curious:

What do you mean when you say "imposing".

What do you think I mean when I say "imposing"

I am beginning to think that was a bad choice of words on my part.

Frankly, I agree with much of what you said. I think that you should be able to protest what you think is morally wrong. However, I also think that your opponents in this moral battle should be able to respond to you. That's what freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are about.

My problem is with any group (majority or minority) that tries to limit the rights of any other group, whether that is through legislation or threats. For example: if those gays were threatening physical or psychological harm to Christian children then the parents or church should try and have them prosecuted for assault.

I am not trying to blacken the name of all Christians by pointing out the faults of a few. I have tried to be clear on this but apparently I am not clear enough.

I know you are upset by the bad treatment of Christians in other countries or by particular groups in your country. However, when have you ever allowed your children to use the excuse "..but everyone else does it..." to justify bad behavior?

I am appalled by the pornographic junk that is peddled on the streets of my town, and I have actually protested in front of an adult book store. However, I would never vote to have the pornography made illegal, because I don't want someone else to vote to have the Bible be illegal. When has standing up against sin required legislating against moral behavior that is not infringing on another person's rights?

The restriction of freedom for one person sets the stage for the restriction of freedom for us all.

Forgot that one. I was focused on the sign placed by Pilate on the Cross. Thanks for pointing it out.


Ah! So if you happen to be in error in your Bible knowledge, do I get to question the validity of your claims to Christianity?


Sticks and stones...

Strangely the edits substantiate my original claim: most of the bacteria normally in the human body is benign OR necessary for the proper functioning of the human body. Even the benign ones serve a function in that they occupy space that otherwise could be inhabited by pathogens. If you did not have any bacteria in your body you would die of starvation. Sheer numbers alone do not tell the whole story.

Curiously I've actually studied microbiology and done experiments on measuring fecal bacteria in natural environments as part of one of my degrees. As usual, your tendency for snide comments adds nothing to the debate, nor does it show that bacteria normally in the colon are necessarily worse than the bacteria normally resident in the mouth, which of course is the point that I made and then backed up with substantiation.

Enjoy

Which of course is not proof that bacteria in the colon in necessarily worse than bacteria in the mouth, nor does it refute the fact that abnormal bacteria in either location can be just as dangerous to human health.

Most "plebian but observant and never too cautious parents" have learned that most diseases transmitted from person to person are carried in the mouth and nasal cavities, and that coughing can spread those pathogens quite easily.

Many a "plebian but observant and never too cautious parents" has also learned that if a person is bitten by a human, the resulting infection can be worse than from an animal bite if left untreated. Why? Because ALL the pathogens in the mouth are already adapted to the human body, whereas many of those in animals may not be.

Something your plebian brain may not be aware of is that Escherichia coli is one of the normally benign bacteria in most people and many other mammals. Some strains have evolved that cause problems, but the normal strains are still benign.

They are also very numerous and easy to test for in water samples, so when your local beach is closed it is usually because they tested for and found E. coli in the water. The reason for closing is not because E. coli necessarily poses a health hazard, but because it is an indicator that sewage got into the water, sewage that may contain many chemical toxins as well as any abnormal pathogens from any humans contributing to the flow.

A few more extra moments of thought on this subject for your plebian brain to consider is that one of the common problems with high doses of antibiotics is that it NOT ONLY kills the offending pathogen, but it ALSO destroys the fauna normally resident in your digestive system. The effect is usually diarrhea and weight loss (you cannot properly digest food with the beneficial bacteria).

Now one of the best cures for normal diarrhea is unpasteurized yogurt, especially one of the new ones with additional live bacteria in it: these are a few of the beneficial bacteria, and they will help restore your normal fauna.

In extreme cases, however, more drastic action is taken: and the doctor's will give the patient a pill ... filled with some healthy person's "poo" (as you so elegantly call it). So I hope you never have a sever case of diarrhea, SoSick (it seems you have more than enough medical problems eh?).

Curiously, this kind of "innoculation" is also one of the functions of mother's milk, as it carries the normal bacterial fauna from the mother to the newborn child (they are born without them). The reason we have to pasteurize cow's milk is because they carry a lot of bacteria similar to humans, and a lot that are not, and they can carry bacteria that they are immune to but humans aren't.

Why, are they sick? Sad to hear it.

Enjoy.

LinearAQ:

(1) What is necessary for one to call oneself a Christian?

(2) Does Christ approve of the practice of homosexuality?

(3) What is a human right?

(4) Where do human rights come from?

Sorry to interrupt but I was just wondering, Russ, why you bring this subject up so often. You have had heated arguments with people in the past about this; are you keen to have more?

Everyone knows that Christ said nothing about homosexuality, though it is mentioned in the Old Testament. There are various interpretations of the original language of these textual passages.

Even if you think that homosexuality is a sin, what's the issue -- what harm do they do? They are not out there murdering people. It's simply a choice people make about what to do in their bedrooms. My husband and I know homosexuals and you would not know they were unless they told you -- or unless you observed them holding hands. Rather against the stereotype here, they are not camp, flagrantly demonstrative, or socially aberrant. They are nice, normal people.

After Linear has answered your questions, I'd like to see how you yourself would answer #3 and #4.

Your information is totally inaccurate Linda.

So why did you give me 1 STAR Jeannie?

I didn't do that to you.

Oh my gosh. Does that bother you? Right now I'm not real happy with you if you haven't noticed.

Silly rabbit. Stars are for kids.

Changing your questions as you read my responses to others. I like the fact that this isn't some kind of standardized test.

Nothing. That doesn't mean that God agrees with that assessment.

What does the Bible require to be a Christian? That can be a matter of interpretation. I tend to follow Paul's requirements in Romans: Realize you are a sinner and that will lead to death; believe that Christ is the Son of God and was sent to save the world; confess your sins and repent of them; accept Christ as your Lord. That's it from my interpretation.

Some say that you must be baptized. Christ said to one person that he must give everything to the poor and follow Him. However, I believe that was because Christ saw the riches of that man were more important to him than God.

I don't know for sure, because He never really spoke directly about it. There are indications that He didn't approve of it.
Christ said that the Law would not change until the all was fulfilled. That phrase "all is fulfilled" has some issues in its meaning but I assume that He was saying the Law was still in effect. If we have the correct translations of the writings in Deuteronomy and Leviticus (some minority scholars have pointed out "problems" with mainstream translations), then Christ didn't approve of it.

Human rights are societal constructs that maximize dignity of individuals within a society.


Complicated. Some rights were conferred from some of the religious laws of the past. Although the laws seem restrictive to the individual, they increased the dignity of the majority of the individuals in the society by making their life safer.
Some rights were instituted in secular laws.
The common thread of those laws was to allow each individual freedom to decide on and act to create their own future happiness.

Great. Then wiping your rear end with your hand after a BM and licking it clean should not be a problem for you.

I assume that as the owner of this board you would abstain from star awarding.

The stars are just a popularity contest anyway. The only thing they indicate is how much people like what you post. I guess Jeanie didn't like what you posted. Calling someone's religion "satanic" tends to make them feel bad about you.

Well, maybe not a Satanist

OK . . . are you going to explain why you think so?

hey Linda, have you ever visited Key West, Florida?

I really don't understand why Linear keeps bringing up the subject of homosexuality in a Christian context anyway. Christians aren't the only ones opposed to the homosexual agenda.

Why should anyone really care about things like gay rights anyway? You are talking about a very small sector of the population 2 maybe 3%. Gays don't care about the issues that matter to most American families so why should they get any attention from most American families? Why on earth should anyonecare very much about a sector of the population that does not care very much about themselves? They know the health risks that they are susceptible to as homosexuals, the high rates of HIV/AIDS, the gonorrhea, the hepatitus, the MRSA, the syphilis, and yet they engage in certain risky behaviors anyway. So why should anyone really care? Why. Tell me please..because caring about these issues only causes backlash from the homosexual community.

It's such nonsense when anyone comes along saying.. oh well you know heterosexual couples engage in risky behaviors too... it's such nonsense... there is no comparison... it's clearly evident by the fact that the average heterosexual traditional american family community is made up of rows of neat houses and mowed lawns and people living their lives discretely behind closed doors whereas the average homosexual community, such as Key West, Florida or Cherry Grove, Fire Island is made up of some homes, many bars and public meating places, and groups of men continuously fornicating behind bushes.

If you have an argument with my opinion I suggest you visit a mainly homosexual community.

LinearAq phrased his opinions quite eloquently before and I agree with many of them. If you want your own rights protected, especially if you are in the minority in any respect, then you need to be willing to grant rights to other people too, even if they think differently from you. I repeat, who are these people hurting. It is paranoia to suggest that collectively they are responsible for ills in society.

Why are you also concerned about their "risky behaviours" if a) they have no influence on you and b) you are not interested in participating.

The gay people my husband and I know are, I repeat, ordinary people. You can cite examples of any kind of community living in what you believe to be an immoral way. Whatever people do at Key West does not mean that all gays are like that and I know it for a fact. And your picture of white picket suburbia is a fantasy. All sorts of things that you would classify as sins still go on there.

Your disapproval of the lifestyles of certain individuals does not justify condemnation of a whole subset of people.

A true Christian does not promote or condone that in which God Himself has condemned. This goes for any form of sexual immorality. Not just homosexuality. Nobody can stop a person from committing them, since we all have the freedom to sin (unless it's physical/sexual abuse). It does not mean every Christian shouts from the roof tops about it. But we can vote, we can pray and we can warn on occassion. We can point the way to the bible, to God, but nobody can stop a person sinning. Just as nobody can stop me from sinning.

There really isn't much for the homosexuals to complain about. They're free to do pretty much as they please in society and promote their sin via gay parades, the media and elsewhere. The Christian voice, for the most part, is often silenced in our society. Unless we make an active effort to seek it out and tune into it.

Nobody can restrict what consenting adults do behind closed doors in regards to sexuality and everybody has the freedom to do so - whether it's pornography, fornication, etc. But Christians can do their best to speak out about it when given the opportunity and protest against it when given the opportunity. Lying down and taking it and never standing up for God's biblical word and never pointing out their error is wrong. Though it seems, at least for now, that is pretty much what reigns in society. Those who stand for nothing, will fall for anything. How will a Christian, who claims to believe in Christ as their Lord and Savior, face God on judgement day with blood on their hands because they failed to take any kind of stand against serious immoral behaviours? The ones in which corrupt individuals, corrupt society and lead a person ultimately into eternal separation from God.

There is much that Christians could be doing that perhaps most are failing at doing. Because it is not easy in a society that promotes sin as the norm. But we can at least speak out and vote when/where it counts according to conscience/faith. We may not win a victory in every case, but at least we can face God and say "I tried". That is the main thing. And certainly given the chance to vote against something we know is wrong, we ought to do just that.

Since they like to label us "homophobic", we could just as easily turn the tables and label then as "moralphobic" "Christaphobic". Their anger is actually directed at God, since it was He who pointed these things out. It is not us that will ultimately judge people who practise such sin unfit for the Kingdom of Heaven, but God Himself. Whether a person believes this, takes it onboard and changes their lives is another story. But they should at least be aware of it, so they have the chance to do so. Had nobody ever persisted with me (at least on occassion), who knows where I'd be now.

At any rate, it is not us who has condemned such sins. But God Himself and let's have a look at what He has said.

Here are just some examples:



The Greek word in the New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite"

The New Testament clearly states exactly the same thing in Jude 7


Any sinner should always remember that the God who commands us to love our neighbour is the same God who will cast any and all unrepentant sinners into the "eternal fire".





Death of a few committing and persisting in such abominations, was in that day and age, preferable than the corruption and later eternal death of the souls of many who could be scandalised by such sins and may themselves fall into the same. It was a harsh, and a strong warning by God to others who might do the same. Those warnings also apply to us in this day and age that this is how seriously God takes sin! We of course, may not.

How lucky we are that Christ Himself came to give Himself as a stand-in for us. A living sacrifice for all sin. We know the penalty for these sins and we know the remedy. We can of course choose to reject that remedy and continue on. But nobody can say they were never warned.







Now, if you have a problem with this, you have a problem with God. Whether you believe in Him or not, He isn't going away and neither is the message. I suggest the only thing left for you is to stamp your feet, oppose His moral code, shake your fist and find particular sources of interest to you that all seek to discredit the bible. Apart from that? There isn't much left, unless you want Christians/Christianity stamped out of society completely.

You can choose to ignore warnings, never read the bible, disbelieve in the Christian God, never watch or listen to Christian radio or TV (easy to do so, compared to secular TV, they're a minority), vote and promote sexual sins, or simply turn a blind eye or pretty much believe what you want. Or do nothing. The choice is ours.

Meanwhile, elsewhere there are Christians being tortured and killed in our day and age, just for believing in Christ in some countries. Some, even in "civilised societies" are teased/persecuted just for wearing a crucifix or bringing a bible to school or work. So I wouldn't start throwing too many pity parties for the poor people offending God with their immorality.

The bible indicates that in the end times, the persecution and execution of Christians will occur on a worldwide scale. Not in isolated areas. There will come a time where nobody will be able to sit on the fence have it both ways. They will be required to choose one side or the other. The sheep will be separated from the goats. So those having it both ways now, won't have the luxury in the future.

Until that time comes, we will see an increase and promotion of the very sins that God is offended and grieved by. It seems that many in this day and age, throw the cause of His suffering and death on the cross (sin) back in His face, whilst they sit and condone, promote or say/do nothing. How will such people fair on Judgement day I wonder?

While I don't agree with how SoSick puts everything, I do agree that homosexuality at least for males is very unhealthy and risky. (As would those same behaviors be for females, though, when...not to be blunt...but when the rectum is involved. NOT meant for anything but feces). But I don't think being gay is healthy emotionally or spiritually for anyone, either, and that is why it is sin. Its not natural obviously. One good looking gay male I met told me once when I was about 13 that the reason he was gay was because all the females he had known were sluts. I do think sex and the human body is too much in your face now days and that that actually also detracts from its appeal. (Anyone remember the Love's babysoft commercial that said "innocence is sexier than you think?") A little mystery goes a long way as well as does anticipation. I think sex itself is wholly normal and should be fully enjoyed in its rightful boundaries with self control to be at its best and ideally should be reserved for marriage for a lot of reasons. (Not a prude). Lust becomes empty really fast... But I do not believe God hates gay people... Anyone ever heard the adage hate the sin but love the sinner? Jesus loved even "the least of these...." even seeking them out for special attention.

I feel for gay people and wonder how they must have been hurt to cause them to become distrustful of the opposite sex. (Although know that's likely not why they all become gay). A woman in a health food store told me once, too, that certain mineral deficiencies (sp?) can cause hormonal imbalances that way (which most of us know). I've seen females who looked very masculine and males who looked effiminate and females and males who looked very much what they were but surprised me when I found out they were gay. Sometimes I see kids just plain experimenting with it because its out there and MTV, etc., (and even school in some cases) makes them think its ok. While I don't like judging others, in this case I do have to say unequivocally that IT IS NOT NORMAL OR RIGHT. But that does not mean I hate gay people. And I agree with what Pwcca said about not wanting to know what goes on behind closed doors.... I choose not to go there. I take offense when anything blatantly sexual is flaunted or forced on us....or especially on kids, though. But that can apply to both gay and straight issues, too. Its a private affair..... There is way too much smut and porn out there these days and its carrying into things such as child pornography. Porn will rot a soul quicker than anything, IMO. There has even been a tie to it and murder.

God does not hate gay people or He would not have sent His only Son to die on a cross for them and for all sinners. It is the LIFESTYLE that we stand against, NOT the person. If that were so, then what hope would we have?

There maybe any number of reasons for a person to have attraction for the same sex. Only God can judge a person's heart and their intentions. For those who wish to put God before their same-sex urges, and resist indulging them, the reward will be great. They may fair better even than those of us not afflicted by such desires. Though greater the afflictions/testing, the greater the rewards. This goes for those suffering greatly around the world. God said that the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

Let us also remember that it is not easy even for the single heterosexual person either. Temptations afflict us all and this life, though temporary is not always easy and is a test. Each human being has weaknesses and sometimes those weaknesses can be turned around, for that is when Christ becomes our strength. Even Christ Himself was afflicted and tempted.

Every person, homosexual or otherwise, is loved by God. Our sins however are not! He invites us all to turn from them and come to Him. The choice, as always, is ours.

People who mock homosexuals, persecute them, are not pleasing to God and will also have to answer for this. Just as those who do this to Christians. But that does not mean we should cease from pointing the way to Christ and exposing sins - ALL SIN.

If i were someone that was attracted to the same sex, I'd suffer because I would know that my CHristianity calls me to morality and love of God and I would HOPE that I would answer His calling, not the calling of my flesh. Even as a single person, I have missed out because of sickness and gone through some personal suffering as a result, which I would not like to go into on here. But let us not forget that resisting all manner of sexual sin is not always easy, but the grace of God is there for us all and to resist and persist and keep our eyes on Christ and on Heaven? Is worth everything!

To fall into sin is human and God always lends us His hand to pull us back out. Nobody is immune to any of this. Anybody can fall into any kind of sin and if we become cocky about it, then that is pride. It is the PERSISTENCE in sin in the knowledge of what one is doing - and the indifference to God and His warnings and offering of redemption, (so a person can change their life) is what finally condemns a person. They in a sense, condemn themselves.

We all do have our crosses to bear so to speak... Something that tries us. Being single must be very difficult at your age, Bex. Maybe you and Russ ought to date : ) (Long distance....)

AWWWW. I felt bad seeing this. I didn't do it to hurt your feelings. I'm not even sure that is the case, though. Seems to be more your pride??

I just had a fecetious moment when I realized I had a certain amount of power when I, honestly, wanted to be rude to SoSick because I read post after post of what she wrote in response to people but rather than get into it with her, decided to voice my "opinion" with a star. I gave others I like more, too, to try to raise theirs. I really don't think you deserved a 1, but was surprised when it actually changed your amount of stars to 4. But Russ, this issue we disagree on is a pretty major one. It wouldn't bother me (or would but not to the point of making it an issue) if you didn't say slanderous things. Just cause you "think" its true doesn't make it so and being a member I have every right to correct you. Some of your claims about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are out and out falsehoods - or are twisted to be something they aren't. So Linear is pretty much right in his assessment..... I have no problem with you personally, but do have to say that knowing you have this so very wrong does color my perspective on how much else you may have wrong in general.... Honestly, I love you and think you are a precious person trying to do what is right. But you truly are wrong on the most important thing you could be. It's your loss, but I can't support your slanderous claims. You seem to think if someone is knocking something you say THEY are being slanderous...or because its your forum you should have the last word, but its not about you in this case. Its about the truth as you are always claiming.

Yes it is difficult, it's not what I envisioned nor wanted. But when you've been sick for so long and suffered social phobias/anxieties etc, it can sadly become something one gets quite accustomed to. You get USED to being single. Even if I wanted to, I am not well enough to seek a relationship. My health is unstable. IF it happened? That's great, but I would not envy the person having to deal with somebody that stays mainly at home because they don't feel well enough.

I'm not actively seeking because getting through each day at times is more than enough and frankly it's a tough call for anybody to be with a person that has such unstable health and isn't overly socially active. I'd also doubt myself as being a fit Mother too. I'm not sure. I struggle badly doing Kindergarten teaching (training).

lol, I'm sure Russ has had a number of offers and attempts at hooking him up. My view is, if it happens with anybody it will happen. I leave that to God. I don't see either lifestyle as being superior to the other necessarily. It's not easy being single, there are lonely times and difficulties, but is it easy being married and bringing up a family? There are crosses to both I think. And there is value to both if one does something with their life to help another.

It hurts at times yes, but the way I am, my life etc has become this way over a long time. I'd like to be with someone, but I'm not on the hunt and I really don't want to be in that position to feel I should. Other times I like being alone. People think I'm strange, and that's ok I guess. I'm just not into the dating scene. If it's God's will that something happens at some stage in my future? Great. If not? Then I'll deal with it. I'd like to be healthier and fitter and perhaps I'd be out there persuing.

But the single life does become something one eventually gets accustomed to. It's hard to imagine living with someone else in a relationship, when you're not used to it.

How can a group of people that affect legislation contrary to the ethical beliefs of the majority of people not possibly have any influence on anyone?

Why on earth would I desire to participate in behaviors that satisfy a homosexual?



My picture of 'white picket suburbia' is not fantasy, look around... you see it everywhere... albeit all sorts of thing may go on there but they go on behind closed doors. I do not see prostitutes attempting to get an agenda that promotes protitution into the public schools. I do not see drug addicts attempting to get an agenda that promotes heroin use into the public schools. I do not see pedophiles attempting to get an agenda that promotes pedophelia into the public schools. etc etc

I hate to say it Linda, but your view of homosexuality is a white picket fence view... anyone who has ever lived in NYC, southern Florida, or San Francisco knows for a fact that you are delusional in this regard. While 'all' gays may not be like 'that' a considerable number are, unfortunately. If it were not so, Key West, Cherry Grove and NYC's West Village would not exist.. there would not be enough people to cater to. And anyway those are just a couple examples... anywhere homosexuals live in large numbers there are men constantly fornicating behind bushes and the average person, such as yours truly, easily stumbles into it strolling along the beach. The beaches of South Florida have a big problem with this. Certain parts of Central Park in NYC are known as 'gay' zones.. places where men meet to have sex, places the average person wants to stay away from... You know... There are nude beaches here and there in the USA.. but people are not fornicating behind bushes at nude beaches, not generally anyway, so that is an interesting comparison between homosexuals and heterosexuals right there.



Your approval of a certain lifestyle does not justify your condemnation of everyone who disagrees with you. You know what, you may find it hard to believe but it's quite natural and normal to have an aversion to homosexual behavior. It's an instinct call self-preservation. California can legislate anti-gay sentiment all it likes but some teenage boys will always want to beat gays with baseball bats... Maybe because they have been abused by one.. maybe simply because they have been approached.. maybe simply because they are utterly disgusted by gays in general and hate being associated with them simply by being male. It's natural instinct for them to feel that way and all the legislation in the world will not make it go away. It's natural instinct for me as a woman to have an aversion to homosexuality and lesbianism. You, Linda, are not normal.

There are numerous NUMEROUS medical studes and statistics which prove without a doubt that gays are the main carriers and spreaders of NUMEROUS sexual and blood/feces borne related illnesses. If heterosexuals were as promiscuous as homosexuals we would see an equivalent number of heterosexuals with many of these same illnesses but we don't. Many homosexuals have sex with over a hundred different partners yearly.

Here's some news for you

Homosexuals Squelch Facts About MRSA Outbreak
http://americansfortruth.com/news/homosexuals-squelch-facts-about-mrsa-outbreak.html

Syphilis Epidemic Getting Much Worse in San Francisco
http://www.thebody.com/content/art27440.html

Sex with numerous multiple partners is what homosexuals do, it's common knowledge outside the white picket fence view of homosexuality. It is sooo common that the internet has become a resource for gays seeking other gays willing to participate. Public sex and promiscuity is a big part of homosexuality.

Submissive & Wet | Men Seeking Couples in Georgia @ ALT
If you are a couple looking for men in Georgia with alternative interests in public sex, visit ALT.com. Free registration.
http://alt.com/search/p72046?min_ag..._site=bdsm&ANON_CONFIRM=TRUE&v=1

An editorial on public sex in Canadian gay communities ... Editorial - Heterosexual Family Pride Day, May 26-June 25, 2001. Editorial - Is Gay Cloning Next? ...
http://digitalqueeries.905host.net/files/edarchive2002_08.htm

Public Obscenity At San Diego Gay Pride
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/16777.html

Media Champions Gay Sex In Public Toilets
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/media-champions-gay-sex-in-public-toilets-in-fl

DIOCESE OF CALIFORNIA COMPLICIT IN PERVERTED "GAY PRIDE PARADE"
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9094

Atlanta police targeting gay public sex spots
http://www.sovo.com/2007/4-6/news/localnews/6753.cfm

Gay website owner defends public sex
http://www.floridablade.com/2007/9-6/news/localnews/4003.cfm

had enough? what about this...

FISTGATE SPECIAL REPORT
Students Given Graphic Instruction In Homosexual Sex
http://www.massnews.com/maygsa.htm

"Fisting [forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina] often gets a bad rap....[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode."

The above quotation comes from Massachusetts Department of Education employees describing the pleasures of homosexual sex to a group of high school students at a state-sponsored workshop on March 25, 2000.

On March 25, a statewide conference, called "Teach-Out," was sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

Among the goals were to build more Gay/Straight Alliances in Massachusetts and expand homosexual teaching into the lower grades. Scores of gay-friendly teachers and administrators attended. They received state "professional development credits."

Teenagers and children as young as 12 were encouraged to come from around the state, and many were bussed in from their home districts. Homosexual activists from across the country were also there.

-cont.-



...an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode....

amazing... and they say homosexuality is not violent either.

Linda, stick your fist up your behind. please. or stick your fist down your throat. If it's good for homosexual 12 year olds then you should approve as an adult. Just consider it a form of loving yourself. and if you offer to fist a 12 year old girl or boy and end up with a baseball bat in your forehead instead wonder not.