| Author | Message | ||
     david_munson Junior Member Username: david_munson Post Number: 31 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 63.22.234.219 |
If you vote then read this. Christians in bull's-eye in new 'hate crimes' plan - WND A fast-tracked congressional plan to add special protections for homosexuals to federal law would turn "thoughts, feelings, and beliefs" into criminal offenses and put Christians in the bull's-eye, according to opponents http://www.worthynews.com/news/worldnetdaily-com-news-article-asp-ARTICLE_ID-55392/ Contact your rep. and scream that this will not be tolerated. } | ||
| bonniescott New member Username: bonniescott Post Number: 1 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 69.60.183.196 |
"Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution," the bill says. | ||
| david_munson Junior Member Username: david_munson Post Number: 48 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 63.22.161.134 |
Sure but will that fool you into thinking they are not after our free speech rights? Because if you think that is not the agenda ,you are mistaken. They want to shut the mouths of Christians and give one group "special" rights above others. These protections they seek are already in our Constitution and bill of rights so ask yourself why they need to have "special" rights? What are they really after? Surely not equity. They want to be acknowledged as specially privileged people who do not have to put up with contrary beliefs feelings or thoughts of disagreement with their lifestyles. They want to squelch free speech. Except their own of course. No one has the right to abuse any one else regardless of what they believe. Assault and battery is illegal already so what are they after? That's the clincher. --- Excuse my rudeness Bonnie, I should have greated you first. It's good to see you post and I pray you are being blessed. Dave } | ||
| dancer2 New member Username: dancer2 Post Number: 4 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 62.248.153.165 |
I have not figured out how to vote US without being a citizen of any of my previous states of residence, but if I were to vote I'd side with Bonnie on this one: Those who use their pulpits to spread rabid homophobia are a greater threat to American freedoms than the liberals who wish to limit their excessive hate-mongering. Of course there are those who think expressing hatred towards the "less Godly" is the whole point of their faith... and they'd probably be the group in this world that I would be most prone to say "Anathema!" to. But you're not one of them, are you Dave? | ||
| isabella New member Username: isabella Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 24.128.143.230 |
David, Assault and battery is illegal but making fun of others for pure sport is not. Like the old inner circle of TBS when they made fun of the mentally ill. (Better they tie a stone around their neck and jump in a lake".) Think about it. David, don't swallow the poison. May I suggest you read the April 1st issue of the Washington Spectator. It speaks about the hidden agenda behind this 'junk-news'. Thanks, Isabella ARMY OF GOD http://www.washingtonspectator.com/ (Message edited by Isabella on May 05, 2007) | ||
| david_munson Member Username: david_munson Post Number: 51 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 63.22.187.70 |
Isabella, is it wrong to call sin sin? I'm not talking about making fun of anyone. That would be wrong too but I will not compromise God's Word where it says that something is sin just because it offends someone who chooses to live that way. I will also not shove it down their throats either.(could have worded that better) So, on the flip side ,I don't want their extra rights shoved at me. No matter who "they" are. All people have the right not to be assaulted and they can have the assailent arrested for the crime.The law exsists already. I have no desire to be politically correct because you have to loose your thought capacity to do that and you become a drone. Apathy is what has brought us to this point in America and it is not going to improve either. Don't mistake what I have said as "homophobia" because I am definately not homophobic. I just don't think that any one group has or should have rights above another which is what they are asking for if you follow through with their political agenda. We as American Christains have sat idle while the minority has passed legislation that carries with it the intent to abolish our nations Constitution so that we can be a hedonistic society.Which we pretty much are at this point. I know how offensive some believers can be and how some can go over the line with their actions. I also know that stating something is wrong (sin) is not politically correct but it is correct by the standards of God's Word. (that is not to say that we should abuse anyone for their sin) Why should I have to stay silent when I see something I disagree with or think is wrong? Go ahead, let everyone "except believers" have their say.I am sure it will make our society much better,right? Following that reasoning let's just let GGWO have a free ride and say nothing because it's offensive to some and we don't want to offend anyone by telling the truth now do we? Truth always offends someone. } | ||
| david_munson Member Username: david_munson Post Number: 52 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 63.22.190.80 |
TROUBLESPEAK 'Gay' activist says 'We will BURY you' Threats made against Christian workers opposing homosexual agenda. Posted: May 5, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com A board member for Equality California has come out swinging at the Bible-based Capitol Resource Institute, which works on behalf of family and biblical values in California, especially among its lawmakers. "If you continue your efforts, we will BURY you," said an e-mail from Ben Patrick Johnson, to his "colleagues" at the CRI, according to a statement from the Christian organization. "For a group that purports to expand tolerance and civil rights, Equality California is not practicing what it preaches," CRI said. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55558 } | ||
| david_munson Member Username: david_munson Post Number: 53 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 63.22.190.80 |
There are more fronts than just the one above. BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS 'Christianity is not a disease' Lawsuit seeks restoration of traditional American slogans in classroom Posted: May 5, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com A lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a veteran California teacher whose school officials ordered him to remove several banners carrying slogans from American history, such as "In God We Trust." "Unfortunately, it seems like religion is now treated as a disease or pathogen that has to be removed or eradicated from the public at all costs," said Robert Muise, of the Thomas More Law Center, which is bringing the action against Poway Unified School District. The superintendent, Donald Phillips, justified the sudden removal of banners that had been used for 25 years by Westview High math teacher Brad Johnson. (full article at URL below. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55549 } | ||
| whatsup New member Username: whatsup Post Number: 1 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 24.61.30.105 |
Dave Munson, You are right, and you have character to speak out for truth on this Religious Rainbow Coalition called Factnet. If you dare to say that homosexuality is wrong, you are called homophobic and politically incorrect. God is not politically correct at all. Imagine if Jesus were walking around now saying the things he did. He would be accused of being the most intolerant and unloving person by all the liberals, Christian and secular. I have a homosexual nephew who is the nicest guy you could know, and I love him, but I would never condone the lifestyle or say it is OK. That is not homophobic, that is just biblical. Good for you, Dave. The real problem is too many Christians are "bible-phobic"....they are so afraid to speak up for truth for fear of being seen as fanatical or intolerant. God forbid we should offend someone. You are not doing them any favors by pretending it is OK..you are just contributing to their deception. Anyway it is not surprising to read the things you write about that are going on in schools and other places...if you think about who the god of this world is, of course the only thing that would not be tolerated is Christianity. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 2 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
What can we learn from Finland? It is a wonderful place to live! To be gay in modern Finland, in a streamline culture of efficiency and dignity, is to be privileged with access to prosperity, personal freedom and positive political attitudes toward homosexuality. In Finland and only a handful of other countries (mostly northern Europe) is sexual orientation a protected condition along with other natural human attributes such as age, gender and ethnicity. The consequence of such affirmation is confidence, trust, security and a willingness to contribute back to the society that acknowledges the inherent dignity for all. And so today throughout Helsinki and other urban centers gays and lesbians gather casually and freely in cafes, clubs, discos or at the university to plan their days and their lives without a shadow of apprehension. Crime in Finland is among the lowest is Europe and, expectedly, so is homophobia. Finland is a freaking paradise! Finns have one of the world's most generous systems of state-funded educational, medical and welfare services, from pregnancy to the end of life. They pay nothing for education at any level, including medical school or law school. Their medical care, which contributes to an infant mortality rate that is half of ours and a life expectancy greater than ours, costs relatively little. (Finns devote 7 percent of gross domestic product to health care; we spend 15 percent.) Finnish senior citizens are well cared for. Unemployment benefits are good and last, in one form or another, indefinitely. Things are great in Finland! Everyone is equal! They care about the environment and live in smaller homes than we do. They treat their animals better than we do. But for such a Utopia, they have one of the lowest fertility rates in the West and the ninth [by some accounts the third] highest suicide rate in the world. A nation should have the right to protect its collective future. The future of a nation is in the continued protection of its families. However 'tolerant' we want to be towards 'alternative sexual orientation' we need to consider the consequences. (Message edited by cordell on May 06, 2007) | ||
| dancer2 New member Username: dancer2 Post Number: 5 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 62.248.153.165 |
Yes, many times I have thought, if I could only teach these heathen Finns to hate and fear each other like good Americans, all seasonally affected disorders and depression problems here could be eliminated in a heartbeat! I think I've made it clear that I'm neither gay nor homophobic. Nor for that matter are my teenage sons. I know, however, that I have not come anywhere close to living up to the divine ideal for monogamous permanently committed hetero expression of human sexuality, so I've decided not to throw any stones in that area. God bless all of you who've maintained that right! I heard a guy named Brownback (?) (Rep. from Kansas)on BBC yesterday, trying to jump-start his campaign for the GOP nomination. He was definitely anti-gay, but he focused more on being a "bleeding heart conservative" focusing less on who to hate (and repenting for his failures in that area) than who could be helped by demonstrating Christian moral responsibility in the developing world in particular. I'd love to see him get that message across to all the freaking Falwellites there. Meanwhile... enjoy speculating about morality outside the Alamo, but do get yourself a better microphone! | ||
| isabella New member Username: isabella Post Number: 3 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 24.128.143.230 |
O.K., you win.... Just one question: Did you read the article referred to at http://www.washingtonspectator.com/? | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 3 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
you really can't comprehend what you read can you, dancer? how do you equate hatred of people with protecting a nation from decline? | ||
| dancer2 New member Username: dancer2 Post Number: 6 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 62.248.153.165 |
?!?!? Where did you get the idea that I (or Neil) consider hate crimes to be a legitimate means of "protecting a nation from decline"? On the contrary, it is the absurdity of this position that I hope people see. | ||
| johncollins New member Username: johncollins Post Number: 2 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 69.143.75.131 |
Attempting to pass legislation which criminalizes a person's thoughts (or motivations) is a scary proposition. A Pandora's box best left closed. That said, the "news" article referenced in the opening post on this thread is equally scary. More than a dozen "experts" are quoted and allowed to weigh in with their opinions on the proposed legislation. But in all the vitriol spewed, I didn't see a single direct reference from the bill itself. Lots of creative interpretations, yet no actual quotes from the bill they decry. Why is that? You can visit the Library of Congress' website and read H.R.1592 for yourself. A bill which "Authorizes the Attorney General to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that: (1) constitutes a crime of violence under federal law or a felony under state, local, or Indian tribal law; and (2) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim or is a violation of the state, local, or tribal hate crime laws. Directs the Attorney General to give priority for assistance to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one state and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary investigation or prosecution expenses." Yes, the bill would extend the laws' beneficiaries to include those alleged to have been attacked on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. But the exact same legislation, in the exact same sentence, extends the same benefits to those singled out "based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, or disability of the victim" as well. Here's a couple honest questions: how much of a negative impact have homosexuals had on your life? How much of a negative impact have crooked politicians, corrupt business leaders, and Elmer Gantry style religious leaders had on your life? Who is the greater threat to the stability of the nation, the economy, or our position in the world? | ||
| orangetwopay New member Username: orangetwopay Post Number: 1 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 71.155.242.89 |
important liquidwaves post. please read. http://liquidwaves.blogspot.com/2007/05/george-takai-as-in-gay.html | ||
| orangetwopay New member Username: orangetwopay Post Number: 2 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 71.155.242.89 |
important lewis black stand up routine about queers. please listen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK5gGATcF_4 | ||
| whatsup New member Username: whatsup Post Number: 2 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 56.0.143.24 |
John Collins, It is not just about the impact on an individual's life but about God's judgment on a nation. He makes the rules, not us. Sodom and Gomorrah was not destroyed because of religious leaders or politicians. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 4 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
Point is, the LGBT "community" is NOT a legitimate 'minority' and even if they were--they don't need special legislation to protect them. All crimes against persons are hate crimes regardless of the 'orientation' of the victim. They shouldn't be given any more 'rights' than the rest of us. And we need to be very careful not to impede free speech in this country any more than restricting someone from shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The perpetrators who dragged James Bird to death down here got the death penalty, which is precisely what they deserved--and they won't get a reprieve from the governor down here at the last minute either. Making his murder a 'hate crime' because of Bird's race would not have made the punishment one iota more severe. | ||
| bonniescott New member Username: bonniescott Post Number: 2 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 69.60.183.196 |
I always find it ironic when this debate gets framed in terms of tolerance vs intolerance. I generally decide what I will tolerate in my life based on harm. Harm to myself, my family and friends, and harm to my community at large. Yet while raging about tolerance of homosexuality takes up a great deal of energy for the conservative Christian right (witness the reawakening of factnet) it is what they choose to tolerate that I find ironic – unbridled greed while children go to bed hungry, environmental destruction, unjust wars in which the highest rates of casualties are innocent civilians mostly women and children, the subjugation of women often leading to abuse not only of those women but their children as well (personal experience here folks), bigotry, arms proliferation, assault weapons, hate speech and fear mongering . . . shall I go on? I realize I’m generalizing here of course, but I’m looking at the majority of political positions staked out by the conservative right over the course of my lifetime and it makes me shutter. Harm? I don’t think the Christian church has the moral high ground here. Tolerate whatever you want to in your own personal life. I don’t think many gay people will be beating down the doors to get into your churches or become your bestest buddies. I doubt very much that any of them have ever done any one of you any personal harm. Tolerate what you choose, but don’t forget to ask yourself why. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 5 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
Here's a couple honest questions: how much of a negative impact have homosexuals had on your life? How much of a negative impact have crooked politicians, corrupt business leaders, and Elmer Gantry style religious leaders had on your life? Who is the greater threat to the stability of the nation, the economy, or our position in the world? This is comparing apples and oranges. Elmer Gantry-like preachers may abound, but this is America--where we can invent our own religions (JWs, Mormons) if we want to be entrepreneurial AND like them or not, as long as they have freedom of speech--so do we to be their detractors here on FN. Homosexuals may have freedom of speech as well, but what they deserve is EQUAL protection under the laws of the land, not SPECIAL protection under the laws. I am getting mighty sick and tired of having their friggin' agenda shoved down my throat. The left, like Lewis Black in the video, always want to put the 'gay marriage' thing as an opportunistic thing that Bush did to sweeten his base. "With Iraq going on and Al-Qaeda attacking us we're worried about queers?"--is the way they like to contextualize it. What about this "With Iraq going on and Al-Qaeda attacking us, now Queers are being pushy and want us to change the meaning of marriage?" Why isn't it ever put that way? They are the ones with the militant agenda, they are not just standing around attending parties with matching swatches while listening to frickin' Barbra Streisand. They were the ones making headlines marching down the aisles together pretending to get 'married'. If gay marriage ever does pass, I'm going back to law school to become a divorce attorney. Lord knows, with the customary promiscuity in the so-called 'gay community' there'll be plenty of money to be made then. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 6 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
Tolerate whatever you want to in your own personal life. I don’t think many gay people will be beating down the doors to get into your churches or become your bestest buddies. Really, bonniescott, really? Perhaps you haven't heard about the current predicament of the Episcopal Church in this country. Perhaps you haven't heard how WHOLE CONGREGATIONS are losing their church buildings and property because they refuse to toe the line of those in leadership promoting gay clergy. Perhaps you haven't heard of all the lawsuits going on at present keeping evangelical bishops from taking office after they've been legitimately elected because the leadership promoting gay clergy wants to keep them at bay. Perhaps you haven't heard that the gay promoting clergy is keeping evangelical Episcopalians from finding alternative episcopal oversight by refusing to allow bishops from AFRICA to oversee willing US congregations? You think the gays don't want to take over our churches? Ask the few evangelicals left in the PCUSA and the United Methodist Church about how the gay agenda has affected them. The problem with your assessment of 'harm' is that it is individualistic. "If it doesn't harm me personally and those immediately around me IN MY LIFE RIGHT NOW, I can tolerate it." It is a falsely proposed argument to say that we can't focus on attacks from without AND from within simultaneously. If we foil the terrorists and are undone by those desiring to unravel the fabric of who we are as a nation from within--we are still just as defeated. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 8 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
So what's the real trouble with H.R. 1592? We don't fekkin' need it. It's superflous. It is redundant. It is the left pandering to their base. We have enough law on the books that accomplishes the same outcome. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 9 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
unjust wars in which the highest rates of casualties are innocent civilians mostly women and children It is of course, more 'just' to leave these folks to be slaughtered in much greater numbers by their own bloodthirsty dictators. Would that we had the same resolve to take out the leadership of the Sudan or North Korea right now as we did in taking out Saddam. To some of you, no war is just, even if it means you are eventually personally destroyed. The same voices prating now are those who screeched against VietNam. I wonder if you asked the lady down at your nail salon who may have come from VietNam, Cambodia or Laos if they wished we hadn't 'lost' that war what they would say? | ||
| bonniescott New member Username: bonniescott Post Number: 3 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 69.60.183.196 |
Cordell, God love ya! I always know I've made a good point when I trip your trigger and you come in guns ablazin. Riddle me this- If you divide up the country, red states and blue, which part of the country has the highest rate of depression, suicide, high school drop outs, teen pregnancies, infant mortality, poverty, violence, obesity and overall poor health, alcoholism? Huh. Harm is harm. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 10 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
infant mortality? Huh? Cities, in red or blue states. Alcoholism? Cities, in red or blue states. Teen pregnancies, depression, suicide, poverty etc, etc? Cities. Red or blue. You're not going to win on that generalization. Where there are greater populations there are greater problems. Go back to 1996 and see which states were red or blue then. Then make your silly-arse overly simplistic argument. Urban areas in the red states tend to be blue areas, so what's that say about your precious libs then? THIS is what the country really looks like now when it comes to red and blue and population centers. So now do prate on, please! Huh? Bless your little heart. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 11 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
when are we gonna call the so-called "war on poverty" (waged since friggin' Lyndon Johnson's presidency) a 'quagmire' that we don't need to throw any more money at? | ||
| gone_to_pa New member Username: gone_to_pa Post Number: 6 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 71.207.64.124 |
OK, Homosexuals may have freedom of speech as well, but what they deserve is EQUAL protection under the laws of the land, not SPECIAL protection under the laws. I am getting mighty sick and tired of having their friggin' agenda shoved down my throat. Cordell, I not only agree with you on this, but I must say that I have worked around and been around the gay community for much of my life. In saying this I find that on both sides of the coin, the men/women--gay,or queers as you put it and the bull-dikes as some are and the fems have always liked a pile of drama surrounding their lives. Gays on both sides are very dramatic and animated. They love the attention, no matter which way it goes. My biggest problem is their timing. We are at WAR. Whether you see it as necessary or are against the WAR, it doesn't take away the fact that OUR men are dying on a daily basis in a far away land. Now, what do you do if you see our government all tied up in this war, between budgeting, who goes, who stays, which group will have to do a fourth tour, it makes no differwence that our men are dying. So, if your our enemy, then what do you do to make a point or try and accomplish a goal that might not otherwise be accomplished? Well, you start by making waves, then see who or what sticks their heads up. Take Korea for instance. All of a sudden they have a goat sack, then who jumps on the same bandwagon?? Iran, who today is sending weapons into Iraq to kill Americans. Yes, Iran is sending in I.E.D's by the hundreds to kill us. Now Congress is trying to get some money so that our boys can have some vehicles that are not affected the way they are now by these bombs. With all this is plenty more that I didn't mention such as China shooting down satellites, and could possibly shut down all our GPS systems for the military. I'll stop now, but now who rears their UGLY little warped minds and heads? The GLF ( Gay Liberation Front) and it's time to raise a stink about special rights. Bull, put that stupid crap on hold until we get our heads in the right place, then we will discuss this, but don't do like our enemies do and try to make headway while we are busy doing a hundred other things. Thats all. Thanks Cordell, and John thank you for telling me where to find this bill. GTP | ||
| johncollins New member Username: johncollins Post Number: 3 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 69.143.75.131 |
As GTP just said, and as my reading of the proposed bill leads me to believe, this is about equal protection. How do the right wing fundies get from equal to special? This thread began, Christians in bull's-eye in new 'hate crimes' plan - WND I read the entire WND article. While it quotes plenty of people expressing similar points of view, not a single one of them quoted any portion of the bill itself and then showed us how the bill's language targets Christians. Are we supposed to believe it with no facts, simply because a preacher said so? Haven't we all been down that path of letting others think for us, submitting to their version of truth just because they said we should? Aren't we here now in part because just like Quick Draw McGraw, we said, "Now hoooooold on thar, Baba Looey! I'll do the "thinnin'" around here..."? A fast-tracked congressional plan to add special protections for homosexuals to federal law Once again -- which words in that bill are the ones adding special protections for homosexuals? The summary of the bill available on the Library of Congress website lists a number of groups offered protection by this sort of legislation. It states this is a bill which "Authorizes the Attorney General to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that... is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim... Is the mere inclusion of "sexual orientation, gender identity" what's getting everyone so agitated? If so, why can't they honestly state that, instead of the straw man argument that this represents special protection. Or else, accept that if you are a crime victim because of your religion, you too are getting special protection. would turn "thoughts, feelings, and beliefs" into criminal offenses and put Christians in the bull's-eye, according to opponents So apparently, if those opponents say it often enough and loudly enough that makes it true, whether there's any facts to support the claim? I agree that it seems this law is trying to criminalize motivation, which smacks of 1984 and thought police. My questions all go to the allegations that this law is somehow anti-Christian and grants more 'rights' to gays than the rest of us. How? Contact your rep. and scream that this will not be tolerated. When you contact your rep, are you going to tell them the entire list of protected groups should not be protected and that the entire idea of thought crimes is anathema? Or only if it extends to protecting gays, while you will accept its protection for you if you're a victim of a crime that is motivated by prejudice based on your actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, or disability? | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 15 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
john, the bill is redundant. they already have EQUAL protection as citizens. naming them in the bill gives them special protection by singling them out as a group. we don't need another friggin' law for these people. | ||
| johncollins New member Username: johncollins Post Number: 4 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 69.143.75.131 |
Jim, I understand what you just wrote. You also wrote above "We have enough law on the books that accomplishes the same outcome." i.e.: A law against murder or arson or assault already outlaws those things, regardless of WHY someone commits such a crime, right? You appear to be against this law for any and all benefactors, not just homosexuals, right? My questions have all gone to the fact that every person quoted in the WN article, and several posting here, seem to have made this a gay issue, decrying "special protection" and what they perceive as having someone's agenda shoved down their throat. All the groups named in the bill have the same protection under the law. Gays aren't singled out for "special" or "extra" protection being denied others. Along with some posting here, none of those quoted in the article seem to be against the law itself -- just against a couple of the groups protected by it. Most of those quoted in the article used this bill as an opportunity to reveal hatred towards gays. Seems like more business as usual for those who "love unconditionally" -- until your conditions are no longer "worthy" of receiving their love, at which point you become fair game for their attacks. I saw similar behavior numerous times in bs/gg. I'm beginning to wonder how much of that type of attitude was unique to gg, and how much of it was simply symptomatic of fundamentalism in general. Maybe my problem in understanding that article is that I'm paying too much attention to the facts of the words of the bill itself, and not it's alleged interpretation by the bishops, reverends and other commentators quoted therein.... John | ||
| rocketman New member Username: rocketman Post Number: 1 Registered: 6-2006 Posted From: 72.230.21.182 |
uh... Cordell... does naming the handicaped in the bill single them out.. or religious people.. are we singling Them out because they are named in the bill... (Them... right). I don't see where naming "sexual orientation" and all that makes them Any more important than Religion. And let's just say, for instance that religion has At Least as much hate spewed against it as homosexuality et al. How many times have people waged wars for religious reasons? How many times have they waged war for sexual orientation reasons? Not many. All this bill does is include the lesbian/gay people in a law, specifically, that already keeps people from beating the crap out of anyone who posts here for their views or ... ahem... lifestyle choices. The fact seems to be that this thread (and the new 'threat to Christianity') is based on the rant of the protectionist Christian media. Personally, I think Christians trying to keep our nation a beacon of "Christian purity", or whatever you want to call it, is a battle long lost. Spend more time helping people, not wailing against the powers that be. Changes to peoples lives come face to face, not because of the wording of a law. You want to stop abortion? Help a single mother. You want to stop homelessness? Help in a soup kitchen. You want to stop homosexuality? Work with a homosexual, talk to him about Jesus if you like. Most Christians just want to stand up in the pulpit and say, "Those people out there are Bad!" and leave it at that. Sin is sin, if you're naming it, name all of it sin. Ours, theirs, count it all if you like. Just don't count it on one side and say that's sin, but mine isn't. That's if it's about Sin. If it's about US and THEM then you have it all wrong. Jesus is the only one who is Different. The rest of us are all 'Them'. That's my part. J | ||
| bonniescott New member Username: bonniescott Post Number: 4 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 69.60.183.196 |
Cordell, For someone who harps so much about reading comprehension, you did a pretty poor job with my post. Let me reiterate: “If you divide up the country, red states and blue, which part of the country has the highest rate of depression, suicide, high school drop outs, teen pregnancies, infant mortality, poverty, violence, obesity and overall poor health, alcoholism?” My assertion here is based on statewide government statistics per capita. Population centers have nothing to do with the outcome. The designation of red/blue states refers to how the majority of the voters in that state have voted over time, not how individual cities and towns tend to vote (your map). Thus reflecting who has wielded political power in that state over the last 2 decades. In plain English – which political party has had the greatest ability to legislatively affect the social welfare of the citizenry. By the way, you can add to the above list higher rates of child abuse, incarceration, and juvenile detention. Don’t take my word for it though. Do your own research. You can start here: http://www.everychildmatters.org/homelandinsecurity/table-01.html And just for the record, I don’t necessarily thinks the Democrats have done a great job dealing with these issues either, but at least they acknowledge they exist and attempt to address them, that’s something. MY point: The Christian right could earn a lot more credibility if they stopped beating the drum over gays and lesbians and started focusing on some of the issues effecting the lives of people in their own backyards. | ||
| arguendo New member Username: arguendo Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.143.1.194 |
First, hate crime legislation is essentially anti-terrorism legislation. It's about adding greater penalties for violence against certain groups that have specifically been targeted in the past (Read - legislation that results from good men doing nothing). Here's some very light reading: http://www.answers.com/hate%20crimes Second, I have never liked hate crime legislation because of the first amendment speech implications, BUT the cow has long been out of the barn here. The legislation is at least 20 years old. The reason that "sexual orientation" (and geneder identity is just tacked on as being related)is because of Matt Shepard. http://www.answers.com/topic/matthew-shepard When you are talking about "special rights," you are really talking about this: http://www.answers.com/suspect%20classes What reasonable Christians may be concerned with is the the addition of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to list of groups that have often recieved the benefit of strict or intermediate scrutiny regarding judicial review of laws and policies. They may feel if these terms finds its way into this Federal legislation, it may find its way into other types of Federal legislation-- legislation that they fear may limit their own right to practice their beliefs. While this is not unreasonable, it is based on fear and the hope that things will not change. The law is dynamic and changes all the time. Now, as for this amendment, I have no compassion for Christians. Christian have been hate mongers and bigots and find themselves in this position because they have done nothing at the very least, and have done or inspired violence against gays at the very most. Christian have handled things badly in this country regarding sexual origentation and they deserve to find their rights in question. I feel a great deal of compassion for people who have been historically targeted with violence. And homosexuals have been historically been targeted. That's why they are included in this legislation. The real problem isn't that gays might have "special rights," the problem is that Christians believe in "special sin." They believe that there is sin so very different from their own sin that makes them totally unaccountable for their own behavior. JF,I think you could have made a pretty good living in GG as a divorce lawyer. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 16 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
The law as now passed by the house of reps is a play by the dems TO THEIR BASE, just as the republicans in the past have played to their base. Later, the dems want to say, LOOK! we stood up for you, vote for us! Anyone who believes that this law is simply being done to protect anyone is a fool. It is, as Arguendo begrudgingly points out, a wedge giving the 'LGBT' equal status with racial minorities and the handicapped. This is a status which their agenda has been attempting to accomplish for years. This law gives them that. They neither need nor deserve it any more than heterosexuals deserve special status. It gives them instant victimhood. I would venture to say that because of the numbers, heterosexuals are greater in number as far as being crime victims though not necessarily because they are straight. There is not a single thing in that law that adds any more protection from terrorism or from 'hate' that other laws do not accomplish. We don't need this law. Homosexuals are not, however much they wish to persuade us, a legitimate 'minority' group to be equated with racial minorities, religious minorities, the handicapped, et al. Being queer is not like being Jewish or Black or one-legged, no matter how much they wish to persuade that it is. Some of you have already taken the bait. Let's distinguish a little here. I am sure there are many here who will not be able to accomplish that distinction, but homosexuality differs from the others. Do we want to say that heterosexuals are included in the legislation? If not, why not? If they're not included, then the protection is not EQUAL but rather it is SPECIAL. 'Sexual Orientation' is a loaded term meaning 'other than heterosexual'. What if you are a necrophile, pedophile or bestialist in your 'sexual orientation'? Are you protected especially as well? IF NOT WHY NOT? As for your sympathies,Arguendo, for those you think have misbehaved en masse, that is neither here nor there in this issue. It only shows that you are prone to judge entire groups by the behavior of some. What if we were to judge the entire black race by the behavior of Fitty Cent and Al Sharpton? Bonniescott, my point is that 'red and blue states' are so designated by the Presidential election, not by the local and state governments which are sometimes, even oftentimes different. And my point is that CITY GOVERNMENTS are often the most responsible when it comes to social issues--so I don't think YOU understood the point. Red states and blue states change colors, my dear, according to the election of the President every four years. Also, a state that went red in the Presidential election may not necessarily have a Republican majority in their statehouse. What YOU are trying to say, and what I don't accept is that all those problems are greater in 'red states' simply because they are 'red states'. That point is nonsensical, because of the very reason I pointed out to you. Did those problems exist in those states in 1996 when many of those states were blue? Do you include Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000 as red states? Look at the breakdown of the parties in the statehouses of those two very populous states. So does your argumnent still stand? It may do, but not because the state voted for Bush in either election but because of the Democratic majority in the respective statehouses. SO your point is NONSENSE in more ways than one. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 17 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
just an addendum, while I do believe that some sins are more 'special' than others and I believe that the Scriptures and even the words of Christ bear this out--the law of the land and the Scriptures do not bear out the same punishment for 'sin'. Lying is not always illegal, it is in most cases sinful. Adultery is not illegal, it is always sinful. Covetousness is sinful, not illegal--in fact in America it is encouraged. The law by the way, distinguishes in degrees of crime, as you know Arguendo, else all crime would warrant equal punishment. (Message edited by cordell on May 08, 2007) | ||
| bonniescott New member Username: bonniescott Post Number: 5 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 69.60.183.196 |
Cordell, While I'll give you that I haven't established a direct cause and effect relationship, the results of the study should give any one pause. Did you follow my link? In any case, my main point stands: "The Christian right could earn a lot more credibility if they stopped beating the drum over gays and lesbians and started focusing on some of the issues effecting the lives of people in their own backyards." | ||
| david_munson Member Username: david_munson Post Number: 57 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 63.22.244.250 |
Nibbled to death by ducks. Doesn't any one know what took place in Canada just recently? It didn't happen overnight. Little by little it was inserted into Canada's constitution and now if you say that homosexuality is against the laws of God you get free meals and board.(jail time) Apathy does nothing to promote equity in the populace. The laws protect against hate crimes.It's already on the books. All crimes against others are hate crimes. Thinking that they are just seeking a level playing field is deluded. This is not just about those with alternate lifestyles. It is about Constitutional integrity and the constant attack on it by the liberal agenda which seeks to abolish it. The law is blind. If you commit a crime against another the law takes no account of race ,sexual orientation or any other type thing like that. It takes into account what the crime was and whether or not you are innocent. So, by what reasoning does it make sense to add duplication to a law that already exsists? Unless it's one more step in a planned agenda? It's all just dialectics like the Russians used. Two steps forward one step back over and over until the desired results are accomplished. Refuse to see it but remember that there is one called "the god of this world". 2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. If we stand for nothing we fall for everything. } | ||
| sister_mary New member Username: sister_mary Post Number: 7 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 87.94.48.39 |
Do you mean that we should stand behind the dooming views of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church ? Well they think God hates ••••, but evidently even •••• are created and sometimes accepted by God: Josh 6: 17: The city shall be devoted, even it and all that is therein, to Yahweh: only Rahab the prostitute shall live, she and all who are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent." And Judge 11: 1: "Now Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty man of valor, and he was the son of a prostitute: and Gilead became the father of Jephthah." What did Jesus say? Matt. 21: 31: "Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said to him, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly I tell you that the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering into the Kingdom of God before you." GOD HATES CONDEMNORS AND CONDEMS THEM TO ETERNAL CONDEMNATION WHEN THE DEVIL CONDEMNS THEM TO CONDEMN THE WHOLE CONDEMNED ETERNITY!  | ||
| johncollins New member Username: johncollins Post Number: 5 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 63.160.106.254 |
Arguendo, Thanks for your comments and the links. In the first page you linked to, I found an interesting quote, explaining why such legislation may be counter productive. Based on the reactions to this bill I've read since David started this thread, it seems prescient: "A further argument is that, from a utilitarian perspective, individual deterrence is unlikely to be achieved over an entrenched social conscience. Rather than deterring crime, the concept of hate crime may have the opposite effect of enraging individuals psychologically susceptible to developing anger and hatred to others amidst a domination complex." | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 19 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
sister mary, bless your little heart, there is a difference between prostitutes and homosexuals--and since you are referring to Rahab, note that after being spared she doesn't continue in her 'trade' but repents, hence Hebrews 11:31 and Matt. 1:5--a testimony of the grace of God and his forgiveness--she ends up in the genealogy of the Lord Jesus. Unlike the Phelps folks, the Bible, while not condoning the sin, calls the sinner to repentance and forgiveness, grace and fellowship in the beloved. As far as the law of the land goes, choice of 'sin' does not a 'minority' make. One might as easily create an afflicted minority of plagiarists or kleptomaniacs. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 20 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
In any case, my main point stands: "The Christian right could earn a lot more credibility if they stopped beating the drum over gays and lesbians and started focusing on some of the issues effecting the lives of people in their own backyards." Your point does not 'stand'. Homosexuality IS one of the many issues affecting the lives of people in MY backyard, with regard to my friends in the local Episcopal churches, a comment you chose to ignore. My friends are losing their church to the militant gay agenda without being given so much as an opportunity to choose a viable alternative within the Anglican community. It is a severe injustice being done in the name of 'tolerance'. Their tithes and offerings have paid for the installation of a gay bishop in New Hampshire who destroyed his family and then after becoming bishop had to go into rehab for alcoholism--which I assume is paid for by the insurance paid by tithes and offerings. It is as bad as CHS or worse. | ||
| arguendo New member Username: arguendo Post Number: 2 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 151.207.240.4 |
"It only shows that you are prone to judge entire groups by the behavior of some." I am prone for every group to own their crap, actually, and that includes expecting them to condemn behavior that is not representational of their beliefs. "What if we were to judge the entire black race by the behavior of Fitty Cent and Al Sharpton?" I think people do. And it is incumbant upon the black community to condemn behavior that is not representational of the community. And just because I think someone's house is dirty doesn't mean I think everyone else's house is clean, including my own. But I feel really comfortable telling Christians en masse that they need to clean their house on this one, because it's my house too. | ||
| bonniescott New member Username: bonniescott Post Number: 6 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 69.60.183.196 |
Cordell, I think the very fact that you consider this a more important issue than the ones I've listed makes my point. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 21 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
You know Arguendo, as much as it pains me, I really agree with you on the clean house issue. But I really resent being 'represented' by the likes of Falwell, Robertson and sometimes even Dobson et al. Case in point--Haggard. I don't see the evangelical 'community' as homogeneous as the media wants to paint it out to be. Falwell has recently anathematized my whole branch of evangelicalism. As far as I'm concerned the man and the leaders of his institution are buffoons and are as bad as Sharpton and Fitty. But their crap is not my crap. Nor is Shirley and Fred Phelps's crap my crap. That is not to say that my particular chunk of evangelicalism doesn't have its crap, it does. But gay bashing is not our crap either. No evangelical should endorse violence or hatred toward any sinner. But we should never be lead gently through multiple contortions to the guillotine for condemning ANY sin as sin. So I'm inclined to tell the queer lobby to take a hike when they want to be the new 'n' word. bonniescott, I didn't prioritize my issues. you just ignored the ones I mentioned which is your prerogative, lib that you are, you have your agenda as is obvious by the link you put up. What you were trying to prove, and did not--was that red states don't care about their kids the way blue states do. That is a crap argument for the reasons I gave. You have yet to prove that I don't care about kids or that evangelicals don't care about kids. Other than putting up the preposterous red state/blue state divide created by the designers of that site to show that Southerners are not as good as y'all are--you've proved nothing at all--except that we have different priorities. I'll live with that. would that fekkin' massatoosus was on the southern border with an official population rivaling that of Australia, I'd love to see you libs cope with this crap. try that then you can pontificate. | ||
| johncollins New member Username: johncollins Post Number: 6 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 69.143.75.131 |
You know Jim, as much as it pains me, you almost had me with the first paragraph. I liked a lot of what you were saying, refusing to walk in lock step with some of the big "names" in fundamentalist circles. But then Bonnie becomes a liberal because she linked to some stats from the Every Child Matters website?! Their homepage says "Every Child Matters Education Fund [is] a national nonprofit organization devoted to improving the lives of children and families by advocating for better public policy during federal and state campaigns." That's a bad thing? That's a liberal issue? That's not one of those things Jesus would do? (All rhetorical questions. No response necessary...) | ||
| whatsup New member Username: whatsup Post Number: 3 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 24.61.30.105 |
Not everyone in Massachusetts is a liberal, and not everyone supports "gay rights" and gays marrying and adopting children. I for one am quite ashamed of my state for legalizing gay marriage, and I think a child can really be messed up by being raised in a gay household. I don't care if that is politically correct or not, that is my opinion. I also don't believe in the red/blue state thing...that is way too simplistic. There are liberals in every state and there are biblical Christians in every state. I don't condone violence or hatred toward anyone, including gays...BUT there should be discrimination against them when it comes to marriage and adoption. Because marriage was created by God for a man and a woman, and there is a reason that only heterosexual couples can reproduce. Even if you are not religious, the gay lifestyle is against nature itself and the human race would die out following it. It is a perversion, plain and simple. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 22 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
john, john, john--dat ol' debbil readin' comprehenshun done gotcha again. Read what they want to accomplish. Is it helping children? Really? No. It is influencing elections--to elect democrats. That's why the stats are skewed towards the 'blue' states. Wake the fek up. Ask bonniescott if she doesn't consider herself a liberal or align herself with liberal causes. Of course she does and so do the folks at that website. By the way, I don't vote a straight ticket. There are several republicans down here who I just will not vote for. Not because they don't fly the right flag, but because they just don't have the character. And whatsup, the human race is dying out in those countries where homosexuality is more acceptable--like Finland--where the fertility rate is so low they can't reproduce enough to replace the current population and the suicide rate is through the roof. And those committing suicide in Finland are mainly men... | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 23 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
Good God, you gotta love the liberals. They demean the role of men in the home. They make fathers useless. They make minorities focus on their victimhood and how they're hard done by the crackers. They encourage homosexuality. They encourage heterosexual promiscuity. They encourage single women giving birth to children they can't support. Then they invent programs (and departments to run them that need gazillions to fund) to support all these folks who are now on the governmental tit-for-life so that they'll keep voting the democrats into office. Bloody hell, I wish their mothers had all had the right to choose and had chosen to abort the lot of them. This shite has been going on since JFK's 'New Frontiers' and LBJ's 'Great Society' and we need to get a grip and realize that this (like the moronic 'bilingual education') crap simply does not work. And yeah, I'm friggin tired of pressing 1 for English, if you want to live here, learn the language or get the hell out. Oh, is this hate speech? Well stone me. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 24 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
In order to help those who still can't read gain better understanding, let's study this sentence: "Every Child Matters Education Fund [is] a national nonprofit organization devoted to improving the lives of children and families by advocating for better public policy during federal and state campaigns." Every Child Matters Education Fund [is] a national nonprofit organization What does this mean? It means, "We don't pay taxes, and your donations to us are tax deductible." What else? It is an "education fund". A fund to educate who? Kids? Hell, no. VOTERS! And since they are not a 'candidate' or necesarily aligned with a 'party'--your contributions are not governed by McCain-Feingold! devoted to improving the lives of children and families They're DEVOTED! That's good isn't it? They want to improve the lives of children AND families! That's good isn't it? Isn't this what Jesus wants us to do? Yeah! But HOW do they want to help and improve? by advocating for better public policy during federal and state campaigns Do they want to raise money for poor kids? Do they want to buy them schoolbooks or baby food or get their moms and dads jobs? Do they want to provide better homes? Do they want the churches involved? NO. They 'advocate' for 'better' PUBLIC POLICY. This from the party who needs the word 'is' defined for them. What the hell is 'better' public policy? Who decides what 'better' means exactly? Do we all agree what 'better' means? I am sure that the excrement-for-brains folks at the ACLU think they want things to be 'better', too, by getting all those horrible manger scenes and Ten Commandment monuments off public property and those disgusting crosses off the Los Angeles city seal. And doesn't "Los Angeles" mean "the angels"? It would be 'better' if that were changed. WHEN DO THEY DO THIS 'ADVOCATING'? DURING state and federal campaigns. Election campaigns. They want to get more democrats elected by people who have naturally bleeding hearts. "My GOD, Think of the CHILDREN! THEY'RE OUR FUTURE. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE CHILDREN!" (Children is a convenient term for libs. That's why they want to keep referring to the MEN and WOMEN fighting in Iraq as 'kids' who die. They don't actually help kids themselves, they want the government to be the frickin' nanny because PARENTS are not to be trusted. And a bigger public sector means higher taxes, and higher taxes means more bureaucracy and more bureaucracy means more jobs for the arsewipes at "Every Child Matters". THAT is reading comprehension. | ||
| bonniescott New member Username: bonniescott Post Number: 7 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 69.60.183.196 |
Didn’t like my link, Cordell? I’m not surprised. Try this one: http://www.kidscount.org/sld/ Or this one http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/thechild/index.htm or this one http://www.childwelfare.com/ Red, blue, pink with purple polka dots – paint the states any way you like, throw around whatever labels you like, at the end of the day the facts are still the facts. Don’t prioritize your issues? Maybe its time you started, is all I’m saying. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 25 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
Founded in 1948, the primary mission of the Annie E. Casey Foundation is to foster public policies... FOSTER PUBLIC POLICIE$$$$$! SO... SO WHAT???? I didn't say I don't prioritize my issues, bonniescott, I said I didn't prioritize them in the context of this discussion. Of course the welfare of children is important. Just because there are many issues to address does not mean that we on the conservative side allow ourselves to be gently led to having our mouths duct-taped while we're busy with 'other issues'. That's all I'm saying. You don't care about the advance of the gay agenda and its harmful effects on the CHILDREN. I do. | ||
| johncollins New member Username: johncollins Post Number: 7 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 69.143.75.131 |
From the Mission and History page of the Annie E. Casey foundation's website: The primary mission of the Annie E. Casey Foundation is to foster public policies, (followed by the two other primary missions Jim forgot about) human-service reforms, and community supports that more effectively meet the needs of today’s vulnerable children and families. In pursuit of this goal, the Foundation makes grants that help states, cities, and neighborhoods fashion more innovative, cost-effective responses to these needs. The Annie E. Casey Foundation was established in 1948 by Jim Casey and his siblings George, Harry, and Marguerite. They named the philanthropy in honor of their mother, who had struggled to raise them as a young widow. But the Foundation’s history really starts back in 1907, when Jim Casey began a messenger service in Seattle, Washington to help his family make ends meet. That small family business became the global, multi-billion dollar UPS. Jim Casey had no children, and by 1948 he had amassed wealth beyond his personal needs.... For about 20 years, the Casey Foundation was a small operation primarily funding a camp for disadvantaged children in Seattle. ....Casey Family Programs, an independent operating foundation headquartered in Seattle, which provides long-term foster care and other child and family serving programs. When UPS moved its headquarters to the East coast, similar programs to improve foster care were established in New England that later became Casey Family Services, operating today as the Foundation’s child welfare agency, providing direct services to thousands of children and families across New England and in Maryland. There's more on that page, but you get the point. Apparently, they want to foster public policies in support of kids, and are willing to invest a lot of money in direct help as well. After all, as Jim said, "My GOD, Think of the CHILDREN! THEY'RE OUR FUTURE. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE CHILDREN!" | ||
| bonniescott New member Username: bonniescott Post Number: 8 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 69.60.183.196 |
On Gay and Lesbian Parenting http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html | ||
| dancer2 New member Username: dancer2 Post Number: 10 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 62.248.153.165 |
Let me see if I can understand and shed some light on what's going on in this thread: David M. is worried about losing the right to maintain homophobia as a basic part of his worship practice, thus he started this thread. It has generally been shown that this right will not be stripped away from him in the US, but that it would be healthier if this was not a fundamental element of his worship practice anyway. Jim F. has joined in because the voices of "liberals" like Bonnie and myself are like a red rag in front of that bull. He has two particular bugs up his backside: 1) the rift between the Cromwellites and the Sodomites within the Anglican fellowship are tearing that group apart, and 2) at his age he needs complete cultural homogeneity in order to be able to sleep at night. Those holding to different languages, religious traditions, political orientations or arguments for legitimizing their sexuality than what he does are a personal threat to him. Finland comes under fire because they've accepted me, so something must be fundamentally screwed up with this country. John C. is trying to bring some common sense, reading comprehension and compassion for children back into this thread, but he's fighting a losing battle because the bulk of the verbage here is coming from those for whom these things don't fit within their basic priorities. I pop in every now and again to get the bull snorting and then try to get out of here and go back to work on the things I'm supposed to be doing on this machine (things I get paid for). God help all of us! | ||
| rjfernalld New member Username: rjfernalld Post Number: 2 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.123.100.196 |
arguendo, bonniescott, et al.....I add my voice to yours. Thanks. RJ | ||
| cordell Junior Member Username: cordell Post Number: 26 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
what makes you think Finland has 'accepted' you? at least three of their female citizens seem to have seen the light then, haven't they? but then everyone's got to be somewhere and better you're over there where you can use your big fish in a small pond advantage, right? | ||
| cordell Junior Member Username: cordell Post Number: 27 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
as for my 'complete cultural homogeneity' -- you absolute horse's arse -- I live in a part of the world where I am a RACIAL minority. And I LIKE IT HERE BECAUSE OF THAT, entiendes, culero? and while I sleep fine, I don't get how you associate yourself with anything remotely similar to Christianity with a straight face. | ||
| cordell Junior Member Username: cordell Post Number: 28 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
The primary mission of the Annie E. Casey Foundation is to foster public policies what is wrong with this statement? It is the responsibility of GOVERNMENT to be your MOM. | ||
| cordell Junior Member Username: cordell Post Number: 30 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
Good Lord, bonniescott, can you do anything other than paste bloody links? They are however amusing, and excellent exercises in learning lib-speak, such as this: there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation what idiot looks to science to a$$.ess parental effectiveness? What scientific experiments have been done over what sort of sample of gay, lesbian and straight parents to a.$$.ess their effectiveness? Which of the natural sciences determines what is and what is not effective and who decided what that meant? (FN does not like any kind of a$$e$$ment) bonniescott, what a crock, what an absolute heaving crock. but you gotta love libspeak. | ||
| johncollins New member Username: johncollins Post Number: 8 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 69.143.75.131 |
Thank God that when confronted with science that offends the fundamentalist sensitivities, we have Jim Faucett to keep us on the straight and narrow. Funny that Dancer2 mentioned Jim's sleep habits. When I read his May 09, 2007 - 2:17 am post, I wondered if he got any sleep last night after having such a conniption. | ||
| dancer2 New member Username: dancer2 Post Number: 12 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 80.186.182.93 |
FWDIM, while Finland may be the only country on the planet which has a president who rose to political prominence as a (straight) gay rights activist, culturally speaking this is another area in which the Finns are very much in the slipstream of their big western neighbor: the people who brought you Abba, Bjorn Borg, Saab, Volvo, Ikea, the Bofors military industry, etc. There's a standard joke here: "Why are all Swedish police patrols made up of one man and one woman?" "To prevent on-the-job romance." I don't consider the Swedes to be a viable role model, but if you're looking for an example of the manifest fruits of political liberalism, including tolerance of homosexuality, they should be your test case. Finland is inifinitely less relevant, and the Finns admit it. But that might not work as well for JF because A) for reasons that have little to do with political orientation, their suicide stats have never been that bad, and B) their is no current resident of Sweden that he a$$ociates with equine rectal cavities. | ||
| johncollins New member Username: johncollins Post Number: 9 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 69.143.75.131 |
Someone opined, "what idiot looks to science..." because of a link to the APA (American Psychological Association) Bonnie Scott provided. The article linked to didn't merely pontificate on its subject, but referenced numerous studies to document its conclusions. A conservative Christian may willingly reject all those conclusions because it upsets their religious apple cart. (Is this like a JW refusing a life saving blood transfusion because doing so would violate their Biblical interpretation?) I realize that fundamentalists are often dismissive of much science has to say. Especially if it raises any questions at all about their views. Leading to the viewpoint where an individual implies, "my mind's made up, so please don't try and confuse me with facts." I googled the association's name to try and understand how relevant they might be to science in general, and psychology in particular. There's nearly 2.8 million hits. No, that doesn't automatically confer perfection on their statements. It does however imply there are more than a few thinking people paying attention to the APA. | ||
| hodeuon New member Username: hodeuon Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 66.160.68.34 |
"David M. is worried about losing the right to maintain homophobia as a basic part of his worship practice, thus he started this thread. It has generally been shown that this right will not be stripped away from him in the US, but that it would be healthier if this was not a fundamental element of his worship practice anyway." Glad to see the "tolerant" viewpoint has equal opporunity access to hate. Hodeuon | ||
| whatsup New member Username: whatsup Post Number: 4 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 56.0.143.23 |
John Collins, You might benefit from a conniption yourself, to shake you out of the stupor that seems to blind you to any biblical perspective. I assume you do know your bible, since you were (maybe still are?) a pastor. Of course, if the bible and the American Psychological Association disagree, the APA must be correct. Never mind that the whole head is sick in fallen man. How many times throughout history has science proclaimed something as truth only to contradict it years later, and the truth on it was always in the bible. Well, I know there are books about that sort of thing but I don't have the time to look them up right now. Now, Bonniescott has announced she is not a Christian, so I can understand her having the views she has posted here. But the Christians who agree with her should either totally denounce their faith as she has, or line up with the bible. Don't call yourself a Christian and then spout off anything but Christian beliefs. All Jim was saying was that there is no way to prove "scientifically" what effective parenting is. I can say with assurance that two people living a perverted sexual lifestyle is not the most effective parenting you could get. No science or associations needed to figure that one out. | ||
| cordell Junior Member Username: cordell Post Number: 31 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
John Collins was/is a pastor just like Idi Amin Dada was a humanitarian. | ||
| david_munson Member Username: david_munson Post Number: 65 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 63.22.239.245 |
"Let me see if I can understand and shed some light on what's going on in this thread: David M. is worried about losing the right to maintain homophobia as a basic part of his worship practice, thus he started this thread. It has generally been shown that this right will not be stripped away from him in the US, but that it would be healthier if this was not a fundamental element of his worship practice anyway." --- No you are mistaken and are attributing to me something I did not nor do not think. I am not homophobic. I beleive the Bible when it says it's sin. Please ,if you are going to equate what I stand for as homophobia then admit that you don't except the Words of Scripture concerning this topic. Homophobia:a word used by liberals to "mark" as intolerent those who agree with scripture that that specific sin is sin. This is not the only point of attack upon the Bible and Constitution either and I believe I have already stated that. It also is not the only point of attack upon biblical truths and absolutes either. I don't accept that murder is alright. Am I murderphobic too? I don't except hate so I'm hatephobic I guess. See how rediculous it is to try and stamp an all inclusive label on people that agree that sin is sin? I'm also cleptaphobic since I think stealing is sin. Don't ya just love political correctness and all it's illogical assumptions and assertions? Political correctness is mindless. } | ||
| bonniescott New member Username: bonniescott Post Number: 9 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 69.60.183.196 |
If you want to take on the APA (the most highly regarded authority on mental and emotional health in the U.S. and perhaps the world) and science in general, I don’t know what to say about that, other than you make yourselves look more foolish in doing so. “Who We Are Based in Washington, DC, the American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With 148,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide. Mission Statement APA Bylaws I.1 The objects of the American Psychological Association shall be to advance psychology as a science and profession and as a means of promoting health, education, and human welfare by • the encouragement of psychology in all its branches in the broadest and most liberal manner • the promotion of research in psychology and the improvement of research methods and conditions • the improvement of the qualifications and usefulness of psychologists through high standards of ethics, conduct, education, and achievement • the establishment and maintenance of the highest standards of professional ethics and conduct of the members of the Association • the increase and diffusion of psychological knowledge through meetings, professional contacts, reports, papers, discussions, and publications thereby to advance scientific interests and inquiry, and the application of research findings to the promotion of health, education, and the public welfare. “ Bastids! I may not agree with the religious points of view put forth here, but I do respect the fact that many (most?) who post here believe that to raise a child in a gay household is to jeopardize his/her very soul. I would submit that reaching out to gay families, rather than alienating them, may be a better way to address that issue. | ||
| cordell Junior Member Username: cordell Post Number: 32 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
If you want to take on the APA (the most highly regarded authority on mental and emotional health in the U.S. and perhaps the world) and science in general, I don’t know what to say about that, other than you make yourselves look more foolish in doing so. Oh, dear bonniescott. There's science and then there's science. I have a degree in Political Science a minor in sociology one of the behavioral sciences. If you are so naive as to believe that any of the social or behavioral 'sciences' are as exact as the natural sciences then you deserve being led down the garden path by the 'APA'. There is not a science on earth that can measure the 'effectiveness' of parenting done by anyone at all, gay or not--because 'effective' is VALUE LADEN in its meaning. What evangelicals (hardheaded bigots that we are) consider 'effective' is one thing and what the APA considers as 'effective' is probably considerably different. The Scriptures tell us to raise up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it--see Deuteronomy 6 as to what that 'way' is. (this doesn't mean that your wayward backsliding child will always come back to Jesus, by the way) I doubt that this standard is anywhere present in the APA's evaluation as to what is 'effective' parenting, bless your heart. Now, dear heart, I would rather look foolish and bigoted to you and yours in the here and now than to stand with the goats on the left on that Great Day. | ||
| cordell Junior Member Username: cordell Post Number: 33 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
As to reaching out to gay families, I agree, we should do that--just as we do to all in sin. Problem is, their agenda is to make US accept their sexual orientation as NON-sinful--which would of course cause us to violate the commandment "you shall not commit adultery" in that we are not to engage in, or encourage others into any sort of sexual intimacy other than that which God provides in his word, which is marriage between a male and female (Gen.1-3 and the gospel of Christ). | ||
| hadasa New member Username: hadasa Post Number: 1 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 205.172.107.75 |
Collins & D2 have great faith in the Gospel! the GNOSTIC Gospel | ||
| hadasa New member Username: hadasa Post Number: 2 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 205.172.107.75 |
If there was an 'Association' of some kind back in the day; maybe more would have escaped the flood? maybe not; Alas, then their were eight...... It'll be consuming fire next time; and 'will He find faith on earth' | ||
| bonniescott New member Username: bonniescott Post Number: 10 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 69.60.183.196 |
Cordell, I'm sure there are plenty of Christian Psychologists out there who would be more than happy to debate your assertions. I'm not one of them though. We're not going to agree on the whole religious question - no surprise, so I'm happy to leave it here. I hope that some out there reading will consider the things I've said and the assertions that I've backed up with provable fact. I know it may be hard to find them amidst all the smoke that gets blown around on this board. I'll end with the suggestion I started with: "The Christian right could earn a lot more credibility if they stopped beating the drum over gays and lesbians and started focusing on some of the issues effecting the lives of people in their own backyards." Good luck with all that. Talk amongst ya selves. | ||
| dancer2 New member Username: dancer2 Post Number: 13 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 80.186.182.93 |
David M. The law in question, and even the Canadian law for that matter, does nothing to force churches to accept or "normalize" homosexuality, any more than they force Jews and Muslims to eat pork. The question is whether churches are justified in intentionally inciting hatred against homosexuals. That is what I refer to as homophobia. That is what I would consider to be sinful for the church to take part in. YMMV. I agree entirely that the Bible labels homosexuality, and any sexual act other than vaginal insertion within the context of lifelong marital commitment, as sinful. God bless those of you who have maintained that standard throughout your lives. I confess that I have not, and therefor I don't throw stones at others whose sexual practices do not meet biblical standards. The issue with homophobia is that a certain person as a person is seen as a threat because he or she is more attracted to those of his/her own gender than those of the opposite gender (even if the person is not acting sinfully on the basis of those attractions). That is what I hope churches will not promote. If you stand up and preach that those with these urges should take a good dose of trino-acetal (sound it out) that is not homophobic. If you say that all those tempted in that direction deserve to be... anathema on you! Does this clarify my position? Rauhaa, D2 (Message edited by dancer2 on May 10, 2007) | ||
| cordell Junior Member Username: cordell Post Number: 34 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
homophobia, with which you've accused us on the evangelical side of being infected--means as far as I can tell--hatred of homosexuals. This accusation occurs anytime evangelicals oppose the homosexual agenda which is shoved down our throats on a daily basis to get us to pay attention to "OTHER PROBLEMS IN OUR BACKYARD". The argument that "seeing homosexuals as a threat" is homophobic is more liberal 'jedi-magic' that they like to numb us with. Of course INDIVIDUAL homosexuals are not a threat, you great bunch of twits, it's the MOVEMENT WITH AN AGENDA that seeks to NORMALIZE the lifestyle and give them official 'victim' status that's a threat. Yes, say they, we ought not to have anything to say in any arena except that which they wish to allocate to us--so called "religious matters". Then when some have conceded--the church now is accused of being "irrelevant". WHAT A HUGE CROCK OF SHITE. NO ONE, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE loves homosexuals by siding with them that their sexual orientation is 'normal' or 'good' or even 'positive in influence' or (let me pi$$ off a few evangelicals)that God loves them even if they never change. We are taught by our Lord to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we were caught up in a sin greivous enough (whatever that sin was) that would separate us from the Father from eternity would we want anyone to tell us, "Don't worry, God knows you were born that way, He doesn't condemn you. He loves you as you are?" I wasn't born monogamous, I wasn't born honest, I wasn't born loving God, I wasn't born loving my neighbor and GOD'S love doesn't leave me in these conditions or else I would be condemned in them. He regenerates us and changes us. Accusing evangelicals of 'homophobia' is just a typical kneejerk reaction of people not intelligent enough to tackle the issues and who wish to remain in their own opposite and equally intransigent liberal dogma--"Queers good, Jesus freaks bad. Ugh." The fact is, you are really homophobic if you leave them to their eternal condemnation without hearing that God condemns sinners unless they repent and trust Christ for all righteousness. There is no greater hatred a Christian could harbor toward a neighbor than purposely perverting the gospel in order to sidestep real the real issue of sin. If you believe that homosexuals are not condemned for their sin, just as other sinners are condemned for theirs then you are the real homophobes--and you will stand before God for your hatred. | ||
| cordell Junior Member Username: cordell Post Number: 35 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 12.43.233.2 |
This from the Gay and Lesbian Times in 2004: Swedish preacher jailed for homophobic remarks A Pentecostal Movement preacher in Borgholm, Sweden, was jailed for one month June 29 for making anti-gay statements. Åke Green was found guilty of agitating against an ethnic minority for saying homosexuality results from “evil powers” and violates the Bible’s story of creation, that gays are a tumor on society and that AIDS is caused by [sodomy FN didn't like the words provided]. The Kalmar district court ruled that the right of gays to be protected from such language outweighed Green’s right to make homophobic statements in the name of religion, the Aftonbladet daily newspaper said. Sweden’s National Federation for Sexual Equality (RFSL) commented: “Freedom of religion should never imply agitation against persons. It is this type of agitation that foments hate crimes against homosexual, bisexual and transgender persons.” But this from the BBC News 2005: Sweden's Supreme Court has said it will review the acquittal of a Pentecostal pastor who denounced homosexuality as "a deep cancer" in a sermon. Ake Green was convicted of hate crimes in June 2004 and given a 30-day suspended prison sentence. But then an appeals court in February threw out the case, saying it was not illegal to offer an interpretation of the Bible and urge others to follow it. Mr Green was the first priest convicted under Sweden's new hate crimes law. And this from Wikipedia on Ake Green: Åke Green (born 3 June 1941) is a Pentecostal Christian pastor who was sentenced to one month in prison under Sweden's law against hate speech. On February 11, 2005 an appeals court, Göta hovrätt, overturned the decision and acquitted Åke Green. On March 9, the Prosecutor-General appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which on November 29 also acquitted him. In their opinion, while Åke Green had violated Swedish law as it currently stands, a conviction would most likely be overturned by the European Court of Human Rights, based on their previous rulings regarding Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[1] In 2002, the Swedish parliament included references to sexual orientation in a list of groups protected against persecution in the form of threats and expressions of disdain. The list appears in a section of Swedish criminal law (Brottsbalken) known as The Act on Persecution of Minority Groups (Lagen om hets mot folkgrupp). Green's lawyer maintained his client's religious freedom had been violated. So now the LGBT front use this to say "it's not true, he never served a day in jail!" Right, but if they had their way, he'd have been thrown under the jail forever as would we just for speaking out against their agenda. The man's a PENTECOSTAL. He talks and preaches like a Pentecostal. I disagree with almost everything about Pentecostalism, BUT THE MAN OUGHT TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT what he believes to be true. And the law in Sweden as it stands, forbids him from doing so. The law in America as proposed deals with acts of violence, this is true. BUT it confers on the LGBT front official 'minority' status by law and it would not take too many steps to show that religious speech condemning homosexuality in harsh terms is in fact hate speech and COULD be interpreted to incite violence against homosexuals. | ||
| boss_martian New member Username: boss_martian Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.136.237.156 |
The "official doctrine" of the Southern Baptists, the largest Protestant denomination in the US, used to be that discrimination against black people, to include slavery, was OK. As a matter of fact, this doctrine played a very large role in the formation this denomination. I won't bore you here, especially since there's a TON of historical information about it on line and elsewhere. I was raised Southern Baptist and I saw it first hand as well. I've read several "sermons" by supposedly Godly men of the Southern Baptist denomination in which they quote a TON of Scripture to support the institution of slavery. In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention decided that enough was enough and issued a formal apology to black people as well confesssing that their slavery doctrine was in fact a sin. History shows us many other instances of Christian beliefs that have since changed. The Catholic church no longer dabbles in the practices that were condoned during the Inquisition, for example, but during that time, physical torture of "infidels" was considered a Godly act. People were put to death or ex-communicated for simply asserting that the Earth is not flat. The Church used the Bible to justify the belief that the world is flat. Right here on good old FACTNET we have quite a few people that were once lined up to kiss Carl Stevens wrinkled rear end because they believed it was Godly and Biblically justified. How many people reading here applauded wildly during the "five men died" sermon? The current congregation of GGWO firmly believes that they are both Biblically and spiritually justified in their belief of "one pastor-teacher", etc. Thankfully, some have renounced that belief. Do a little research and you will find many, many instances of Christian beliefs and practices that were considered Biblical and Godly that have been renounced. When I read the sermons of those that supported slavery and other forms of discrimination against black people, it reads pretty closely like the Biblical and spiritual justifications against homosexuality. I was a Southern Baptist, so I'm calling 'em out. What happened to change their doctrine? Was their interpretation of the Bible wrong? Read the sermons and the logic is pretty compelling. There's a GROUP of Scripture used to justify treating black people as property. (Many Dominionists think slavery is still justified, by the way.) Were the SBs just evil and twisted Scripture to justify their evil? Or did the Southern Baptists abandon the "truth" in the Bible and knuckle under to the LIBERALS? Did the Southern Baptists compromise the truth of Scripture by apologising for a century and a half of supporting slavery. Based on Scripture, treating a descendant of Ham (which is part of the SB justification, along with slavery being pretty much accepted "back in the day". Heck, you could sell your daughter into slavery. Hey, it's right there in the Bible, check it out!) Why did anyone leave GGWO? Were they wrong in their beliefs or did they just knuckle under to the FACTNET and "tare" peer pressure? Forgive me if I have just a teensy bit of doubt about accepting the grand moral pronouncements of a blow-hard who used to chase Carl Stevens around the globe to touch the hem of his garment. Sorry to intrude on the Cordell Show (with special guest Whatsup), if even for a minute. I'll go back to my depraved existence for another couple of months. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 1 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
factnet says they lost 11000 accounts overnight but that they're restored now. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 2 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
Phil, your self-righteousness is amazing. I used to think you had a pretty fair sense of moral outrage, now I wonder why the hell anyone who's never been involved in GG spends so much time on DiscussGG and here when you'd probably be better off in indulging in selfgratifying acts watching internet porn. The fact that Christians have made mistakes in the past, or that some of us here were in a cult does not detract from the truth of scripture or the Lordship of Christ, neither of which you accept while you still (at last check) claim not to be an atheist. You might as well be, since now you get to play God yourself and come on here to condemn all of us, so you can feel in someway superior to us. You're still just a guy who chased after a married chick in the cult. | ||
| whatsup New member Username: whatsup Post Number: 1 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 24.61.30.105 |
wow, I did not realize I was a special guest. Boss, your entire premise is flawed. You cannot compare racial discrimination with rejection of sexual perversion. God created black people, but people become homosexual by their own sinful deviations. It is not a sin to be black, it is a sin to be homosexual. That is crystal clear in the scriptures. No one will go to hell for being born black. And no one is born homosexual.... it is a choice, like any sin. So Southern Baptists were once prejudiced against blacks and endorsed slavery and then changed their mind. That does not mean that the church will eventually decide that homosexuality is not a sin. You are comparing apples and oranges. It is not even logical. And just because a person was in GG and deceived by CHS, does not mean that they can never be right about an issue again. It is not a person's past that determines the validity of their opinion, it is how that opinion lines up with scripture. Well, based on my past conversations with you, I do not expect you to grasp what I am trying to say, but it was worth a shot anyway | ||
| hadasa New member Username: hadasa Post Number: 1 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 71.58.164.118 |
D2, your something else man......first you willfully misconstrue David M's concerns into "inciting hatred" or "homophobia", then you slosh around more of your ill-founded commentary yeah Jesus said "he who is without sin, cast the first stone" but a little while later, he said to the SAME person, "now go and sin no more" I think in your (and Jon, Jon's) bible it says "aw shucks, once a prostitute, always a prostitute, go and sin, just don't throw stones at other sinners" Anyhow, there is a difference in throwing stones vs telling the truth in Love; and as far as I can tell; no one you've opposed on this thread would say different Mercy & TRUTH have met together God is a God of both Love and JUSTICE Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil (sin) and fulfill the law. Hey Collins, I see your all over the place (factnet & discussGGWO)spreading your "wisdom" - doesnt' scripture say that people that declare themselves teachers will get judged more harshly Might want to think about that 'pastor' apostate. | ||
| dancer2 New member Username: dancer2 Post Number: 2 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 62.248.153.165 |
I'll hold to what I've said, and I'm proud to have my character and convictions attacked by anyone who attacks John C. in the same breath! Hasada, I need your approval even less than I need Tom S's. I'll go as far as to say that the case Cordell spent the other evening researching is something that could only happen in Sweden (eikö niin, suomalaiset?) but that regardless of the legal over reaction, Green was acting sinfully in referring to all those attracted to those of their own gender as a "cancer" on society and implying that those with AIDS deserve it. In spite of personal inuendos against me, I really don't have strong personal contacts with the organized "agenda" of LGBT types, but my impression from those of that orientation that I've worked with in the restaurant business (in both Finland and the US) is that as long as they don't have to hide their orientation in public and/or fear for their personal safety on that basis, most of them are pretty satisfied. I can't see where giving them that level of respect and protection should go against anyone's truly Biblical convictions. (The fact that there are some gays who also wish for Anglican church weddings and adoption rights isn't really at issue in the law being discussed here.) My contention would be that any Christian organization which allows women into its priesthood/pastorate, and which allows divorcees within the faith to remarry with full rites, blessings and priveledges, does not have any consistant Biblical grounds for condemning homosexuality: they've already become too "modernized" to appeal to that standard. In that case their main reason for attacking gays is prejudice, and they should be challenged to admit it. Yes, I admit freely that the Bible condemns homosexuality, as it does masturbation, adultury and remarriage after divorce. Continuing to mark all of those as sinful practices is a consistent doctrine, e.g. within the Catholic Church. No one is forcing them to change that, and to their credit I don't see them worrying about this issue so much. As I mentioned about a week ago, Sam Brownback has impressed me as having far more rounded and consistent convictions than your average moralizing Republican; seeing the fight against extreme poverty, child abuse and human trafficking as part of his Christian duty, and publically repenting for using hatred as a political tool. I challenge all those who have attacked John and I on this thread to aspire to that level of integrity. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 3 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
I'll go as far as to say that the case Cordell spent the other evening researching is something that could only happen in Sweden You need to come out of the closet. A similar law was passed in Canada, and the one we're discussing here is a first step in that direction. Remarriage after divorce is an issue debated amongst evangelicals and is NOT in the view of many Bible scholars greater than YOU condemned by scripture as outrightly as you want to make it out to be. Christian churches that differ over who is in the pastorate, divorce and remarriage have just as much BIBLICAL ground to address homosexuality as a SIN against the seventh commandment as any other that may disagree with their positions on the pastorate and remarriage. The issues are separate, and for you to think they are disqualified on the grounds you put forward is at best a non sequitor and at worst just fekkin stupid. (but consider the source, I guess) YOU may think the queers are ok since you slung a few pizzas with them, but they have a militant agenda to be 'normalized' on the one hand and given official victim and minority status on the other. This week's World magazine follows the plight of a woman who left a gay civil union in Vermont with her natural child and went to Virginia (which does not recognize gay civil unions) where she became a Christian. Her gay ex is now suing her for custody of the child and has won in Vermont. This is how the 'gay agenda' affects the kids--'who's my mommy?' (maybe I should go back to law school) Green was acting sinfully in referring to all those attracted to those of their own gender as a "cancer" on society and implying that those with AIDS deserve it 1. YOU don't know whether the guy was actually sinning or not. Which commandment did he break? If any gay person had actually heeded his message and abandoned their 'lifestyle' would they be better off in eternity or worse off? How do you KNOW the AIDS epidemic is not a judgment on some? I would tend to agree with the 'cancer' side of the statement. 2. However outrageous Green's statements may be to YOU was no reason for him to be prosecuted. He ought to have the right to say what he thinks, and to interpret the scriptures as he chooses (however much either of us, or anybody else disagrees with him). He can make a fairly good argument from Romans 1 for his case as many others have. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 4 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
Forgive me if I have just a teensy bit of doubt about accepting the grand moral pronouncements of a blow-hard who used to chase Carl Stevens around the globe to touch the hem of his garment. I have been OUT of the cult for over TWENTY YEARS. AND when I was IN the cult, I was considered by CHS to be on the fringe and 'off' and 'rebellious' because of my tendency to disagree at times with the official line. While you may want to put us all in the same bag ol' Phil, that doesn't really fly, and while you think you know a little about CHS, you don't really know shite. YOU on the other hand, FOR THE PAST THREE years came on here professing (should I call it blowing hard?) to be just good ol' 'Phil who loves Jesus' (and, oh yeah, a married chick in the cult) AND NOW you're all over the place claiming that you are not a Christian any more and that the Bible is just a cover up for the genocide committed by the Jews in the OT and a way for some to capitalize on the life of Christ in the NT! Not only are you an idiot, you're a hypocrite, Mr. Change-Artist. Guys like you, NotC.JohnCollins, and D2 went through a little religious turmoil and lost your anchor. Collins and D2 were in the cult and you weren't but you're still in the same boat--you like to play GOD because you don't actually like the real one. I can't really decide who's worse Phil, you and your excusing yourself of your sin while condemning others or D2 who rejects the message of the Scriptures as inspired on the one hand and accuses others of not 'humbly receiving its message' on the other. If it weren't pitiful, it'd be friggin' hilarious. | ||
| johncollins New member Username: johncollins Post Number: 2 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 69.143.75.131 |
So many rants, so little time... Whatsup said: Of course, if the bible and the American Psychological Association disagree, the APA must be correct. Are you committing the great transgression of presumption, by putting words in my mouth I never said? Might as well -- others here don't mind doing that either. I spent far too many years not allowing myself the freedom to think, reason and ask questions. Instead, in the pursuit of godliness as defined by others, I was led to believe that the mere act of having an open and honest discussion where all were allowed a seat at the table regardless of their perspective -- or even just asking questions -- was in and of itself evil and wicked, an affront to God, manifested a lack of faith and revealed nothing but carnality. I finally left that mindset two years ago. Hooked up with the boys in the IAGM. Within a few months, i realized that in too many areas they were going to continue business as usual. They were unwilling to allow people to ask the tough questions, and were especially unwilling to answer them. Instead, they misapplied a few Bible verses here and there, and demanded that all should be silent in the face of the fact that they were quoting the Bible. A friend of mine who occasionally reads FN looked in on this thread yesterday, and then emailed me, "I thought all the responses--from the most conservative to liberal--were consistent with each respondent's premises. Most interesting is the conservative Christian belief that if they were tolerant toward the homosexual lifestyle, God would judge the United States like Sodom and Gomorrah. You can't really argue with this assertion without first dismantling the faith system. It's a losing battle." He's right of course. The noise volume here becomes so great that meaningful discussion becomes impossible. Things become so personalized that ideas aren't exchanged -- attacks are. I've been pondering a response to the many misrepresentations of Whatsup, Jim and the guy from the PSLH (he’ll understand the reference). After considering my friend's email, I guess I've said my piece. A few may have understood where I'm coming from. The few who commented twisted what I and others have said, put words in our mouths, and then proudly attacked the bogeyman they made us out to be. They seem to prefer that anyone with a different opinion or even a question should shut up and keep it to themselves, because they said so. But the no talk rule is dead! We have freedom of speech, the freedom to think, reason and ask questions. We can have an open and honest discussion, and allow everyone a seat at the table regardless of their perspective. (Even if we're not "allowed" to have a free exchange of ideas here on FN). Questions, thoughts, ideas and discussions are not evil and wicked. Or -- does God really need you to defend his honor? | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 5 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
John, no one is questioning your right to think, speak or interpret. That's what FN is about. I welcome the conflict. If you even casually glanced at the articles and their titles on the APA site concerning homosexuality and parenting, and if you know anything about the slant of the APA in the past, you'll know that they are on the leading edge toward normalization of the lifestyle. If, on the other hand, one attempts to stay true to scripture, we are labeled, predictably as homophobes and bigots by the new dogmaticians on the left, just as we are labeled flat-earthers when we question the faith, yes faith, of the evolutionists who like to wear the pin "I'm a REAL Scientist" proudly while disallowing any questions of the veracity of evolutionary thought by excluding from peer review all references to intelligent design by saying that the articles are all just covers for the idiot creationists. The APA pooh-poohs evangelical beliefs against homosexuality, plain and simple and would like to relegate us to not having anything to say in the realm of this arena, just as the politicians want to make abortion a 'private religious concern' and not a murder. Concerning your friends smartarse comment, does he think the US is above judgment? Do you think that? You've already dismantled whatever 'faith system' you had, so you may as well join Phil Calvert and "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow..." | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 6 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
Or -- does God really need you to defend his honor? Oh my, aren't you clever, John. Never mind that since the beginning of time God has used men to speak for him--even when some who claim to speak for him are false--he hasn't changed his tactic. The church is here to speak for God among men, yes and to defend his honor. You are like a Pharisee telling Jesus on Palm Sunday to tell his followers to shut up, but even the stones could cry out. This smug little statement of yours really reveals how far you've strayed from whatever sort of 'faith' you had before. Let me annoy you by actually quoting scripture on this one: But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear And yeah, I know what meekness means and to whom in this case it is to be directed along with the fear. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 7 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
and oh, Not.C, since you gave your hiccuping kneejerking nod to CHS's understanding of the 19th Psalm you may do well to see how the word 'presumptuous' is used in the other seven Psalms where it occurs as well as in Proverbs,Isaiah, Jeremiah and Malachi. You may find that it applies to you far more than to whatsup. Rather than defending all these liberal causes Johnny you might do well to revise your skills of interpretation rather than relying on and throwing out little quips from what you heard a hundred times from CHS. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 8 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
Oh heck, just for kicks, let's see who can find Johnnie's word in this passage: Your words have been hard against me, says the Lord. But you say, How have we spoken against you? You have said, It is vain to serve God. What is the profit of our keeping his charge or of walking as in mourning before the Lord of hosts? And now we call the arrogant blessed. Evildoers not only prosper but they put God to the test and they escape. If you say that God does not CARE that his commandments are broken and you call the breaking of his commandment good and natural, what are you according to this passage? I don't expect bonniescott or Phil to agree here since they are not Christians, but I do expect for people who CALL themselves Christians to see that they are out of line with scripture when they side with homosexuals on making their lifestyle normative, positive, healthy or anything but deviant vile and sinful--just as every other kind of sin is sinful. | ||
| whatsup New member Username: whatsup Post Number: 2 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 56.0.143.23 |
John Collins, You must have sore muscles from all the backpeddling you do. Although the statement you quoted from me did not specifically target you, it did apply to your thinking. The APA was being discussed in relation to its article on gay parenting, which of course did not agree with the bible. You endorsed that article by saying it "referenced numerous studies to document its conclusions". You went on to say that Christians may reject it because it upset their religious apple cart. Maybe Christians would reject it because it is ANTI-BIBLICAL....my, what a novel idea. Why don't you get some backbone (to quote dear old CHS) and get on one side of the fence or the other. You love to subtly demean anything of absolute biblical truth in the name of "open discussion". I don't think God will be open to too much discussion when you stand before Him in the end, especially considering all the light you have had. Unlike some here, you do know better. | ||
| dancer2 New member Username: dancer2 Post Number: 3 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 80.186.182.93 |
(maybe I should go back to law school) If you can afford it that might be a more useful retirement hobby for you than FN. Not much else in your last posts that deserves comment. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 9 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
It's good for you not to comment on what you're incapable of comprehending, that way you don't end up sounding as much of a pratt as you often do. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 10 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
D2: Green was acting sinfully in referring to all those attracted to those of their own gender as a "cancer" on society and implying that those with AIDS deserve it. God: Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. Maybe Ake Green was a little too conservative with his words...I read three times "God gave them up." Of course our friend D2 will probably assign this portion of Paul's epistle to 'uninspired human origin' and attribute it to Paul's intolerant homophobia. Or perhaps you'd like to go as far as boss's buddy Spong and accuse Paul of over-reacting because of his own latent homosexuality (he was unmarried after all). Or would you prefer to say that the Apostle was 'acting sinfully'? | ||
| johncollins New member Username: johncollins Post Number: 5 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 69.143.75.131 |
For decades I was repeatedly told that everyone could come to God, just as they were, and be accepted. That his church would love them. That while their sin would be hated, they themselves would be loved. For those same decades, I saw many who said and did much to deny that. People who often were as unloving, unkind and ungracious as possible to any who didn't line up with their interpretation or their view of religion. I don't recall anyone posting on this thread in "defense of sin." I have seen numerous posts trying to clarify that even those identified as sinners should be loved. And I've seen far more posts barely stopping short of a "•••• from fagsville" rant ala CHS, and a call for stoning. Loving the sinner? The CIA's World Fact Book (a fascinating almanac) gives the world's population as 6.6 billion, and identifies 33.03% as Christians (including Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.8%, Orthodox 3.42%, Anglicans 1.23%). I don't know exactly how they determine a person is or claims to be a Christian. But it must be very comforting to be so sure of yourself that you can condemn the majority of those 2 billion people to a godless eternity for not lining up with your narrow interpretation of what God said and how to apply it. A year or two ago, Robert J. Lifton was often referenced by people posting on this board. His writings were used to identify negative characteristics people saw in gg. There's little difference between applying these points to gg or applying them to many (most?) groups' fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible. Including those posting here who seem to have perfect knowledge of the "correct" interpretation of every verse, and are quick to condemn as apostate any who don't adhere to their party line, their narrow black and white world view. | ||
| johncollins New member Username: johncollins Post Number: 6 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 69.143.75.131 |
In Lifton's Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism he said, "Any ideology -- that is, any set of emotionally-charged convictions about men and his relationship to the natural or supernatural world -- may be carried by its adherents in a totalistic direction. But this is most likely to occur with those ideologies which are most sweeping in their content and most ambitious or messianic in their claim, whether a religious or political organization. And where totalism exists, a religion, or a political movement becomes little more than an exclusive cult." He then gave "a set of criteria, eight psychological themes against which any environment may be judged... which may temporarily energize or exhilarate, but which at the same time pose the gravest of human threats." From those Eight Criteria for Thought Reform: 6. Loading the Language * The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliche (thought-stoppers) * Repetitiously centered on all-encompassing jargon * "The language of non-thought" * Words are given new meanings -- the outside world does not use the words or phrases in the same way -- it becomes a "group" word or phrase 7. Doctrine Over Person * Every issue in one's life can be reduced to a single set of principles that have an inner coherence to the point that one can claim the experience of truth and feel it * The pattern of doctrine over person occurs when there is a conflict between what one feels oneself experiencing and what the doctrine or ideology says one should experience * If one questions the beliefs of the group or the leaders of the group, one is made to feel that there is something inherently wrong with them to even question -- it is always "turned around" on them and the questioner/criticizer is questioned rather than the questions answered directly * The underlying assumption is that doctrine/ideology is ultimately more valid, true and real than any aspect of actual human character or human experience and one must subject one's experience to that "truth" * The experience of contradiction can be immediately associated with guilt * One is made to feel that doubts are reflections of one's own evil * When doubt arises, conflicts become intense | ||
| johncollins New member Username: johncollins Post Number: 7 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 69.143.75.131 |
Lifton's third criteria also fits well in this thread. The Demand For Purity * The world becomes sharply divided into the pure and the impure, the absolutely good (the group/ideology) and the absolutely evil (everything outside the group) * One must continually change or conform to the group "norm" * Tendencies towards guilt and shame are used as emotional levers for the group's controlling and manipulative influences * Once a person has experienced the totalist polarization of good/evil (black/white thinking), he has great difficulty in regaining a more balanced inner sensitivity to the complexities of human morality * The radical separation of pure/impure is both within the environment (the group) and the individual * Ties in with the process of confession -- one must confess when one is not conforming | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 11 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
When's the last time you actually conscientiously delved into an exposition of Scripture, Not.C Johnnie? Or don't you bother with that any more? What exactly are you attempting to defend here? Apply Mr. Lifton's tests to orthodox Christianity and see what you come up with. What Dave M. in his own 'special way' did in beginning the thread was to raise awareness over an unnecessary piece of legislation which, if it follows as has been done in Sweden and Canada--first assigns to homosexuals the same status as the handicapped or to racial and religious minorities then, after this is accomplished it leads to outlawing "hate speech" against all the groups--homosexuals included. You don't buy that although the more vocal gay and lesbian websites would outright admit that this is their goal. What's wrong with you Johnnie? Don't you even understand what they're saying? | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 12 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 13 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
For decades I was repeatedly told that everyone could come to God, just as they were, and be accepted. That his church would love them. They CAN come just as they are, Johnnie, but they usually come knowing that they don't want to STAY just as they are. That while their sin would be hated, they themselves would be loved. Hating the sin, as much as I loathe your little evangellyfish cliche, does not mean that you CONFER MINORITY STATUS ON THOSE ENGAGING IN THE SIN. For those same decades, I saw many who said and did much to deny that. People who often were as unloving, unkind and ungracious as possible to any who didn't line up with their interpretation or their view of religion. Oh bla, bla, bla Not.C Johnnie--there's always room for one more hypocrite just like you. I don't recall anyone posting on this thread in "defense of sin." I have seen numerous posts trying to clarify that even those identified as sinners should be loved. And I've seen far more posts barely stopping short of a "•••• from fagsville" rant ala CHS, and a call for stoning. Loving the sinner? You interpret things the way you want to. I use the word 'queer' because they do, and I resent the robbing of a completely otherwise useful word--gay--from the English language to have it hijacked by the sodomites to make themselves euphemistically a happy little crowd. And John, you are posting in defense of sin. You're just too damn blind to see it. (Message edited by cordell on May 13, 2007) (Message edited by cordell on May 13, 2007) | ||
| dancer2 New member Username: dancer2 Post Number: 5 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 84.231.160.111 |
Regarding Åke Green then, I don't know the fellow, but when he says that homosexuals are a cancer/tumor on society, implying that his listeners are justified in going out and "cutting this sickness out of society" by whatever means they see fit, I do call that sinful. Why? He is encouraging hateful rejection of a whole class of people. When you say a whole group of people are a cancer, you are not "hating the sin but loving the sinner," you are just plain encouraging hatred. I condemn Green fro the same reason I would condemn Ian Paisley (at least before the latter started to manifest fruits of repentance this spring). But Cordell can't accept any moral reasoning without proof texts. O.K.: Psalm 11:5 The LORD, the Righteous One, examines the wicked, and those who love violence his soul hates. Micah 6:8 And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. Matt. 5:44,45 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Matt. 9:13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Matt. 18:33 Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you? (whole parable worth considering) James 2:13 Judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment! I think the idea is quite clear in scripture: the role of the believer is to pass on the mercy he has received, not to label those he morally disapproves of. No, that does not mean approving of sin, but it does mean leaving moralizing against both "sinners" and "brothers" way in the background. Spreading hatred because of moral disapproval is categorically rejected. Sad how few fundies take the trouble to consider this aspect of the Gospel message! | ||
| dancer2 New member Username: dancer2 Post Number: 6 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 84.231.160.111 |
Cordell also made some inferrences as to my take on the Romans 1 anti-gay spiel. FWDIM I think it is first of all worth pointing out that Paul does not reiterate anything about the Levitical law here. He's basically saying that among the "heathen" those who disregard basic standards of morality (the voice of God within them) have been cursed with homosexual tendencies as a result. Not only that; they have become compulsively full of envy, murder, strife, deceit... gossips, slanderers, insolent, boastful... disobey their parents... senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless... So Paul considered homosexuality (in some contexts at least) to be part of God's curse on the disobedient. This he considers to be part and parcel of the nasty political culture of Rome in that age. He definitely considered this to be unnatural, in the same way he considered it to be unnatural for men to have long hair (1 Cor. 11:14). Could urges in this direction have been his famous "thorn in the flesh"? In some ways it would fit, though obviously it cannot be proven one way or the other. Were this to be the case it would hurt Cordell's faith a lot more than mine. I won't wrestle with this pig any further. I expect a pile of further ad-hominem attacks and irrational justifications for sexual obsessions, and it's fine with me if those are the last word on this subject. I only hope that some of the fundies out there who are part of that ultra-rare category of "upright men" (cf. Eccl. 7:28) will stop to seriously consider the pros and cons of continuing to defend hate campaigns. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 14 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
implying that his listeners are justified in going out and "cutting this sickness out of society" by whatever means they see fit, I do call that sinful. You're either psychic or an idiot. How do you read that into it? Have you seen the guy? He's an old man! I doubt very seriously that he was attempting to incite any of his congregation out there on that island where he preaches to be violent against the queers. Why? He is encouraging hateful rejection of a whole class of people. When you say a whole group of people are a cancer, you are not "hating the sin but loving the sinner," you are just plain encouraging hatred. I hate murder. I wish every murderer were in jail. I wish by speaking out against murder that every potential murderer would feel condemned to hell if he or she did not repent of the murder they intended. If there are a class of murderers out there who might feel condemned or ostracized from society by my speech that would be too damn bad. I am not however saying, that we ought all to become vigilantes, but that we ought to encourage passage of good laws and (in the countries that still have it) to maintain a righteous execution of the death penalty, because men are created in the image of God. I have, however, preached in prisons to murderers and I have done one to one Bible studies with them and have encouraged them to repent and seek forgiveness of their sins and to take Christ as Lord. There is absolutely nothing wrong with HATING homosexuality AND its effects on society any more than there is any thing wrong with hating murder, adultery, theft or any other sin which affects society. Does our hatred of murder condemn a whole slew of murderers? If so, good. Fact is, sonny, YOU don't REALLY see homosexuality in the same way scripture does, especially when it wraps it up in the same context with the other sins mentioned in Romans 1 and elsewhere. I note that you don't put ACT JUSTLY in bold in your Micah 6 quote, because you have no concept of justice. As for all your quotes concerning mercy, it is usually shown to those who are willing to receive it, not given to the unrepentant to justify their own sinful lifestyles as not really being anything other than the 'way they were born'. The role of the believer is to glorify God and enjoy him. In so doing he is called to preach the gospel. The gospel has to do with salvation from sin. Sin is a transgression against the law of God. Homosexuality is a sin against the seventh commandment as much as murder is against the sixth and flouting the law is against the fifth. In order for sinners to know the 'mercy' of God they first need to understand what they are being shown mercy from. One who begs for mercy, begs because of imminent danger from righteous punishment in the case of God. It might be a very good idea indeed before showing this nondescript mercy to all and sundry to explain why they need it in the first place. In that homosexuality is a sign that God has already GIVEN THAT PERSON UP it becomes very clear indeed that they need to understand the gravity of their situation. NOT explaining this to them is HARDLY merciful. And so you are not ACTUALLY merciful in your take on the subject. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 15 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 70.124.124.36 |
I haven't done a lot of pasting of websites on this thread, but the following is from an article by Joe Bob Briggs. Yeah, that Joe Bob Briggs, 'the drive-in movie critic' from Texas ('Joe Bob Briggs' is about as real a character of John Irving Bloom as Sacha Baron Cohen's 'Borat' or Danny Whitney's 'Larry the Cable Guy'). The difference is that Bloom lets Joe Bob write articles for The Door, a Christian satire magazine, and this is part of what he had to say concerning Romans 1: There's more, but the essence of the passage is this: God did it. God created homosexuality. And God turned it loose on men so that they would receive the true desires of their own hearts – serving themselves more than they served God. As such, it's the ultimate self-love. Homosexuality, according to Paul, was a specific psychological torment invented by God to reveal "vain imaginations" and "foolish hearts," which led to death instead of life. In the immediately preceding verses, Paul is speaking specifically about what their true error was – turning away from God's power. The sin isn't homosexuality. The sin is regarding God as nothing. Homosexuality is simply something God allows so that men who have already turned away from God can see the fruits of their "reprobate minds," to use his words again. He constantly says God did it, though. God "gave them over." God "gave them up." God used homosexuality – and not just homosexuality, but fornication, murder, pride and a whole cornucopia of other sins – to show men their true natures. The whole article is here. Well done, ol' Joe Bob. | ||
| hadasa New member Username: hadasa Post Number: 2 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 71.58.164.118 |
Work of the magnificent D2. "I think the idea is quite clear in scripture: the role of the believer is to pass on the mercy he has received, not to label those he morally disapproves of. No, that does not mean approving of sin, but it does mean leaving moralizing against both "sinners" and "brothers" way in the background. Spreading hatred because of moral disapproval is categorically rejected." What a bunch of contradictory double speak. "Pass the mercy," ok I guess you means I'm ok your ok no matter what......"That does not mean approving of sin"......ok so we are to take a moral stand on right and wrong......... "but it leaves moralizing...way in the background".....oh, now were not to take a moral stand.......because....and here's the logical rationally constructed conclusion...because it's spreading hatred even if, I guess, were "not approving of sin" Yeah it's easy to see why spiritually bankrupt folk like yourself would feel giddy being a 'martyr' alongside John. Your hermeneutic is degraded to a point only exceeded by the importance you and john give to your anemic words. Collins, clever, you attempting to piggy back on the ggwo situation where there was doctrinal error to attempt to cultivate the idea that no one can know anything absolutely.....or else your like what the leaders in ggwo did, just totalitarian swine eh....you could twist Liftons ideas to make any institution look unbalanced. There is nothing more repulsive than people that go to this level to wrangle and twist the word of God to their own destruction.....and anyone so cursed to listen to them. | ||
| dancer2 New member Username: dancer2 Post Number: 7 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 84.231.160.111 |
I said I won't wrestle with this one any further, but Cordell made one interesting statement that I'd like to ask for a clarification on: In that homosexuality is a sign that God has already GIVEN THAT PERSON UP it becomes very clear indeed that they need to understand the gravity of their situation. It honestly hadn't occurred to me before that a Calvinist fundamentalist would take homosexual urges to be evidence of predestination to damnation. That would be a perfectly consistent interpretation from your perspective. Is that what you actually were intending to say? Is that publicly taught within your current denomination? These aren't polemic questions; I'd honestly like to better understand where you're coming from -- sort of like asking a devout Catholic to explain the doctrine of indulgences. | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 16 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 209.184.56.178 |
I didn't have the doctrine of predestination in mind when I made the statement. I was reading the passage on its face, and as ol' Joe Bob does as well--that GOD GAVE THEM UP. This giving up is a result of behavior. Three times here it says that. Here is the last instance of the phrase in that chapter: And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient In the beginning God created man in his own image, male and female. They did not like to retain God in their knowledge. So God gave them over to the consequences of what they did want. When someone displays an IDENTITY of "THIS IS WHO I AM" contrary to the knowledge of God that they chose not to retain--they show they've been given up. (I am not saying homosexuals are beyond saving, that is one reason why, however, I believe that regeneration in all of us is miraculous rather than initiated by an act of human will.) What do you think GOD GAVE THEM UP means? | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 17 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 209.184.56.178 |
This passage in Jude, however, does give some Calvinists pause for thought concerning reprobation and 'double' predestination: For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. And the context is interesting in view of the current discussion: Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. | ||
| david_munson New member Username: david_munson Post Number: 18 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 63.22.181.201 |
A lttile info on the process. --- It Didn't Happen Overnight by Sen. H. L. Richardson (Ret.) Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org Because of my many years as a conservative in elected office, I have been asked by others, "how did we get in this mess we are in?" The great author Robert Louis Stevenson wisely said, "Sooner or later in life, we all sit down to a banquet of consequences." That's what's happening now, we're at the banquet. Here is a brief synopsis of how it happened. Many Americans believe that the core religious values, which founded and sustained this nation, have not only been sadly neglected but also forgotten. In so doing, the public is finding out what political ignorance and religious apathy has created. While godly people snoozed and gun owners were busy hunting, small minorities of hedonists have inveigled their way into government and have been able to impose their political will upon the majority. continued,} | ||
| david_munson New member Username: david_munson Post Number: 19 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 63.22.181.201 |
It didn't happen over night. To understand, we have to go back one hundred years to the comments of a very wise man, President Theodore Roosevelt. He stated, "There are those who believe that a new modernity demands a new morality. What they fail to consider is the harsh reality that there is no such thing as a new morality. There is only one morality. There is only true Christian ethics over against which stands the whole of paganism. If we are to fulfill our great destiny as a people, then we must return to the old morality, the sole morality." Roosevelt saw moral slippage occurring at the beginning of the last century. He saw radical activists proclaiming a "new morality" embodying atheism and materialism. They were becoming increasingly vocal on our college campuses and were becoming more active in American politics, promoting their "new" morality. They were also attempting to elect their candidates on the socialist ticket. In the beginning, the Socialists and their allies were singularly unsuccessful and remained small in number. The vast majority of Americans were happy with our liberty, constitutional government, free enterprise and politics implemented through the two party system. At the beginning of the last century, a socialist by the name of Lenin, put wheels under the world socialist movement. He lead a small minority of communists in overthrowing the czarist government in Russia; in so doing, Lenin developed a financial base and a national platform for the promotion of world socialism. After the First World War, the hard core left became more politically active in the United States. Lenin was an excellent organizer, and he and other socialist leaders realized that it was an impossible task to sell their bad tasting political medicine to the vast majority of Americans. Norman Thomas, an early leader in the American socialist movement promoted the concept that Americans would never knowingly adopt socialism but, under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened. Continued, } | ||
| david_munson New member Username: david_munson Post Number: 20 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 63.22.181.201 |
The left abandoned their attempts to sell their socialist programs as a third party and decided that there was more fertile political ground within the two party system running as "liberals" and "progressives." At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the democrats had a weak political party, eager for any new members. The left seized the opportunity and registered as democrats. They were aware that both parties are open to any one who registers in either party. The socialists recognized that to be a candidate, all you have to do is register, be of age, alive, not a felon and have the money to legally file for office. There is no political litmus test in either party in order to be a member or a candidate. Socialists could easily register as Democrats and campaign on any issue to get elected rather than campaigning on socialist programs -- say anything to win the office, then legislate as they please once in office. The left-wing political leader ship recognized that by themselves, they were only a tiny percentage of the American population. They did, however, recognize that only one out of four Americans vote in primary elections and therefore, a small percentage could nominate a candidate in primary elections since multiple candidates often seek the office. The left saw that in local elections for school boards and city council and supervisors, even smaller numbers could affect the outcome. If their Socialists candidates won local offices, they could establish a base of operations in order to move up step by step to higher office, such as state representatives, state senators and at a later opportunity, to Congress and the US Senate. The following is an actual example of how a small minority can win a major California State Senate office. Registration heavily favored the Republican Party. District population approximately 600,000 Those who could register to vote 400,000 Those who bothered to register 235,000 Total who voted in primary election 120,000 Republican primary vote 70,000 Democrat primary vote 50,000 Eight candidates sought the Republican nomination The Republican winning candidate gained 16,000 And won handily. In the general election, he easily gained the senate seat and served for 22 years. Is this race an exception? No! It happens all the time. Realize the significance of only 16,000 votes out of potentially 400,000 who could have participated. Think about it. Is it any wonder that a small, dedicated minority of voters could have a disproportionate impact on our government when three out of four Americans don't even register or bother to take part in primary elections, in the important process of selecting who their candidates might be? It has been said that when one American was informed that much of the country's population suffered from both political ignorance and apathy. His yawning response was "I don't know and I don't care." continued, } | ||
| david_munson New member Username: david_munson Post Number: 21 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 63.22.181.201 |
The socialists, in democratic garb, had a long-range plan with little to stand in their way. Since they were atheists and agnostics, they believed that any method that achieved socialist power was "ethical." The expression, "the end justifies the means" became their motto and method of operations. Deception and lying became the tools of their trade. During the latter 1800's and early 1900's, the socialist base was still too small to elect their numbers to many offices; they needed to attract additional support. Now clothed as liberals in democratic garb, they increased their numbers by wooing small disgruntled and politically isolated segments of the population, with future promises of political advantage. Knowing that by adding small segment by segment, their combined small numbers could add up enough votes to win primary elections. They first successfully impacted and wooed segments of the union movement. Then over the years, adding little segments one at a time, they captured support from the homosexual community by sympathizing with their "gay" activities. They attracted anti-war pacifists, disgruntled feminists, the extreme environmentalists, gun control supporters and any other dissident group that could be wooed with future promises of legislative support. Adopting "class action" agitation, they pandered to any group they could exploit and bring on board. During the growth of their move towards power, the left wing leadership wisely kept these segments separated, appealing to them directly, and then, only to each one's special interest. They knew there would be difficulties if they ever brought them all together, for they certainly didn't want to have meetings of rank and file union members with the "gay" community nor the elderly with anti-war activists. The socialist knew that, with accurate polling information, they could campaign on issues that they didn't really believe -- but appealed to the average voter; they didn't have to broadcast who their real supporters happened to be. The great depression of the 1930's brought the democrats into national power at all levels of government, including a segment of the "liberal" Democrats. The majority of the Democratic legislators elected during the 1930's and 1940's were still traditional Americans in their ethics and values. However, few old-line Democrats saw trouble brewing and the shift in leadership taking place within their own party. The old time Democrat found out soon enough when he found himself gerrymandered out of his seat and replaced by a young leftist. continued, } | ||
| david_munson New member Username: david_munson Post Number: 22 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 63.22.181.201 |
At the present time, the good ole hard working •••••••, the symbol of the Democrats, should have been changed to the condor; a bird far more in keeping with the leftward slant of their party. A condor is a large ugly vulture, which feeds on carrion. It stays afloat on hot air and deserts its young when frightened. Its defense mechanism is to throw up, barf a stream of semi-digested meat on its enemies. The bird can't survive near civilization and is becoming extinct in proximity to civilized society. To keep it alive in California, the government now subsidizes its food. It survives quite well in backward South American countries. Could anyone think of a more appropriate symbol for a left-wing socialist movement? Over many years, the planned "liberal leftist" control over the inner workings of the Democrat party structure increased dramatically. Working together as an organized minority during the nineteen fifties and sixties, the leftists set forth to take control of the Democrat party leadership. Achieving substantial success, they then moved to influence the Republican Party as well, running their candidates as liberals or "moderate" Republicans. RINOs (Republican In Name Only) became a small dissident element in the Republican Party as well. Small but mouthy, they are the croaking frogs on republican lily pads. While in office, during the 1970's and 1980's, I saw the left grasp control over the political fortunes of the Democrat party, On a first hand basis, right before my own eyes, I watched it happen. Today, the socialists are the dominant voice in its elected leadership. Whenever the opportunity presented itself, they effectively and systematically eliminated conservative democrat office holders within their ranks. Because the Left now controls leadership, they control candidate funding, thereby controlling who wish to be elected and leveraging Democrat incumbents who wish to be returned to office. A very conspicuous case of rooting out non-conforming members of the Democrat party is the primary election defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. In six years this long-time Senator went from national icon of the Democrat party to pariah. The message is the same -- tow the line, or else. Over the past fifty years, controlling the vast wealth created through taxation, they have built a huge federal, state and local bureaucracy which not only employs their own kind but implements a wealth of programs that reflects the wishes of their base, the unions, the gays, the feminists the anti war pacifists, the gun controllers, etc. Through laws, they have dramatically increased their power and have done what Norman Thomas hoped would happen. continued, } | ||
| david_munson New member Username: david_munson Post Number: 23 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 63.22.181.201 |
The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened. Fortunately, a number of Americans are aware of how it's happening and are trying to inform their fellow Americans. Millions of Americans still hold to the core traditional and religious values that founded this nation and, properly informed, are working diligently to see the left in both parties are routed out of our Constitutional government. The first glimmer of hope came with the republican nomination of Barry Goldwater for president in the 1960's. Although he was soundly defeated in the general election, he defeated in the primary, the darling of the left leaning republicans, Nelson Rockefeller. Conservatives rallied to work for Goldwater and didn't quit working after his defeat. In California, in 1966, they defeated another "moderate" in the primary by nominating and electing as governor, something as rare as a right-winger in Hillary Clinton's staff -- a conservative actor. The fledgling American core value revolt was under way. A voice was raised promoting our traditions and our ethics: activist organizations began to crop all over America -- politically unsophisticated but eager to learn. Fourteen years later, they nominated and elected Ronald Reagan to the presidency. In 1994, the Lower House of Congress went republican and its leadership shifted toward conservatism. Was liberalism dead? Not by a long sight. They had managed to control both houses of Congress for forty years. The Republicans held narrow margins but with a few "moderate" RINOs in their midst, their control is iffy. The lefties were deeply imbedded in the Northeastern states and were the controlling factor in most large cities. continued, } | ||
| david_munson New member Username: david_munson Post Number: 24 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 63.22.181.201 |
However, they were increasingly having problems within their own ranks. The splinter groups they'd attracted and wooed began to make demands. They had contributed to the democrat victories, now they wanted their reward. They wanted more of their own elected to office and they wanted their issues enacted into law. Instead of being splinter groups kept in the closet, they demanded to be heard, and their wishes subsequently become part of our laws. They got their wish and, and the dissidents are now running the "Democratic" party. The tail is now wagging the old "Democrat" donkey. The anti-war, pro-abort, environmental extremists, soft on crime, big spending liberals, feminists and deviants of both sexes are calling the political tune and are marching hand in hand in gay parades. The large body of old rank and file Democrats are scratching their heads and wondering, "What's going on?" Big changes are now occurring. The South, traditionally Democrat but fundamentally religious, has turned Republican. Not because of any great love for the Republican structure, but because of their disgust over the present leftward drift of their own party. Amongst elected democrats, hoping to seek higher office and recognizing that the new base of the party has become a collection of wacko wonks, are trying to cover and obfuscate this fact by constantly attacking their opposition as "extreme," haters of the poor or religious bigots. Their rhetoric borders the wild -- trying to please their base while seeking to appear as moderate to the average voter. It ain't working. They are in trouble and they know it. The governmental bureaucracy, which houses and provides jobs for their supporters, is being threatened. Their economic base is vulnerable and their future is suspect. How can they send Junior and Zelda to Harvard if they are outa' work? Therefore, their attacks are becoming more vicious and the thin veneer of civility is wearing off their "democratic" facade. continued, } | ||
| david_munson New member Username: david_munson Post Number: 25 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 63.22.181.201 |
There is a truism in economic circles, "bad money drives out good." The same thing is true in politics. Bad people drive out good ones. In the "Democratic" party that rule is holding true. Bad democrats drive out good ones. In rural America, the trend is decidedly towards basic American values. Who would have believed forty years ago, that below the Mason Dixon Line, the South would turn Republican? Or that rock-ribbed republican New Englanders would tolerate Barney Frank or Ted Kennedy in office? The left hasn't gained total control, for if they had, they'd have made it a "crime" for me to write what I have just written. There is still time to turn it all around and get the buggers out of government. I know it's possible and so does the left, which is why, when challenged, and a conservative leaning judge is appointed to the Supreme Court, the thin veneer of civility rubs off for all to see. We are now witnessing how uncivil and uncouth they really are. They started as a minority and still are a minority. The big difference is that over the last hundred years, they have embedded themselves and their unworkable policies in all facets of government -- including education and segments of the major media. They can be routed out but they won't go willingly. They have worked hard to get where they are and are going to see that all their socialist programs are going to be shoved down our collective throats. They are nasty people. Rub off that thin veneer of civility and see for yourselves. Theodore Roosevelt also said, "All those blatant sham reformers, in the name of new morality, preach the old, old vice and self indulgence which rotted out first, the moral fiber and then even the external greatness of Greece and Rome." Is America next? Are we to be "rotted out by sham reformers?" Are we to be apathetic Americans who say, "I don't know and I don't care!"? I don't think so. I believe we are at the banquet and Americans are feasting on the political consequences of the last one hundred years. They don't like the taste of the political concoctions they've been fed and are demanding and working for change. --- Sometimes truth can be found in the strangest places. If you only look beyond the facade. } | ||
| sister_mary New member Username: sister_mary Post Number: 8 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 87.94.110.152 |
The childrens books are even polluted with gey-friendly images today. They say Winnie the Pooh is an example... that is made so nice in the eyes of children that they cannot see anything wrong in it, pink colored Piglet is a male friend of Winnie the Pooh! http://disney.go.com/characters/pooh/html/meet/index.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFLod6kgAvQ&mode=related&search= | ||
| david_munson Junior Member Username: david_munson Post Number: 26 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 63.22.181.201 |
????????????? !!!!!!!!! ? HUH? } | ||
| anon_brief New member Username: anon_brief Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 205.188.116.74 |
First Tinky Winky, now Piglet. What IS this world coming to? | ||
| cordell New member Username: cordell Post Number: 18 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 71.41.31.206 |
hey, I use to be a fan of Gomer Pyle. | ||
| sister_mary New member Username: sister_mary Post Number: 9 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 87.94.110.152 |
Yea, somebody has written about Piglets geyness: http://passingtwice.com/piglet.html and also an article about Winnie the Poohs geyness: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/news/2623/its-gay-world-after-all | ||
| melymbrosia New member Username: melymbrosia Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.29.179.76 |
Wow. I haven't posted or read this board forever, but this is pretty much the last straw. Perhaps some of you remember me, notably GTP who was convinced that I was naught but Neil's alter ego. But that's irrelevant. I came here (to Factnet) in order to heal from the seven years of my life I wasted in GGWO as a teenager. I did not come here to hear the same exact bashing of gays, liberals, feminists and democrats (all of which I am) that I heard at GGWO in every sermon, rap and Bible study. Just last week, I got an email from a dear sweet woman I used to know at church. She had worked at GGCA and asked me to substitute for her (which I gladly did) while she was ill for several weeks. I sent her a quick email to say hello, to which she replied, "Since you are a homosexual, I no longer know you. Read Paul's letter to the Romans and direct any questions you have to a local pastor." Don't bother flaming me with your condemnation of my sinful lifestyle; I won't be back to read it. I'm tired of setting myself up to be hurt by people who claim to "love me in Christ", just like everyone in GGWO always did. If you spout the same exact hate and prejudice toward people who are not exactly like you as Carl Stevens does, then, my friends, you are no better than Stevens, Schaller and their cronies. Thanks to those of you in this thread who spoke up against homophobia and for inclusiveness. It has been good knowing you. Melymbrosia a.k.a Lujza P.S. I have no idea why this is showing up as my first post; I've been here since 11/04. | ||
| isabella New member Username: isabella Post Number: 4 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 24.128.143.230 |
David Munson, I hoped you would not swallow the poison...but do as you will..... While we're at it, let's talk about the the immigration thing. These people are taking our jobs, filling their pockets with (our) social-security money, getting health care without paying....having babies so they can stay here......and on and on... Wadiya think? | ||
| exsec New member Username: exsec Post Number: 1 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 68.52.28.136 |
Dear John, I too have read Lifton's 8 criteria of thought reform. I tell you what, the fireworks went off my head when I read it. It explains perfectly as to how cults get you (or any abusive group or a relationship). I would recommend that book to anyone coming out of a cult. exsec | ||
| sidethorn New member Username: sidethorn Post Number: 6 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 68.32.127.9 |
Good point Isabella, the radical Republican right stands for big business and for what big business wants which includes giving away Americans' jobs to cheap foreign labor whether overseas or at home. The US borders are leaking like crazy and thats no accident. Its like that because big business and the radical Republican right wants it that way. Forget about many thousands of families getting foreclosed out of their homes, families going hungry because daddy is underpaid and overworked, families getting substandard medical care because they cant afford the outrageous health insurance bills, or the families that can't afford to stay in their home because daddy got to see his job outsourced overseas which was made much more likely due to these crazy free trade agreements that make exporting American jobs overseas that much easier. What kind of family values is that???? Not the kind Jesus Christ would want!!! Yet the Christian right that claims family values openly supports polical candidates that want these very things. This makes no sense!! If they want to claim family values, then they should support political candidates that will stand up for American families and their survival rather than support those who want Americans' jobs given away to cheap labor wherever that may be. Immigration in this country is not evil, but too much is too much. Too many working people in this country are getting screwed while the Christian right spends so much of its time bashing gays, liberals, and Democrats while they also promote extreme radically right political candidates that don't give a rat's a$$ about millions of American workers losing their jobs to overseas outsourcing and illegal aliens here at home. Time to forget about political correctness and say what needs to be said. This country is heading to disaster due to corporate greed, corruption, outsourcing, and the preferences deliberately given to big business's bottom lines versus the needs of working families here at home. The pendulum has swung too far to the right, not the left here. Sure there are special interests on both sides of this spectrum that are harmful in God's eyes. But this excessive immigration and influx of illegals into this country to displace more and more long term Americans out of their jobs and into poverty for corporate profits is not family values, its just plain wrong. Politicians that support these policies shouldn't be supported by anyone that claims they support family values. Something the Christian right should think about before preaching their own support for the family. Ex fundie SIDETHORN | ||
| lmao New member Username: lmao Post Number: 2 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.251.144.6 |
Who from the Christian right supports leaky borders and big greedy business? Has the Christian right failed or has the Republican party failed the Christian right? Maybe the problem is worldliness. Everybody wants it now. Everybody is greedy. Everybody is shortsighted. We vote for those who promise the most. We buy the cheapest products that are made in China which causes an industrial revolution there which causes Chinese demand for oil to go up which causes the US price of gasoline to go up. Any money we save at Walmart we spend at Shell. | ||
| sidethorn New member Username: sidethorn Post Number: 7 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 68.32.127.9 |
The Republican Party has really failed the Christian right as a whole. Fortunately more and more evangelicals from the Christian right are waking up and realize the |
