| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
21 Jun 2006 04:11:28 AM |
| Object: |
homosexuality no sin |
New US church leader says homosexuality no sin
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060619/ts_nm/religion_episcopals_bishop_dc
[excerpt]
Mon Jun 19, 3:50 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church
Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality
was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same
gender
[end excerpt].
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
21 Jun 2006 11:23:31 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:n73i92lqq8d5ucghrbae2rshbkihdag45s@4ax.com...
New US church leader says homosexuality no sin
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060619/ts_nm/religion_episcopals_bishop_dc
[excerpt]
Mon Jun 19, 3:50 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church
Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality
was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same
gender
[end excerpt].
If God wanted people of the same sex to love one another, why would He tell
us that to,(paraphrase) lay with men as you would lay with a woman is
sinful?
The Episcopalian Church is in touch with human feelings, and has lost touch
with the moral high ground. Religion is supposed to be a rudder that helps
people navigate through life. When the church pulls the rudder up, then we
navigate poorly and all of humanity suffers as a result.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
22 Jun 2006 12:31:42 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com>
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:n73i92lqq8d5ucghrbae2rshbkihdag45s@4ax.com...
New US church leader says homosexuality no sin
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060619/ts_nm/religion_episcopals_bishop_dc
[excerpt]
Mon Jun 19, 3:50 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church
Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality
was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same
gender
[end excerpt].
If God wanted people of the same sex to love one another, why would He tell
us that to,(paraphrase) lay with men as you would lay with a woman is
sinful?
If God wanted us to eat Lobster Thermidor, why would He make
that an abomination?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ringer" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
22 Jun 2006 07:51:12 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:trmdnTPUhMPehgfZnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@ez2.net...
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:n73i92lqq8d5ucghrbae2rshbkihdag45s@4ax.com...
New US church leader says homosexuality no sin
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060619/ts_nm/religion_episcopals_bishop_dc
[excerpt]
Mon Jun 19, 3:50 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church
Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed
homosexuality
was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same
gender
[end excerpt].
If God wanted people of the same sex to love one another, why would He
tell us that to,(paraphrase) lay with men as you would lay with a woman is
sinful?
Actually, the Hebrew phrase this is translated from, is puzzling because
they don't know what some of the words mean. Also, it is part of what some
believe Christ was trying to get rid of, man's laws over God's laws.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
22 Jun 2006 09:50:09 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:n73i92lqq8d5ucghrbae2rshbkihdag45s@4ax.com...
:|> New US church leader says homosexuality no sin
:|> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060619/ts_nm/religion_episcopals_bishop_dc
:|> [excerpt]
:|> Mon Jun 19, 3:50 PM ET
:|>
:|> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church
:|> Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality
:|> was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same
:|> gender
:|> [end excerpt].
:|>
:|
:|
:|If God wanted people of the same sex to love one another, why would He tell
:|us that to,(paraphrase) lay with men as you would lay with a woman is
:|sinful?
Hey stupid, did gawd write that or did man write that. Who actually wrote
that? Huh?
Don't think too hard about it you will get a headache
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
22 Jun 2006 09:53:50 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
If God wanted people of the same sex to love one another, why would He tell
us that to,(paraphrase) lay with men as you would lay with a woman is
sinful?
Maybe He didn't. To at least 2/3 of the world the Bible is no more
the "word of God" than the New York telephone directory is. To most
of the rest, they may use the phrase "word of God" but do not
interpret that is meaning that God actually said those things.
The Episcopalian Church is in touch with human feelings, and has lost touch
with the moral high ground.
There is no moral high ground.
Religion is supposed to be a rudder that helps people navigate through life.
Perhaps. And the Episcopals want to help gays navigate through life
as well as non-gays. The best way to do that is not judge them as
being any more sinful than the rest of us.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
23 Jun 2006 07:47:45 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:sgbl92lru0smt8vu09k51a371psmeen9d5@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
If God wanted people of the same sex to love one another, why would He
tell
us that to,(paraphrase) lay with men as you would lay with a woman is
sinful?
Maybe He didn't. To at least 2/3 of the world the Bible is no more
the "word of God" than the New York telephone directory is. To most
of the rest, they may use the phrase "word of God" but do not
interpret that is meaning that God actually said those things.
I'm pretty sure that homosexuality is a sin for Jews, and is not tolerated
among Muslims. So, between Christians, Jews, and Muslims, I've managed to
demonstrate that homosexuality is sinful nature in the eyes of perhaps 90%
of the world's population.
I'd be happy to hear from a Jew or a Muslim that their religion allows for
same-sex life partners.
The Episcopalian Church is in touch with human feelings, and has lost
touch
with the moral high ground.
There is no moral high ground.
That's preciesly the problem. There IS a moral high ground, that is what
makes humans better tha all of the other animals. We have morals, animals do
not.
Religion is supposed to be a rudder that helps people navigate through
life.
Perhaps. And the Episcopals want to help gays navigate through life
as well as non-gays. The best way to do that is not judge them as
being any more sinful than the rest of us.
But they are sinful, that's the whole point. I'm sinful as well, but I'm not
gay. The church is how I know that I have sinful nature that I must curtail,
without church then life is a free-for-all with no rules -- No Morality.
When the church is afraid to call a sin a sin, then the church has lost its
usefullness -- and maybe its validity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
24 Jun 2006 01:35:31 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm pretty sure that homosexuality is a sin for Jews, and is not tolerated
among Muslims. So, between Christians, Jews, and Muslims, I've managed to
demonstrate that homosexuality is sinful nature in the eyes of perhaps 90%
of the world's population.
Unless they are Episcopalian bishops?
There is no moral high ground.
That's preciesly the problem.
It is NOT a problem.
There IS a moral high ground,
No.
that is what makes humans better tha all of the other animals.
We *aren't* better than all of the other animals.
We have morals,
which we don't agree on, so they contradict each other, and then we
violate them anyway.
animals do not.
They have instincts, and they follow those instincts much more
consistently than we follow our "moral sense"
Religion is supposed to be a rudder that helps people navigate through
life.
Perhaps. And the Episcopals want to help gays navigate through life
as well as non-gays. The best way to do that is not judge them as
being any more sinful than the rest of us.
But they are sinful, that's the whole point.
Apparently some of them disagree.
I'm sinful as well,
Yes you are.
without church then life is a free-for-all with no rules -- No Morality.
Nonsense.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
24 Jun 2006 10:05:44 AM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:71np929ok18utf2eukksjrnoghlrbb5mpi@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm pretty sure that homosexuality is a sin for Jews, and is not tolerated
among Muslims. So, between Christians, Jews, and Muslims, I've managed to
demonstrate that homosexuality is sinful nature in the eyes of perhaps 90%
of the world's population.
Unless they are Episcopalian bishops?
One bishop, that by the way is her very own controversy because some in her
religion do not accept female clergy. So, this particular bishop is
surrounded by her own partial rejection by the church she represents, and
now she is making church policy that is controversial in itself. I'm sure
the irony in this is not lost on you, Bob.
PS
I am not getting into the discussion as to whether it is right or wrong that
felame clergy is good or bad. I don't care about that issue, but clearly
some do.
There is no moral high ground.
That's preciesly the problem.
It is NOT a problem.
Yes, it is.
There IS a moral high ground,
No.
that is what makes humans better tha all of the other animals.
We *aren't* better than all of the other animals.
But we are better than the other animals. Well, some of us are.
We have morals,
which we don't agree on, so they contradict each other, and then we
violate them anyway.
The fact that we don't agree on the morals is no reason to throw them out
the window.
animals do not.
They have instincts, and they follow those instincts much more
consistently than we follow our "moral sense"
That's because when we follow our instincts instead of our morals, you look
for ways to validate the resulting action instead of looking for ways to
uphold the morals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
24 Jun 2006 03:28:54 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:71np929ok18utf2eukksjrnoghlrbb5mpi@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm pretty sure that homosexuality is a sin for Jews, and is not tolerated
among Muslims. So, between Christians, Jews, and Muslims, I've managed to
demonstrate that homosexuality is sinful nature in the eyes of perhaps 90%
of the world's population.
Unless they are Episcopalian bishops?
One bishop,
You forgot the people who elected her, who obviously support her
positions.
that by the way is her very own controversy because some in her
religion do not accept female clergy. So, this particular bishop is
surrounded by her own partial rejection by the church she represents, and
now she is making church policy that is controversial in itself. I'm sure
the irony in this is not lost on you, Bob.
It's called "leadership". (And it isn't clear that she "makes
policy").
The point is that she is among that "90%" that you claimed on no real
evidence has a different position. Therefore it is reasonable to
claim that you are utterly clueless in suggesting the 90% figure.
There is no moral high ground.
That's preciesly the problem.
It is NOT a problem.
Yes, it is.
Your worthless opinion is ignored.
that is what makes humans better tha all of the other animals.
We *aren't* better than all of the other animals.
But we are better than the other animals.
Says who? Us? We are biased.
Well, some of us are.
Some, like you, are dumber than an ox.
We have morals,
which we don't agree on, so they contradict each other, and then we
violate them anyway.
The fact that we don't agree on the morals is no reason to throw them out
the window.
If we don't agree on them, then they aren't "high ground" for all of
us. YOUR moral high ground is the pit of Death Valley for others.
animals do not.
They have instincts, and they follow those instincts much more
consistently than we follow our "moral sense"
That's because when we follow our instincts instead of our morals, you look
for ways to validate the resulting action instead of looking for ways to
uphold the morals.
I disagree with your morals, so why would I want to uphold them?
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
24 Jun 2006 04:16:04 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
I disagree with your morals, so why would I want to uphold them?
What's wrong with my morals? Are they too difficult for you to abide by?
You don't even know what my morals are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
24 Jun 2006 04:32:09 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:woOdnVtVQKQINgDZnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@ez2.net...
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
I disagree with your morals, so why would I want to uphold them?
What's wrong with my morals? Are they too difficult for you to abide by?
You don't even know what my morals are.
By the way, sex outside of marriage is a sin. Sex with minors is a sin. Sex
with multiple wives is a sin -- or husbands. Lying and cheating is a sin.
Lots of stuff is sinful, gay people do not have the market cornered.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
25 Jun 2006 08:19:48 AM |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:woOdnVtVQKQINgDZnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@ez2.net...
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
I disagree with your morals, so why would I want to uphold them?
What's wrong with my morals? Are they too difficult for you to abide by?
You don't even know what my morals are.
By the way, sex outside of marriage is a sin. Sex with minors is a sin.
Sex with multiple wives is a sin -- or husbands. Lying and cheating is a
sin. Lots of stuff is sinful, gay people do not have the market cornered.
Where in the Bible does it say that sex with people under the age of 18
is a sin? Where does it say cheating is a sin. Where does it say the
thing about multiple wives? Do you vote Republican?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
25 Jun 2006 10:45:19 AM |
|
|
"Dave" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:G9SdnbJX_ZHTEAPZnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:woOdnVtVQKQINgDZnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@ez2.net...
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
I disagree with your morals, so why would I want to uphold them?
What's wrong with my morals? Are they too difficult for you to abide by?
You don't even know what my morals are.
By the way, sex outside of marriage is a sin. Sex with minors is a sin.
Sex with multiple wives is a sin -- or husbands. Lying and cheating is a
sin. Lots of stuff is sinful, gay people do not have the market cornered.
Where in the Bible does it say that sex with people under the age of 18 is
a sin? Where does it say cheating is a sin. Where does it say the thing
about multiple wives? Do you vote Republican?
Yesterday, lying to a federal judge by a sitting President. Today, gay
marriage. Tomorrow, sex with children. The next day, polygamy. Do you vote
Democrat?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
25 Jun 2006 11:44:52 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
I disagree with your morals, so why would I want to uphold them?
What's wrong with my morals?
They disgust me.
You don't even know what my morals are.
You've made enough of them clear in your posts over the years to
achieve a thorough level of disgust in me.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
23 Jun 2006 09:28:21 PM |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:sgbl92lru0smt8vu09k51a371psmeen9d5@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
If God wanted people of the same sex to love one another, why would
He tell
us that to,(paraphrase) lay with men as you would lay with a woman is
sinful?
Maybe He didn't. To at least 2/3 of the world the Bible is no more
the "word of God" than the New York telephone directory is. To most
of the rest, they may use the phrase "word of God" but do not
interpret that is meaning that God actually said those things.
I'm pretty sure that homosexuality is a sin for Jews, and is not
tolerated among Muslims. So, between Christians, Jews, and Muslims, I've
managed to demonstrate that homosexuality is sinful nature in the eyes
of perhaps 90% of the world's population.
I'd be happy to hear from a Jew or a Muslim that their religion allows
for same-sex life partners.
The Episcopalian Church is in touch with human feelings, and has lost
touch
with the moral high ground.
There is no moral high ground.
That's preciesly the problem. There IS a moral high ground, that is what
makes humans better tha all of the other animals. We have morals,
animals do not.
Religion is supposed to be a rudder that helps people navigate
through life.
Perhaps. And the Episcopals want to help gays navigate through life
as well as non-gays. The best way to do that is not judge them as
being any more sinful than the rest of us.
But they are sinful, that's the whole point. I'm sinful as well, but I'm
not gay. The church is how I know that I have sinful nature that I must
curtail, without church then life is a free-for-all with no rules -- No
Morality.
When the church is afraid to call a sin a sin, then the church has lost
its usefullness -- and maybe its validity.
2 Billion Christian, Jew, Muslim = 4 Billion et. al. That doesn't add
up to 90%.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
23 Jun 2006 09:36:02 PM |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
I'm pretty sure that homosexuality is a sin for Jews,
and is not tolerated among Muslims. So, between
Christians, Jews, and Muslims, I've managed to
demonstrate that homosexuality is sinful nature in
the eyes of perhaps 90% of the world's population.
You're actually arguing that your "God" amounts to
nothing more than the results of a popularity contest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
23 Jun 2006 11:31:05 PM |
|
|
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151116562.694583.264490@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
I'm pretty sure that homosexuality is a sin for Jews,
and is not tolerated among Muslims. So, between
Christians, Jews, and Muslims, I've managed to
demonstrate that homosexuality is sinful nature in
the eyes of perhaps 90% of the world's population.
You're actually arguing that your "God" amounts to
nothing more than the results of a popularity contest.
I'm making no such argument. Bob suggested that Christians are less than 30
% of the world's population. My point is that homosexuality is universally
rejected among no only christians, but Jews and Muslims as well.
In America alone, homosexuality is rejected by greater than 80% of the
population. I don't know if there is a connection, but it just so happens
that more than 80% of Americans are religious of one faith or another.
Homosexuals comprise less than 10% of the population, and less than 20% of
the population thinks they should be given full marriage rights. The bottom
line is that homosexuality is a sin, a sin that the Bible -- at the very
least -- and the other major religions reject.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
24 Jun 2006 01:39:57 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm making no such argument. Bob suggested that Christians are less than 30
% of the world's population.
They are. And even many of them have no problem with homosexuals.
My point is that homosexuality is universally rejected among no only christians,
But it isn't, since the new Episcopal bishop disagrees that it is a
sin.
And that was NOT the point I responded to. I responded to your claim
that
If God wanted people of the same sex to love one another, why would He tell
us that to,(paraphrase) lay with men as you would lay with a woman is
sinful?
which is dependent on accepting a particular text as being God talking
to us.
In America alone, homosexuality is rejected by greater than 80% of the
population.
No.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
24 Jun 2006 09:48:10 AM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:sbnp925665arss7vs0o71d7rg2ppv2l5ql@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm making no such argument. Bob suggested that Christians are less than
30
% of the world's population.
They are. And even many of them have no problem with homosexuals.
My point is that homosexuality is universally rejected among no only
christians,
But it isn't, since the new Episcopal bishop disagrees that it is a
sin.
This is the entire point Bob. The new bishop has made a declaration that is
ripping the Episcopalian church apart. W3hile the bishop has made a
declaration, the church members are in disaray because they do not accept
it. That is precisely the point.
And that was NOT the point I responded to. I responded to your claim
that
If God wanted people of the same sex to love one another, why would He
tell
us that to,(paraphrase) lay with men as you would lay with a woman is
sinful?
which is dependent on accepting a particular text as being God talking
to us.
But, Bob, you are loking at God strictly from a Christian perspective. I'm
saying that God's word is universal among Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam.
The difference in these three major religions is man's intrepretation and
practice of God's word, not God's word.
Men (humans) have chosen to intrepret and practice the same word in
different manners, and this is the variance among religions. The variance
isn't in the root, it's in the tree.
In America alone, homosexuality is rejected by greater than 80% of the
population.
No.
You're wrong. Okay, you refuse to accept the cold hard facts, and that's not
the same thing as wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
24 Jun 2006 03:20:25 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:sbnp925665arss7vs0o71d7rg2ppv2l5ql@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm making no such argument. Bob suggested that Christians are less than
30
% of the world's population.
They are. And even many of them have no problem with homosexuals.
My point is that homosexuality is universally rejected among no only
christians,
But it isn't, since the new Episcopal bishop disagrees that it is a
sin.
This is the entire point Bob. The new bishop has made a declaration that is
ripping the Episcopalian church apart.
That is arguable. It may be ripping the Anglican and the Episcopal
churches apart, but even that is questionable.
W3hile the bishop has made a
declaration, the church members are in disaray because they do not accept
it.
SOME church members don't accept it. So what? Your claim was that ALL
Christians consider it a sin. The bishop is a Christian; The bishop
does not. Disproof by counterexample. QED
which is dependent on accepting a particular text as being God talking
to us.
But, Bob, you are loking at God strictly from a Christian perspective.
No. YOU were. Those who are not Christian may have other reasons for
their beliefs. But not the one you stated.
I'm
saying that God's word is universal among Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam.
But it isn't. The Episcopal bishop obviously disagrees with you and
she is among Christianity.
The difference in these three major religions is man's intrepretation and
practice of God's word, not God's word.
Wrong.
In America alone, homosexuality is rejected by greater than 80% of the
population.
No.
You're wrong.
No. You use the polls on ONE issue related to homosexuality. If you
look at polls phrasing the question differently, the percentage is
like most very divisive issues in this country, about 50/50.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
24 Jun 2006 04:12:53 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:s97r92l8us17hv8rujmbmj7ogubkjbh46r@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:sbnp925665arss7vs0o71d7rg2ppv2l5ql@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm making no such argument. Bob suggested that Christians are less than
30
% of the world's population.
They are. And even many of them have no problem with homosexuals.
My point is that homosexuality is universally rejected among no only
christians,
But it isn't, since the new Episcopal bishop disagrees that it is a
sin.
This is the entire point Bob. The new bishop has made a declaration that
is
ripping the Episcopalian church apart.
That is arguable. It may be ripping the Anglican and the Episcopal
churches apart, but even that is questionable.
Well, the church itself says there is a rift, and the rift is growing.
W3hile the bishop has made a
declaration, the church members are in disaray because they do not accept
it.
SOME church members don't accept it. So what? Your claim was that ALL
Christians consider it a sin. The bishop is a Christian; The bishop
does not. Disproof by counterexample. QED
I did not say that all Christians consider it a sin. I said that it's a sin
in the Bible. One can not be a church leader AND ignore the Bible. The
bishop has two huge problems, she is a woman and she supports homosexuality.
These are two issues that the church members have difficulty with.
which is dependent on accepting a particular text as being God talking
to us.
But, Bob, you are loking at God strictly from a Christian perspective.
No. YOU were. Those who are not Christian may have other reasons for
their beliefs. But not the one you stated.
Are you stupid, or what? Come on Bob. I only said that homosexuality is a
sin. You raised the specter that Chirstianity is only observed by 1/3 of the
world population. I repleid to that that homosexuality is not only a sin
among Christians, but Jews and Muslims too. Homosexuality is considered a
sin by the vast majority of the world's population, whether they are
Christians or not.
I'm
saying that God's word is universal among Christianity, Judiasm, and
Islam.
But it isn't. The Episcopal bishop obviously disagrees with you and
she is among Christianity.
And she is out of touch with her own congregation.
The difference in these three major religions is man's intrepretation and
practice of God's word, not God's word.
Wrong.
How?
In America alone, homosexuality is rejected by greater than 80% of the
population.
No.
You're wrong.
No. You use the polls on ONE issue related to homosexuality. If you
look at polls phrasing the question differently, the percentage is
like most very divisive issues in this country, about 50/50.
lojbab
While I don't give a rat's ***** that there are two gay couples living next
door to one another directly across the street from me, I do care that we
give social recognition to them via gay marriage.
To suggest that I don't care about gays would be accurate. To suggest that I
care about gay marriage would aslo be true. I reject homosexuality and the
selection of a same sex life partner, as does the vast majority of
Americans. Homosexuality is a sin.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
25 Jun 2006 12:19:55 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
:|news:s97r92l8us17hv8rujmbmj7ogubkjbh46r@4ax.com...
:|> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|>>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
:|>>news:sbnp925665arss7vs0o71d7rg2ppv2l5ql@4ax.com...
:|>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|>>>>I'm making no such argument. Bob suggested that Christians are less than
:|>>>>30
:|>>>>% of the world's population.
:|>>>
:|>>> They are. And even many of them have no problem with homosexuals.
:|>>>
:|>>>>My point is that homosexuality is universally rejected among no only
:|>>>>christians,
:|>>>
:|>>> But it isn't, since the new Episcopal bishop disagrees that it is a
:|>>> sin.
:|>>
:|>>This is the entire point Bob. The new bishop has made a declaration that
:|>>is
:|>>ripping the Episcopalian church apart.
:|>
:|> That is arguable. It may be ripping the Anglican and the Episcopal
:|> churches apart, but even that is questionable.
:|>
:|
:|Well, the church itself says there is a rift, and the rift is growing.
:|
:|
:|
:|>>W3hile the bishop has made a
:|>>declaration, the church members are in disaray because they do not accept
:|>>it.
:|>
:|> SOME church members don't accept it. So what? Your claim was that ALL
:|> Christians consider it a sin. The bishop is a Christian; The bishop
:|> does not. Disproof by counterexample. QED
:|>
:|>
:|
:|I did not say that all Christians consider it a sin. I said that it's a sin
:|in the Bible. One can not be a church leader AND ignore the Bible. The
:|bishop has two huge problems, she is a woman and she supports homosexuality.
:|These are two issues that the church members have difficulty with.
You have such a simple view of life that matches your simple mind
Note the following church leader:
***************************************************************
Profile of a Bishop: John Shelby Spong
by Ellen Barrett
Reproduced from the September and October 1997 editions of The VOICE, the
newspaper of the Diocese of Newark.
http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/profile.html
[excerpt]
His convention addresses are trenchant analyses of the social context from
which the church’s mission is inseparable. Serious issues like available
and affordable health care and equal access to high-quality education are
raised not just for our prayers, but in a serious, hands-on commitment to
Episcopalians working for the good of all God’s people.
It is a tribute to the Bishop’s intellectual integrity that his views on
hot-button issues do not remain static even as he articulates them
publicly. Almost inexorably he has been led into controversy after
controversy, and the issues that have brought him the most notoriety have
been those concerned with sexuality.
His involvement started quietly enough. General Convention resolved in 1982
that the church should begin serious study of “changing patterns of family
life.” Three or four years later, the Bishop commissioned a diocesan task
force to study what he considered to be three key points: The overwhelming
increase in young people living together outside of marriage; unmarried
older people living together for various economic reasons; and whether
people living in homosexual relationships could be called into the church’s
desire to consecrate human partnership. The underlying theme was the
pastoral recognition that sex inside of marriage is not always holy, but
can be abused. Might it then follow that sex not blessed by the sacrament
of matrimony might sometimes be holy, or at least tend in that direction?
From this tentative beginning, the Bishop and the diocese went forth into
uncharted territory. Spong took his usual route, educating first his head
and then assimilating his findings to his heart. A nationwide storm broke
in 1987 when the pressreported the committee’s findings as endorsing gay
marriage. Out of that publicity came the book, Living in Sin, solicited by
Abingdon Press, but cancelled at the last moment because of hostile
reaction to pre-publication ads. The book was soon picked up by
HarperCollins, and outsold all his previous volumes. A book tour and
numerous radio and TV talk shows followed. The outspoken Bishop found
himself the target of anger from all sides. Opposition from conservative
extremists led to his next book, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism.
Acting on his growing conviction that gay people should be fully included
in the life of the church, Spong ordained Robert Williams in 1989. The wave
of hostility Williams’ ordination generated even intruded upon the funeral
service for Spong’s wife, Joan. She was buried from their old parish church
in Richmond, and as the Bishop and his daughters sat beside the coffin a
woman approached him, struck him across the shoulders with her cane, called
him a “*****,” and strode out triumphantly through the
pallbearers. But not all reaction was negative. When the Bishop thanked the
lay ministers for taking time off from their jobs for the service, it
turned out that all were from the Richmond chapter of Integrity and had
come to serve as a show of their support. The Bishop who had once dismissed
a gay vicar was well on the way to becoming a hero of the gay community as
well as a target of conservative wrath.
******************************************************************
Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of
Scripture, by Bishop John Shelby Spong,
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060675187/103-3954210-3883824?v=glance&n=283155
************************************************************************************
The following paper by Bishop Peter Lee (Southern Africa) and Bishop Jack
Spong (USA, Diocese of Newark) is intended as a basis for a consensus
statement at Lambeth. It was released to the press on Wednesday, May 20.
A Catechesis* On Homosexuality
*Catechesis: "A Dialogue Between Believers" (Westminster Dictionary of
Theology)
Written at the suggestion of the Archbishop of Canterbury by the Rt. Rev.
John Shelby Spong, Bishop of the Diocese of Newark (USA) and the Rt. Rev.
Peter John Lee, Bishop of the Diocese of Christ the King (Southern Africa).
http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/catech.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
25 Jun 2006 12:22:09 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|I did not say that all Christians consider it a sin. I said that it's a sin
:|in the Bible.
[snip]
:| Homosexuality is a sin.
Do you eat shellfish
"Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an
abomination unto you."
Leviticus 11:12. This verse — and a number of others — are being used by
the group "God Hates Shrimp" in response to Christian groups calling
homosexuality an abomination. The group has launched a mocking campaign to
rid all restaurants of the demon crustacean. Find out more at
GOD HATES SHRIMP
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
GOD HATES SHRIMP
About This Site
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/about.php
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
25 Jun 2006 11:48:33 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Well, the church itself says there is a rift, and the rift is growing.
:|
A history lesson: (something you are always in need of)
Same Sex Marriage, Separation of Church And State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/samesex.html
[some excerpts]
Part I: Background
Same-sex Marriages (Ssm), Civil Unions &Amp; Domestic Partnerships
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr_menu.htm#menu
Same-sex marriage
http://www.fact-index.com/s/sa/same_sex_marriage.html
Same-sex marriage
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/same-sex%20marriage
John Boswell, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality_,
http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.catholic/msg/c21a17cd85f511c?q=John+Boswell&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rnum=10
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S10C2235D
Saint Paul, whose commitment to Jewish law had taken up most of his life,
never suggested that there was any historical or legal reason to oppose
homosexual behavior: if he did in fact object to it, it was purely on the
basis of functional, contemporary moral standards.
There is evidence to suggest that Paul was Gay:
Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of
Scripture, by Bishop John Shelby Spong,
Harper SanFrancisco (A Division of Harper-Collins Publishers) (1991) pp
116-118, 119, 120, 125-26 to be of interest on this topic.
Four Books of Value on The Topic
* Sex And Reason by Richard A. Posner Richard A Posner is a Judge of
the U S Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and has been mentioned in
Conservative circles several times as a possible U S Supreme Court
appointee.
* Hidden From History, Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past, Edited by
Martin Duberman, Martha Vicinus & George Chauncey, Jr. This book covers the
following periods The Ancient World, Preindustrial Societies, The 19th
Century, The Early 20th Century and WWII and Post War Era.
* Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe, by John Boswell
This book "focuses on the Authors discovery of Catholic and Orthodox
Liturgies for same-sex unions. These ceremonies, which were performed
throughout Christendom into modern times are shown to bear striking
resemblance to heterosexual nuptial services."
o Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe. By John Boswell.
http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.gaynet/msg/c196433779460c1d?q=John+Boswell&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rnum=6
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J21C1235D
* Christianity, Social Tolerance And Homosexuality, Gay People in
Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth
Century, by John Boswell (Winner of the 1981 American Book Awards for
History) "John Boswell's revolutionary study of the history of attitudes
towards Homosexuality in the christian West Challenges received opinion and
our own preconceptions about the Church's past relationship to its gay
members, among whom were priests, and even bishops and colonized saints."
o Christianity, Social Tolerance &Amp; Homosexuality, by John
Boswell (Yale U. Press, 1980) professor of history at Yale.]
http://groups.google.com/group/net.religion/msg/bead3896687deb68?q=John+Boswell&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rnum=7
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z52C2635D
Excerpt: "The most famous of the gay lover/saint couples widely
venerated in the church from the 4th to 13th centuries was Saints Serge &
Bacchus (isn't that a great pair of names!). They were Roman soldiers and
lovers who rose to high rank in the imperial army. They both became
Christians (&, it should be needless to say, remained lovers)."
Research unearths same-sex marriages blessed by church
By The Rev. Ron Pannell, Special to The Desert Sun, September 2, 2003
September 2, 2003
Section: Opinion
Page: B5
Valley voice
Ron Pannell
Readers
The Desert Sun
Research unearths same-sex marriages blessed by church
By Ron Pannell
Shame on Pope John Paul II for saying that the only union that is holy is
between a man and a woman; that the church has never recognized the
"unnatural" unions of same-sex couples. He knows that is not true. He only
prays that others will not find out.
The truth is that there exists persuasive evidence that same-sex unions
were accepted by both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches as
early as the 16th and 17th centuries.
John Boswell, professor of Ancient History at Yale University until his
death in 1994, wrote a book titled "Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe."
In his book he indicates that manuscripts found in a monastery near Rome
describe the union between two men with the Greek word "gamos," meaning
marriage.
Professor Boswell notes that same-sex unions were very common and may have
been considered holier than heterosexual ones because gay ceremonies
actually took place inside the church while straight marriages took place
outside. Probably because when the sacrament of (straight) marriage was
instituted by the Fourth Lateran Council, it was a simple blessing of the
bride on the change of her status. The act held about the same spiritual
significance as the blessing of the animals on the feast day of St. Francis
of Assisi.
Boswell also discloses more than 100 liturgies for same-sex marriage
ceremonies. Early missals set forth a "Wahlbruder" ceremony in which the
priest asks two men, "Do you take ______ to be your brother?" (Now we say
"partner in life.") Following replies of "I do," the men are asked if they
truly wish to be joined together and if they believe in the Holy Gospel and
the Holy Trinity.
In another account of a church marriage in 1620 between two women, an
observer wrote, "The happiness that shone in their eyes after sealing this
sacred bond demonstrated to all a tenderness of feelings."
Professor Boswell said, "Many, probably most, earlier Western societies
institutionalized some form of romantic same-sex unions." This gives a much
more accurate view of the immense variety of human romantic relationships
and social responses than does the prudish pretense that such
"unmentionable" things never happened.
Religious leaders and politicians should think carefully before labeling a
group of people and their love relationships as unnatural, abnormal and
against the Bible. Those are the same labels the Nazis used to brand Jews.
Has history not taught us anything?
The Rev. Ron Pannell of Cathedral City is a retired pastor in the
Metropolitan Community Churches.
###########################################################
Christian attitude towards same sex unions may not always have been as
"straight" as is now suggested
http://www.lezbeout.com/ancientgaymarriageoftwomalesaints.htm
The following on early Christian same-sex marriages was posted in a
newsgroup
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.homosexuality/msg/585df08bddbd0516?q=%22Bob+Morris,+a+volunteer+with+Hawaii's+same+sex+marriage+project%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&rnum=3
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J13C2435D
From: ()
Subject: Early Christian Same-Sex Marriages
Date: 1993-12-26 02:25:06 PST
Bob Morris, a volunteer with Hawaii's same sex marriage project, wrote
a review for project volunteers of John Boswell's lecture to Integrity,
Inc., General Convention of the Episcopal Church, July 6, 1988. John
Boswell is Professor of European History at Yale and author of
``Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality'' (University of
Chicago Press, 1980). The lecture was an early preview of Professor
Boswell's forthcoming book on the long history of Roman Catholic blessing
of a variety of same-sex unions among which continues to be marriage.
Please contact your local chapters of Integrity or of Dignity (Roman
Catholics) to find a video-taped copy of the 1988 lecture (or visit the
marriage project in Honolulu!). Here's a paraphrase of Morris' review:
For almost 1,500 years, starting as early as the 4th century, the
sacrament of same-sex marriage was recognized and celebrated by the
Catholic Church. In fact, such marriages were performed in churches
according to a written liturgy LONG BEFORE opposite-sex marriages were
performed in churches, and are still performed today in some areas.
In a forthcoming book, Professor John Boswell will explain numerous
liturgical texts which describe sacramental marriage ceremonies for
same-sex couples. These were marriages in every sense: social, legal,
spiritual, and physical.
When Marriage Between Gays Was by Rite
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html
The editors of Sexual Orientation And The Law ponted out:
"The sin conception of same-sex sexual activity prevailed in the
colonies and in the United States before the late 19th century.(7) During
this period, the modern concept of heterosexuality and homosexuality did
not exist,(8) rather, almost all non procreative or non-marital sexual
activities were considered immoral and made criminal.(9) Yet those who
transgressed the society's sexual moral code were not stigmatized as long
as they repented.(10) Furthermore, sharp distinctions were not drawn
between same-sex sexual activity and other forms of sin; rather sodomy
represented a capacity for sin inherent in everyone.(11) This conception of
all non marital or non procreative sexual acts as sinful is reflective of
the largely homogeneous society in which the family was the basic economic
and social unit. (12) The homogeneity of society also explains the absence
of distinction between homosexual and heterosexual sexual orientation. The
idea that some members of a community might be different and have different
sexual orientation was less intuitive in such a society than the contrary
notion that all members of the community were equally capable of moral
transgression. (13) The absence of a concept of sexual orientation is
particularly vivid in 19th century society's treatment of relationships
between women. During this time, deeply felt, intimate relationships
between women were seen as normal and acceptable.(14) These relationships
were both sensual and platonic,(15) they were never labeled as lesbian(16)
but rather were seen as complementary to the woman's relationship with her
husband and family.(17) Because men and women lived and worked in different
spheres, relationships between women developed naturally."(18)
FOOTNOTES:
(7) See J. KATZ, GAY/LESBIAN ALMANAC 31-48 (1983).
(8) See D'Emilio, Making and Unmaking Minorities: The Tensions Between
Gay Politics and History, 14 N.Y.U. REV. L. & SOC. CHANGE 915, 917 (1986);
Goldstein, History, Homosexuality, and Political Values: Searching for the
Hidden Determinants of Bowers v. Hardwick, 97 YALE L.J. 1073, 1087 (1988)
The terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" and the concepts behind them were
not popular in the United States until the 1920's See J. KATZ, supra note
7, at 16.
(9) See J. KATZ, Supa note 7, at 29-65; Law, Homosexuality and the
Social Meaning of Gender, 1988 Wis. L. REV. 187, 199. However, sexual acts
between two women were generally not criminalized because the laws only
sought to deter "the unnatural spilling of seed, the biblical sin of Onan."
J. DIEMILIO & E. FREEDMAN, INTIMATE MATTERS: A HISTORY OF SEXUALITY IN
AMERICA 122 (1988); see also Law, supra, at 202 n75("The traditional common
law and religious condemnation of homosexuality did not encompass women.").
(10) See J. D'EMILIO & E. FREEDMAN, supra note 9, at 15.
(11)D'Emilio, supra note 8, at 917.
(12)See Law, supra note 9, at 199.
(13) See id.
(14)See L. FADERMAN, Surpassing The Love of Men: Romantic Friendship
And Love Between Women From The Renaissance to The Present 157 (1981);
Smith-Rosenberg, The Female World of love and Ritual: Relations Between
Women in Nineteenth-Century America, I SIGNS I, 9, 27 (1975); A. RICH,
Vesuvius at Hornet The Power of Emily Dickinson, in on Lies, Secrets And
Silence: Selected Prose 1966-1978, at 161-63 (1979).
(15) Smith-Rosenberg, supra note 14, at 4.
(16)Indeed, most people never imagined that relationships between two
women could be sexual. See P. BLUMSTEIN & P. SCHWARTZ, AMERICAN COUPLES 40
(1983), see also Law, supra note 9, at 202 ("Lesbians Were censured by
silence; sexual acts between two women were unimaginable."). This view was
also a reflection of the common belief that women were asexual. See D.
Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality 376-77 (1988).
(17) See P. BLUMSTEIN & P. SCHWARTZ, supra note 16, at 41, P. CONRAD &
J.
Schneider, Deviance And Medicalization 173 (1980) (As long as women's
behavior did not interfere with carrying, bearing, and rearing of children,
it received comparatively little attention."); D. WEST, Homosexuality
Re-examined 177 (1977) ("In male-dominated societies,... lesbian
activities... seem to have been treated with an amused tolerance, so long
as they did not interfere with masculine satisfactions.").
(18) See Smith-Rosenberg, supva note 14, at 9-13; L. FADERMAN, supra
note 14, at 157-58
Source of Information:
Sexual Orientation And The Law, by the editors of the Harvard Law Review,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, London, England. (1989) pp 2-3)
:|
:|
:|>>W3hile the bishop has made a
:|>>declaration, the church members are in disaray because they do not accept
:|>>it.
:|>
:|> SOME church members don't accept it. So what? Your claim was that ALL
:|> Christians consider it a sin. The bishop is a Christian; The bishop
:|> does not. Disproof by counterexample. QED
:|>
:|>
:|
:|I did not say that all Christians consider it a sin. I said that it's a sin
:|in the Bible. One can not be a church leader AND ignore the Bible. The
:|bishop has two huge problems, she is a woman and she supports homosexuality.
:|These are two issues that the church members have difficulty with.
Another lesson you are in great need of
"Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an
abomination unto you."
Leviticus 11:12. This verse — and a number of others — are being used by
the group "God Hates Shrimp" in response to Christian groups calling
homosexuality an abomination. The group has launched a mocking campaign to
rid all restaurants of the demon crustacean. Find out more at
GOD HATES SHRIMP
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
GOD HATES SHRIMP
About This Site
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/about.php
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
25 Jun 2006 11:41:11 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
That is arguable. It may be ripping the Anglican and the Episcopal
churches apart, but even that is questionable.
Well, the church itself says there is a rift, and the rift is growing.
They've been saying that since 1776.
W3hile the bishop has made a
declaration, the church members are in disaray because they do not accept
it.
SOME church members don't accept it. So what? Your claim was that ALL
Christians consider it a sin. The bishop is a Christian; The bishop
does not. Disproof by counterexample. QED
I did not say that all Christians consider it a sin.
You claimed a certain amount of numbers consider it a sin. Therefore,
you either must be assuming that all Christian (and Jews and Moslems)
consider it a sin, or you are pulling the claim out of your ***** like
you usually do.
I said that it's a sin in the Bible.
The world of Christianity does not agree on that point.
One can not be a church leader AND ignore the Bible.
Yes one can. But it isn't a question of ignoring the Bible, but of
interpreting it differently than you do.
which is dependent on accepting a particular text as being God talking
to us.
But, Bob, you are loking at God strictly from a Christian perspective.
No. YOU were. Those who are not Christian may have other reasons for
their beliefs. But not the one you stated.
Are you stupid, or what? Come on Bob. I only said that homosexuality is a
sin.
You raised the specter that Chirstianity is only observed by 1/3 of the
world population. I repleid to that that homosexuality is not only a sin
among Christians, but Jews and Muslims too
The concept of "sin" is so different among Jews and Moslems, from that
of Christians, as to make that statement meaningless. Only Christians
believe that "the wages of sin are death".
But it isn't. The Episcopal bishop obviously disagrees with you and
she is among Christianity.
And she is out of touch with her own congregation.
In your ignorant opinion.
The difference in these three major religions is man's intrepretation and
practice of God's word, not God's word.
Wrong.
How?
Judaism excludes all of the New Testament from "God's word", and in
fact considers most of the old testament to be sacred but not "God's
word". Islam adds another book and considers it the primary body of
God's word and not the Bible.
In America alone, homosexuality is rejected by greater than 80% of the
population.
No.
You're wrong.
No. You use the polls on ONE issue related to homosexuality. If you
look at polls phrasing the question differently, the percentage is
like most very divisive issues in this country, about 50/50.
While I don't give a rat's ***** that there are two gay couples living next
door to one another directly across the street from me, I do care that we
give social recognition to them via gay marriage.
But you said that "homosexuality is rejected" which is not the same
thing as "homosexual marriage is rejected".
To suggest that I don't care about gays would be accurate. To suggest that I
care about gay marriage would aslo be true. I reject homosexuality
You just contradicted yourself. If you "don't care" then you "don't
reject"
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
24 Jun 2006 02:54:48 AM |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
You're actually arguing that your "God" amounts to
nothing more than the results of a popularity contest.
I'm making no such argument.
Oh yes you are... but it's not unusual to see people who
back away from their own arguments... idiots & trolls
do it all the time.
Bob suggested that Christians are less than 30
% of the world's population.
Christians reject Leviticus as Jewish cultural law.
My point is that homosexuality is universally rejected
among no only christians, but Jews and Muslims as
well.
Which is wrong, but besides that it's a classic example
of argumentum ad populum -- an appeal based on the
popularity of an idea.
Another way of (accurately) looking at it: You're defining
"God" as the result of a popularity contest.
In America alone, homosexuality is rejected by greater
than 80% of the population.
Here on our planet, more than 40% of Americans already
support gay marriage, with that number steadily increasing.
HINT: You're making this ***** up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
24 Jun 2006 09:58:28 AM |
|
|
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151135688.410253.86440@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
You're actually arguing that your "God" amounts to
nothing more than the results of a popularity contest.
I'm making no such argument.
Oh yes you are... but it's not unusual to see people who
back away from their own arguments... idiots & trolls
do it all the time.
Why do you have a need to denegrate a perfectly respectful discussion with
slander and insult? You are the one that is misinterpreting my words. As I
attempt to clarify them for you, you suggest that I am backing away. I am
not backing away, I'm trying to make it clear to a dolt precisely what I
stand for.
Bob suggested that Christians are less than 30
% of the world's population.
Christians reject Leviticus as Jewish cultural law.
So? Homosexualality is also addressed in Romans, which is the New Testament.
My point is that homosexuality is universally rejected
among no only christians, but Jews and Muslims as
well.
Which is wrong, but besides that it's a classic example
of argumentum ad populum -- an appeal based on the
popularity of an idea.
Another way of (accurately) looking at it: You're defining
"God" as the result of a popularity contest.
You can think that if you want, but it is you that is making the mistake
with the facts here, not me.
In America alone, homosexuality is rejected by greater
than 80% of the population.
Here on our planet, more than 40% of Americans already
support gay marriage, with that number steadily increasing.
HINT: You're making this ***** up.
You are greatly mistaken on the acceptance of gay marriage.
Gay marriage bans have passed on every ballot they have appeared on. In
California alone, I think the passage of our Marriage Definition ballot
measure -- marriage is between one man and one woman -- passed by nearly 80%
of those that voted. (I recall the number as 76%, but I rounded up).
In every state that has had a marriage definition ballot measure, themeasure
has passed by an overwhelming majority of those that actualy voted. I
understand that those that actualy voted are a subset of those that can
vote, and you may be considering those-that-can-vote-but-didn't-vote's
opinion on the matter. But, in my universe, those that can vote but do not
are not counted because they don't care enough to stand up and be counted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
24 Jun 2006 03:22:19 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151135688.410253.86440@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Oh yes you are... but it's not unusual to see people who
back away from their own arguments... idiots & trolls
do it all the time.
Why do you have a need to denegrate a perfectly respectful discussion with
slander and insult
Because you ARE an idiot and a troll.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
24 Jun 2006 04:13:40 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:jl7r92dv2je19tvpop2jkfsi91falcpbig@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151135688.410253.86440@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Oh yes you are... but it's not unusual to see people who
back away from their own arguments... idiots & trolls
do it all the time.
Why do you have a need to denegrate a perfectly respectful discussion with
slander and insult
Because you ARE an idiot and a troll.
No, I am only steadfast in my complete and utter rejection of homosexuality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: homosexuality no sin |
25 Jun 2006 09:03:59 AM |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
No, I am only steadfast in my complete and utter
rejection of
....facts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
