On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 23:08:59 -0700,
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <

Bigoted and Cowardly Moron, <wott@privacy.net> wrote:

The 95% heterosexual majority lives with the several state's law
that a legal marriage must be between one woman and one man.
They do not claim that their right to marry who they wish is being
abused. It's only the very small minority, homosexuals, who are
making such claims. I suspect that there are any number of

in the Catskill mountains...

LOL!!! The dissected plateau that today is called the "Catskill
Mountains," which lay in plain view outside my bedroom window
while I was growing up, is in NEW YORK State -- in which one does
not find "hillbillies." And, the majority of New Yorkers are astute
enough NOT to support bigotry. It's why bigoted losers like Bush
don't stand a chance there of getting the state's electoral votes.

...and else where about the United States who desire to wed
their mother, father, sister or brother (or a combination there of)...

ROTFL!!!!!

...but nation wide laws (with the sickening exception of one state

is ruled by the lesbian queen of the state's Supreme Court) legally,
morally and justly prevent such things. Again, I point out that it is
only homosexuals who decry such logical laws. One has to wonder
if there is any such thing as morality among homosexuals.

Hmmm... interesting to contemplate. Since THIS scenario
could have accuately been written by an equally-mindless and
hateful BIGOT in any of several states, prior to 1967 --

"The 99% racially-matched-couples' majority (OF those who
are couples) lives with the several state's law that a legal marriage
must be between rwo person's of the same race. They do not
claim that their right to marry who they wish is being abused. It's
only the very small minority, couples comprised of people of two
different races, who are making such claims. But nationwide, laws
(with the sickening exception of a few dozen states that permit
interracial marriage legally), morally and justly prevent such things.
Again, I point out that it is only pairs of people wherein each is of
a different race who decry such logical laws. One has to wonder if
there is any such thing as morality among interracial couples."

Of course, AFTER 1967, such thinking quickly was recognized
by practically all Americans as having been totally ludicrous. (That's
the year when the Supreme Court struck down all the remaining
so-called (and idiotic) "miscegenation" laws.)

THANKFULLY -- America is rapidly OUTGROWING its childish,
hateful, petulant, loathsome, ignorant, pointless and sociopathic
bigotries.

We WILL become a Bigotry-Free Zone!

Then -- GOOD RIDDANCE to the ludicrous mindset of
Anonymous-Cowardly losers like the poster above.

What's your hangup with anonymous posters?

Nothing whatsoever... when the person *isn't* cravenly cowering
behind an alias while promoting SHAMEFUL and bigoted agendas
against human and civil rights. (See SIG.)

You too could be anonymous.

But I'm not.

And if i chose to be, there'd be nothing wrong with
that, because I *don't* have anything to be ashamed of, as the bigots
do.

How is one to know that the name you present is actually
your name?

I've been asked that by morons so often, I ought to put it in a
SIG file, so I can just append it automatically! I'm a book publisher
and an author, and thus it's EASY to find me in Amazon.com. It's
ALSO easy to find me in Switchboard.com. And especially easy to
compare the two sources of information. (In Switchboard, I'm the
one who lives in Iowa.)

Now -- since you are opposed to some civil liberties and human
rights,

it's easy to see that as a very likely reason why YOU choose
to cower behind a mere first name. (LOL!!)

-- Craig Chilton

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:55:04 GMT, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes,
RainbowChristiannohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk (Ninure
Saunders) yodeled:

HOMOSEXUALITY & THE CHURCH

The most beautiful word in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is "whosoever"

Yes and that means whosoever is willing to give their
life to Christ, which also means forsaking their sinful
ways. Jesus told the adulteress, "Go and sin NO MORE".

Not a Sin, Not a Sickness

It certainly is.

For many centuries, the Christian Church's attitude toward human

was very negative: sex was for procreation, not for pleasure; women and
slaves were considered property to be owned by males; and many

of heterosexuality, like homosexuality, were considered sinful.

It doesn't matter what "churches" did. It matters what
the Bible says.

Although this view has now been soundly discredited by the medical
profession, some churches and clergy continue to be influenced by the
idea. They say that homosexuals are "imperfect" and in need of "healing."

Prove your claim about the medical profession.
Homosexuality being genetic has NOT been proved and
even if it were to be, that does not mean it's
automatically a good thing.

things all the time, so that's a straw man.

The good news is that, since 1968, when Metropolitan Community Church was
founded, the emergence of a strong lesbian and gay community, and the
conclusions of new scientific studies on homosexuality have forced the
Christian Church to reexamine these issues. A growing number of biblical
and theological scholars now recognize that Scripture does not condemn
loving, responsible homosexual relationships. Therefore, gay men and
lesbians should he accepted just as they are in Christian churches, and
homosexual relationships should be celebrated and affirmed!

Again, prove your claim about "scientific studies".

As for the Bible...

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit
the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom
of God.

Effeminate = Catcher

Abusers = Pitcher

About the Bible

The Bible is a collection of writings which span more than a thousand
years recounting the history of God's relationship with the Hebrew and
Christian people. It was written in several languages, embraces many
literary forms, and reflects cultures very different from our own. These
are important considerations for properly understanding the Bible in its
context. There are vast differences in doctrines between various

denominations, all of which use the same bible. Such differences have led
some Christians to claim that other Christians are not really Christians
at all! Biblical interpretation and theology differ from church to

Your argument starts with a statement about the Bible
and proves nothing, so you are forced to once again
fall back to what the churches did. Again, that's
irrelevant.

Biblical interpretation and theology also change from time to time.
approximately 150 years ago in the United States, some Christian teaching
held that there was a true-fold moral order: black and white. Whites were
thought to be superior to blacks, therefore blacks were to be subservient
and slavery was an institution ordained by God. Clergy who supported such
an abhorrent idea claimed the authority of the Bible. The conflict over
slavery led to divisions which gave birth to some major Christian
denominations. These same denominations, of course, do not support

today. Did the Bible change? No, their interpretation of the Bible did!

New Information Refutes Old ideas

What influences lead us to new ways of understanding Scripture! New
scientific information, serial changes, and personal experience are
perhaps the greatest forcesfor change in the way we interpret the Bible
and develop our beliefs.

And there it is. You interpret the Bible by whatever
you think modern scientists say. It "FORCES" (your
word) you to change your mind about the Bible. You are
blown around by every doctrine in the wind. And you
think that "personal experience" is the gauge by which
we should read the Bible. So if I like little boys or
girls, hey, it's okay, 'cause I was born that way and
the Bible doesn't condemn it (where does it say not to
do that?), 'cause I just interpret the Bible by my own
"personal experiences".

Scientific awareness of homosexual orientation
did not exist until the nineteenth century.

Provide scientific proof that homosexuals are born that
way.

GENESIS 19:1-25

What was the sin of Sodom?

You always seem to forget to post this one...

Jude 7-8

7) Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about
them in like manner, giving themselves over to
fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set
forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of
eternal fire.
8) Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the
flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

What is an "Abomination"? An abomination is that which God found
detestable because it was unclean, disloyal, or unjust. Several Hebrew
words were so translated, and the one found in Leviticus, toevah, is
usually associated with idolatry, as in Ezekiel, where it occurs numerous
times. Given the strong association of toevah with idolatry and the
Canaanite religious practice of cult prostitution, the use of toevah
regarding male same-sex acts in Leviticus calls into question any
conclusion that such condemnation also applies to loving, responsible
homosexual relationships. Rituals and rules found in the Old Testament
were given to preserve the distinctive characteristics of the religion

culture of Israel. But, as stated in Galatians 3:22-25, Christians are no
longer bound by these Jewish laws. By faith we live in Jesus Christ, not
in Leviticus. To be sure, ethical concerns apply to all cultures and
peoples in every age. Such concerns were ultimately reflected by Jesus
Christ, who said nothing about homosexuality, but a great deal about

justice, mercy and faith.

ROMANS 1:24-27

Most New Testament books, including the four Gospels, are silent on
same-sex acts, and Paul is the only author who makes any reference to the
subject. The most negative statement by Paul regarding same-sex acts
occurs in Romans 1:24-27 where, in the context of a larger argument on

need of all people for the gospel of Jesus Christ, certain homosexual
behavior is given as an example of the "uncleanness" of idolatrous
Gentiles. Does this passage refer to all homosexual acts, or to certain
homosexual behavior known to Paul's readers? Romans was written to Jewish
and Gentile Christians in Rome, who would have been familiar with the
infamous sexual excesses of their contemporaries, especially Roman
emperors. They would also have been aware of tensions in the early Church
regarding Gentiles and observance of the Jewish laws, as noted in Acts 15
and Paul's letter to the Galatians. Jewish laws in Leviticus mentioned
male same-sex acts in the context of idolatry.

What is "Natural"?

Significant to Paul's discussion is the fact that these "unclean"

exchanged that which was "natural" for them -physin, in the Greek text-
for something "unnatural," para physin. In Romans 11:24, God acts in an
"unnatural" way, para physin, to accept the Gentiles. "Unnatural" in

passages does not refer to violation of so-called laws of nature, but
rather implies action contradicting one's own nature. In view of this, we
should observe that it is "unnatural," para physin, for a person today
with a lesbian or gay sexual orientation to attempt living a heterosexual
lifestyle.

Romans 1.26 is the only statement in the Bible with a possible reference
to lesbian behavior, although the specific intent of this verse is
unclear. Some authors have seen in this passage a reference to women
adopting a dominant role in heterosexual relationships. Given the
repressive cultural expectations placed on women in Paul's time, such a
meaning may be possible.

The homosexual practices cited in Romans 1:24-27 were believed to result
from idolatry and are associated with some very serious offenses as noted
in Romans 1. Taken in this larger context, it should be obvious that such
acts are significantly different from loving, responsible lesbian and gay
relationships seen today.

The biggest argument that homosexuals use, is to try to
make the statement that Romans 1 is discussing acts
that were unnatural for the people doing them, since it
is discussing idol worship and they'll tell us that it
is discussing straight people engaged in homosexual
acts. This doesn't make any sense, considering that
Romans 1 says that they LUSTED after each other. A
person who has NO homosexual desires, would not LUST
after the same sex. Yet they'll tell us how Romans 1
says that it "wasn't natural FOR THEM and therefore, it
was sin". Romans 1 does not say anything about "what
was natural FOR THEM". Those words (for them) are NOT
found there. It says that they did "what was AGAINST
NATURE". They did what was against nature itself.

Let's look at Romans 1:

Romans 1:24-27

24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness
through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor
their own bodies between themselves:

It says that they "dishonored their own bodies". How?
We'll see in verses 26 and 27.


25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and
worshiped and served the creature more than the
Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

They worshipped the creature. This is where it all
started. This is where the homosexual acts came
from... idolatry.


26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile
affections: for even their women did change the natural
use into that which is against nature:

It says, "FOR THIS CAUSE". Because of their idolatry,
God "gave them up". Knowing that these passages are
relating to idolatry and homosexuality, it tells us
clearly, that women CHANGED (a conscious decision) what
was natural, into that which was unnatural. And what
was, "unnatural"? That which caused God to give them
up unto "vile affections". And what was that which
caused God to give them to these "vile affections" and
what were these "vile affections"? We can read on and
see that homosexual activity is described. And
remember, it says that they did "that which is AGAINST
NATURE" and not, as the homosexual would argue, "that
which was not natural FOR THEM".


27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use
of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another;
men with men working that which is unseemly, and
receiving in themselves that recompense of their error
which was meet.

Notice, it starts out by saying, "likewise also the
men". It is describing both the men and the women
here. Now while the homosexual will also put forth the
argument that Romans 1 is ONLY speaking about temple
worship (they use whatever argument is convenient),
they usually tie that to men with men, stating that
this word, or that word only means, "male temple
prostitute". Yet here, it describes women also (in
v26). And not men with women temple prostitutes, but
women with women. You'll notice that you don't see
them mention that part, in their argument. :)

Now back to the "it wasn't natural FOR THEM" argument.

It tells us here, in v27, that the natural use for the
man, is to be with the woman. Yet they left that and
burned in their lust for one another. This smashes any
argument that homosexuals use, that if they have these
feelings, that it must be ok with God. These men were
not "heterosexuals performing homosexual acts, that
weren't natural FOR THEM". No, but rather, contrary to
the argument put forth by homosexuals and liberals
alike, these men had lust for one another, yet
Scripture says that it isn't natural. It is "against
nature", period. These men weren't doing that which
repulsed them, but that which they lusted for, yet the
Bible still says that it wasn't natural. Sorry, the
standard homosexual argument with Romans 1 doesn't
work. It also clearly says that it is "UNSEEMLY and
that it is "ERROR".

I'm sorry, but there is no argument that can be made
from Romans 1, that is pro-homosexual. It tells us
that homosexuality started with idolatry and that even
though they lusted for each other, it was "against
nature". As I said, the words, "FOR THEM" aren't found
anywhere there and the passages show that they deal
with those who are definitely wanting homosexual
activity, which came as a result of their worshipping
false gods. Just because the Bible shows that this is
where homosexual activity started, that does not mean
that homosexual activity becomes ok, simply by removing
the idol.

The homosexual will argue that homosexuality is natural
and therefore, must be of God, because God made them
that way. That they were born that way and therefore
God is ok with it. The reality is, that there is no
proof of any "gay gene", but assuming for a moment that
there were proof, that doesn't mean that it is a
behavior that God automatically approves of and that it
is good. Ever since man messed up the earth and we
have a lot of things that people are born with, that
aren't "good". We have people born with diseases,
crack additions, etc.. Are you going to tell me that
the baby can grow up and rightly claim that it is ok
with God to do crack, because he/she was "born with
that desire", since they were addicted from the womb?
We have people that are born with the desire to have
sex with animals. Is that ok too? After all,
according to the homosexual argument, that would be
their "god given desire". What about pedophiles? They
are born with the desire for children. Homosexuals, by
their own logic, should be supporting NAMBLA. And if
you argue to the contrary, how can you justify it? Who
are you to decide what is right and what is wrong in
this area, when your argument rests on, "homosexuals
are born that way"?

No, the homosexual argument of "desire" and being "born
that way" falls apart, when examined. God does NOT
approve of homosexual activity. It is contrary to the
model He set in the Garden of Eden. And their argument
about Romans 1 speaking only of homosexual activity
that "wasn't natural for the people doing it" falls
apart too, when you read right there, that they "lusted
for one another" and their argument is based on "desire
for the same sex making it natural".

The fact is, that God clearly laid down the model for
marriage, in Genesis 2:24.

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one
flesh." - Genesis 2:24

A man shall leave his father and mother, for one
purpose... to cleave to his WIFE. Nowhere does it say
anything about two men. The man goes to his WIFE.
This means that the woman must be available for her
future HUSBAND. Nowhere does it say anything about her
and another woman. The Scripture also clearly uses the
word WIFE, meaning that a marriage is to take place.
There is no "living together in a monogamous
relationship" listed there. It also shows that the sex
act (one flesh, which is a literal term) happens AFTER
the marriage. It says that a man cleaves to his wife
and THEN the two become one flesh.

You can play all of the word games you want with the
Bible. But Jesus also confirmed the above. While you
keep claiming that Jesus never spoke out against
homosexuality and that all that is needed is a
"monogamous relationship", the fact is, that Jesus
didn't need to tell people what they already knew.
Jesus told people what the model for marriage was and
is (Matthew 19:1-5), confirming Genesis 2:24 and He DID
condemn fornication (which includes sex outside of
marriage). There is no one who can argue that He did
NOT condemn fornication (sex outside of marriage).
Since homosexuals could not marry, they would be having
sex outside of marriage (fornicating). So tell me,
when preaching that homosexuality is ok with God and
that all that is needed is a "monogamous relationship",
how do you get around the commandment against
fornication?

I CORINTHIANS 6:9 & I TIMOTHY 1:10

Any consideration of New Testament statements on same-sex acts must
carefully view the social context of the Greco-Roman culture in which Pau

ministered. Prostitution and pederasty (sexual relationships of adult men
with boys) were the most commonly known male same-sex acts.

In I Corinthians 6:9, Paul condemns those who are "effeminate" and
"abusers of themselves with man- kind," as translated in the King James
version. Unfortunately, some newer translations are worse, rendering

words "homosexuals." Recent scholarship unmasks the homophobia behind

mistranslations. The first word - malakos, in the Greek text-which has
been translated "effeminate" or "soft," most likely refers to someone who
lacks discipline or moral control. The word is used elsewhere in the New
Testament but never with reference to sexuality. The second word,
arsenokoitai, occurs once each in I Corinthians and I Timothy, but

else in other literature of the period. It is derived from two Greek
words, one meaning "males" and the other "beds," a euphemism for sexual
intercourse. Other Greek words were commonly used to describe homosexual
behavior but do not appear here. The larger context of I Corinthians 6
shows Paul extremely concerned with prostitution, so it is very possible
he was referring to male prostitutes. But many experts now attempting to
translate these words have reached a simple conclusion: their precise
meaning is uncertain.

You're a liar. We both know what it's saying and your
word dance isn't going to help you.

No Law Against Love

Really? Fornication is certainly against God's Law.
Now show me where the Bible discusses homosexual
marriage. Heterosexual marriage is described and
ordained by God. Now show me where God says in the
Bible, "Look, if you want to have sex together and
remain unmarried, that's fine by me. No problem.".

You have two problems.

1) You must get around that fornication thing. Sex
outside of marriage is fornication, so your, "loving,
committed relationship" garbage doesn't work.

2) You must show where God ordained homosexual
marriage, since He certainly did ordain heterosexual
marriage, as the Bible notes in more than one place.


--

Pastor Dave Raymond

"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly
furnished unto all good works." - 2 Timothy 3:16-17


/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that
genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:55:04 GMT, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes,
RainbowChristiannohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk (Ninure
Saunders) yodeled:

You're a liar.

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:55:04 GMT, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes,
RainbowChristiannohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk (Ninure
Saunders) yodeled:

HOMOSEXUALITY & THE CHURCH

No Law Against Love

Really? Fornication is certainly against God's Law.
Now show me where the Bible discusses homosexual
marriage. Heterosexual marriage is described and
ordained by God. Now show me where God says in the
Bible, "Look, if you want to have sex together and
remain unmarried, that's fine by me. No problem.".

You have two problems.

1) You must get around that fornication thing. Sex
outside of marriage is fornication, so your, "loving,
committed relationship" garbage doesn't work.

2) You must show where God ordained homosexual
marriage, since He certainly did ordain heterosexual
marriage, as the Bible notes in more than one place.