Religions > Bible > The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda.
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!" |
| Date: |
12 Jun 2004 04:01:18 AM |
| Object: |
The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
"HOW would a same-sex couple's getting married do
ANY harm to the marriage of ANY opposite sex couple?"
In the absence to a VALID and FACTAL answer that would
validate the premise of the loons who claim that marriage needs
somehow to be "defended" against the inclusion of same-sex
couples -- those hateful bigots have absolutely ***NO*** agenda.
Their crusade against personal liberties and EQUAL rights falls
apart like a house of cards.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ALSO worth a look:
http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/pledge_acc/index.html
And... here's what happens to people like you & me:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html
However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"
www.awolbush.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
23 Jun 2004 01:57:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:01:18 GMT, (GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!) wrote:
"HOW would a same-sex couple's getting married do
ANY harm to the marriage of ANY opposite sex couple?"
In the absence to a VALID and FACTAL answer that would
validate the premise of the loons who claim that marriage needs
somehow to be "defended" against the inclusion of same-sex
couples -- those hateful bigots have absolutely ***NO*** agenda.
Their crusade against personal liberties and EQUAL rights falls
apart like a house of cards.
-- Craig Chilton < >
Craig,
True Christians go by the written words in the Holy Bible. Thus since
they believe the Bible was inspired by God, then they go by what God
had written. And God clearly tells us that He does not promote, nor
approve, of the homosexual lifestyle. (see Ro 1:26,27)
But that is a religious issue with them, not a political one. Actually
to my knowledge, the US Constitution guarantees liberty and justice
for all, and it doesn't make an exception for sexual preferences etc.
So it looks like there will be arguments on this for some time to
come.
But to re-emphasize, genuine Christians do not approve of it because
of what God had written in His Bible about it, not what any political
paper says. They do not hate homosexuals, but want them to bring
themselves into a position to be approved by God. And they will help
any who want to do that, because God tells us that homosexuals CAN
change. 1 Co 6:9-11,
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor
thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will
inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But
you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name
of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (NIV)
Notice Verse 11, "And that is what some of you were. But you were
washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
So it is possible for a homosexual to change.
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the only authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
23 Jun 2004 11:43:17 AM |
|
|
"James" <arox@surfbest.net> wrote in message
news:40d9d267.55823867@news.surfbest.net...
Craig,
True Christians go by the written words in the Holy Bible. Thus since
they believe the Bible was inspired by God, then they go by what God
had written. And God clearly tells us that He does not promote, nor
approve, of the homosexual lifestyle. (see Ro 1:26,27)
## Are gay people supposed to live alone, sexless and loveless for all of
their lives? What benefit would that be to this god?
But that is a religious issue with them, not a political one. Actually
to my knowledge, the US Constitution guarantees liberty and justice
for all, and it doesn't make an exception for sexual preferences etc.
So it looks like there will be arguments on this for some time to
come.
## Maybe it's time the Christians brought themselves up-to-date and left
the ignorance and superstitions of the past in the past - where they belong.
After all this same god commanded a rapist marry his victim and support her
for the rest of his life. Are we following that biblical command as well?
Are we also forcing men to impregnate their deceased brother's wives as
commanded in the bible? Sounds like the typical Christian pick-and-choose
game to me.
But to re-emphasize, genuine Christians do not approve of it because
of what God had written in His Bible about it, not what any political
paper says. They do not hate homosexuals, but want them to bring
themselves into a position to be approved by God. And they will help
any who want to do that, because God tells us that homosexuals CAN
change. 1 Co 6:9-11,
## You mean this god knows of some secret way to "fix" them? Share that
info.... there is nothing on this earth that could make ME a lesbian, and I
have no choice. None at all since women do not appeal to me. Gay people
have no choice either. Your god (one of thousands of gods out there) has
nothing to do with it - people are either born gay or they are not.
<snip/>
--
FP.........
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived."
-= Isaac Asimov =-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
23 Jun 2004 07:15:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:43:17 -0500, "Flower Power"
<FreeTheWomen@thisNG.edu> posted thusly:
"James" <arox@surfbest.net> wrote in message
news:40d9d267.55823867@news.surfbest.net...
Craig,
True Christians go by the written words in the Holy Bible. Thus since
they believe the Bible was inspired by God, then they go by what God
had written. And God clearly tells us that He does not promote, nor
approve, of the homosexual lifestyle. (see Ro 1:26,27)
## Are gay people supposed to live alone, sexless and loveless for all
of their lives? What benefit would that be to this god?
You assume that you must remain gay. You thereby deny
the power of God.
Greek scholars know, like all others do, that the Bible has no word for
"homosexual" in the Old Testament Hebrew or the New Testament Greek. Yet
the same incorrect translations and out of context use of only six verses
to attack and condemn gay people continues in this so called "Bible
believing" denomination.
But that is a religious issue with them, not a political one.
Actually to my knowledge, the US Constitution guarantees liberty and
justice for all, and it doesn't make an exception for sexual
preferences etc. So it looks like there will be arguments on this for
some time to come.
## Maybe it's time the Christians brought themselves up-to-date and
left the ignorance and superstitions of the past in the past - where
they belong.
I see, so change gods, if you don't like what this one
says.
Turn away ("repent") from your homophobic lifestyle of legalistic
judgmental religion that denies God's unconditional love and grace for
all people. SHAME! for betraying the spirit and legacy of John A.
Broadus, Richard Furman and George W. Truett. SHAME! for retreating from
soul freedom, autonomy of the local church, and separation of church and
state. SHAME! for claiming to follow Jesus yet teaching ignorance and
prejudice. TURN BACK to Jesus as the only way to truth and life for
individuals and churches.
--
± Pastor Dave ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee:
neither have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out
of my lips was right before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/}
@#####{]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
23 Jun 2004 05:16:38 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:43:17 -0500, "Flower Power"
<FreeTheWomen@thisNG.edu> posted thusly:
"James" <arox@surfbest.net> wrote in message
news:40d9d267.55823867@news.surfbest.net...
Craig,
True Christians go by the written words in the Holy Bible. Thus since
they believe the Bible was inspired by God, then they go by what God
had written. And God clearly tells us that He does not promote, nor
approve, of the homosexual lifestyle. (see Ro 1:26,27)
## Are gay people supposed to live alone, sexless and loveless for all of
their lives? What benefit would that be to this god?
You assume that you must remain gay. You thereby deny
the power of God.
A play for sympathy is not going to change the truth.
But that is a religious issue with them, not a political one. Actually
to my knowledge, the US Constitution guarantees liberty and justice
for all, and it doesn't make an exception for sexual preferences etc.
So it looks like there will be arguments on this for some time to
come.
## Maybe it's time the Christians brought themselves up-to-date and left
the ignorance and superstitions of the past in the past - where they belong.
I see, so change gods, if you don't like what this one
says.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c036.html
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
24 Jun 2004 07:37:29 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:16:38 -0400, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
But that is a religious issue with them, not a political one. Actually
to my knowledge, the US Constitution guarantees liberty and justice
for all, and it doesn't make an exception for sexual preferences etc.
So it looks like there will be arguments on this for some time to
come.
## Maybe it's time the Christians brought themselves up-to-date and left
the ignorance and superstitions of the past in the past - where they belong.
I see, so change gods, if you don't like what this one
says.
Personally, I've never heard "your" god speak on the issue and by some off
chance He agrees with YOUR peculiar interpretation of the bible, people do
have that option for changing gods.
My problem isn't what you think 'your' god says. My problem is that you feel
that even people who disagree with YOUR interpretation should be forced to
follow it anyway.
Your objections to homosexuality and same-sex marriages are all based in YOUR
religion; why is it so difficult for you to understand that people who believe
differently than you do should be allowed to practice what their
interpretations of God's Laws indicate?
And what about the non-christians; there are a few MILLION of them you
know....
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Citizen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay RightsAgenda. |
27 Jun 2004 06:06:07 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:43:17 -0500, "Flower Power"
<FreeTheWomen@thisNG.edu> posted thusly:
"James" <arox@surfbest.net> wrote in message
news:40d9d267.55823867@news.surfbest.net...
Craig,
True Christians go by the written words in the Holy Bible. Thus since
they believe the Bible was inspired by God, then they go by what God
had written. And God clearly tells us that He does not promote, nor
approve, of the homosexual lifestyle. (see Ro 1:26,27)
## Are gay people supposed to live alone, sexless and loveless for all of
their lives? What benefit would that be to this god?
You assume that you must remain gay. You thereby deny
the power of God.
A play for sympathy is not going to change the truth.
===================
A person either is or they are not. To assume otherwise is to assume be
mistaken.
But that is a religious issue with them, not a political one. Actually
to my knowledge, the US Constitution guarantees liberty and justice
for all, and it doesn't make an exception for sexual preferences etc.
So it looks like there will be arguments on this for some time to
come.
## Maybe it's time the Christians brought themselves up-to-date and left
the ignorance and superstitions of the past in the past - where they belong.
I see, so change gods, if you don't like what this one
says.
=============
You seem to ignore most of what he has said. either that or you are
just happy and fine to believe in a god responsible for the slaying of
hundreds of thousands of woman and children - as he ordered the
isrealites to do. The atrocities listed in the bible are numerous.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
27 Jun 2004 07:21:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:57:20 GMT,
James <arox@surfbest.net> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
"HOW would a same-sex couple's getting married do
ANY harm to the marriage of ANY opposite sex couple?"
In the absence to a VALID and FACTAL answer that would
validate the premise of the loons who claim that marriage needs
somehow to be "defended" against the inclusion of same-sex
couples -- those hateful bigots have absolutely ***NO*** agenda.
Their crusade against personal liberties and EQUAL rights falls
apart like a house of cards.
True Christians go by the written words in the Holy Bible. Thus since
they believe the Bible was inspired by God, then they go by what God
had written. And God clearly tells us that He does not promote, nor
approve, of the homosexual lifestyle. (see Ro 1:26,27)
Good for God. He is entitled to hold any opinion that He
chooses. But he appointed NO gestapo to enforce his opinions
or precepts, and NO Christian is authorized to trample the rights or
free will of other people in His name.
The personal behaviors and decisions of individuals are entirely
between them and god, if they choose to include him, and are done
on their own hook if they choose not to.
As a Christian egalitarian, I fully recognize all of the above,
and am a staunch defender of the personal liberties of ALL
people, and their right to exercise their own free will WITHOUT
any interference from busybodies and control-freaks. Therefore,
I will always vigorously OPPOSE any and all attempts by any
people or any groups to deny any personal liberties to any people.
But that is a religious issue with them, not a political one. Actually
to my knowledge, the US Constitution guarantees liberty and justice
for all, and it doesn't make an exception for sexual preferences etc.
So it looks like there will be arguments on this for some time to
come.
The ONLY way that Americans could ever, over the long haul,
deny the right to marry to same-sex couples would be for them to
POLLUTE and POISON the Constitution with a Bigotry Amendment.
Thankfully, per the data reported yesterday on NPR (National Public
Radio), that doesn't stand a snowflake's chance in a blast furnace of
getting through the Senate. So in seemingly no time, same-sex
mariage will be as much a non-issue, and as commonplace, as the
once-controversial interracial marriage is.
But to re-emphasize, genuine Christians do not approve of it because
of what God had written in His Bible about it, not what any political
paper says. They do not hate homosexuals, but want them to bring
themselves into a position to be approved by God. And they will help
any who want to do that, because God tells us that homosexuals CAN
change. 1 Co 6:9-11,
No. Genuine, sensible, and COMPASSIONATE Christians have
BETTER things to do than to be mean and controlling toward others.
They mind their own business. Look around you. Fewer than 1 in
100 Christians is obnoxious enough to be a control-freak.
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of
God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters
nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor
thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will
inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But
you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name
of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (NIV)
Notice Verse 11, "And that is what some of you were. But you were
washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
So it is possible for a homosexual to change.
It's possible for a HETEROsexual to change, too. (Funny how
people keep overlooking that, until they start harping about gays
supposedly "recruiting" people into being homosexual. But the
REALITY is that people are BORN with their sexual orientation,
and NEITHER one is likely to change, any more than a person is
likely or inclined to change his handedness. Sexual orientations
are variations of NORMALCY.)
Are you AWARE that homosexuality is so MINOR an issue (if
indeed, it is an issue at all), that NO Commandments deal with it?
And are you aware that, per the Bible, all sins are EQUAL? Thus,
IF himosexuality is sinful, it's no worse than stealing an apple off
a vendor's cart.
So when people start getting up in arms about ALL "sinful"
things, THEN I will take another look at the hypocrisies of the
homophobes.
Meanwhile, I'll mind my own business, and keep right on being
a vigorous and staunch DEFENDER of personal liberties against
any and all bigots and busybodies.
= = = = = =
P.S. to James: The post to which I responded to, above,
appeared FIRST in my e-mail. Apparently,
you e-mailed it and posted it, simultaneously. By the time the
post showed up in here, I'd already responded to your e-mail.
Thus, unless you did that again today, you'll need to post your
response to the above response of mine, as a response here
in Usenet, to THIS post. Since I normally confine my discus-
sions of these issues just to the groups, to save time.
That way I can respond ro it. In here.
Thanks!
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ALSO worth a look:
http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/pledge_acc/index.html
And... here's what happens to people like you & me:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html
However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"
www.awolbush.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff North" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
24 Jun 2004 07:25:35 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:57:20 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality
arox@surfbest.net (James) wrote:
| >>On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:01:18 GMT, (GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!) wrote:
|
| >
| >
| > "HOW would a same-sex couple's getting married do
| > ANY harm to the marriage of ANY opposite sex couple?"
| >
| > In the absence to a VALID and FACTAL answer that would
| >validate the premise of the loons who claim that marriage needs
| >somehow to be "defended" against the inclusion of same-sex
| >couples -- those hateful bigots have absolutely ***NO*** agenda.
| >Their crusade against personal liberties and EQUAL rights falls
| >apart like a house of cards.
| >
| >
| > -- Craig Chilton <>
| >
|
| Craig,
|
| True Christians go by the written words in the Holy Bible. Thus since
| they believe the Bible was inspired by God, then they go by what God
| had written. And God clearly tells us that He does not promote, nor
| approve, of the homosexual lifestyle. (see Ro 1:26,27)
Your god is really a strange animal. He turned Lotts wife into a
pillar of salt because she simply looked back on the ruined city be
did absolutely nothing when Lotts daughters had sex with daddy.
| But that is a religious issue with them, not a political one. Actually
| to my knowledge, the US Constitution guarantees liberty and justice
| for all, and it doesn't make an exception for sexual preferences etc.
| So it looks like there will be arguments on this for some time to
| come.
|
| But to re-emphasize, genuine Christians do not approve of it because
| of what God had written in His Bible about it, not what any political
| paper says. They do not hate homosexuals, but want them to bring
| themselves into a position to be approved by God. And they will help
| any who want to do that, because God tells us that homosexuals CAN
| change. 1 Co 6:9-11,
|
| "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
| Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
| adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor
| thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will
| inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But
| you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name
| of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (NIV)
The word homosexual was not coined until the late 19th century. So
please explain why it appears as gods word within the buybull.
| Notice Verse 11, "And that is what some of you were. But you were
| washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the
| Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
|
| So it is possible for a homosexual to change.
|
|
| Sincerely, James
|
|
| ***********************************
| Want a FREE home Bible study?
| Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
| Go to the only authorized source:
| http://www.watchtower.org
| ***********************************
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay RightsAgenda. |
13 Jun 2004 10:20:42 PM |
|
|
Known Forger Gajr wrote:
"HOW would a same-sex couple's getting married do
ANY harm to the marriage of ANY opposite sex couple?"
In the absence to a VALID and FACTAL answer that would
validate the premise of the loons who claim that marriage needs
somehow to be "defended" against the inclusion of same-sex
couples -- those hateful bigots have absolutely ***NO*** agenda.
Their crusade against personal liberties and EQUAL rights falls
apart like a house of cards.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
hey chilt..!
Marriage is defined by every law and religion as a union of a man and a woman.
It has been so since marriage was defined. Once that is changed it is no longer
hey junior..!
That's demonstrably false.
http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm
When marriage between gays was by rite (August 11, 1998):
RITE AND REASON: A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St
Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai. It shows two robed Christian
saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man)
overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a
husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing
is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified
by Christ? The very idea initially seems shocking. The full answer
comes from other sources about the two men featured, St Serge and St
Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Church, was not
unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly
close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we
should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in
life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of
their lives, St Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and
lover" of St Bacchus.
In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they
were a homosexual couple. Unusually their orientation and relationship
was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an
image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy,
the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man
overseeing their "marriage".
The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet
after a 12-year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale
history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian
homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.
...
More at the link if you've the brains to follow it...you're welcome.
marriage. Why do you seek to change the definition if for no other reason than
to validate that which can not be validated by changing the definition. Do
homosexuals loather themselves so greatly that they have to destroy or redefine
other institution so give themselves some form of validation....?
Gajr
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
14 Jun 2004 08:34:08 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:20:42 -0600, Rich Travsky
<traRvEsky@hotMOVEmail.com> posted thusly:
Known Forger Gajr wrote:
"HOW would a same-sex couple's getting married do
ANY harm to the marriage of ANY opposite sex couple?"
In the absence to a VALID and FACTAL answer that would
validate the premise of the loons who claim that marriage needs
somehow to be "defended" against the inclusion of same-sex
couples -- those hateful bigots have absolutely ***NO*** agenda.
Their crusade against personal liberties and EQUAL rights falls
apart like a house of cards.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
hey chilt..!
Marriage is defined by every law and religion as a union of a man and
a woman. It has been so since marriage was defined. Once that is
changed it is no longer
hey junior..!
That's demonstrably false.
http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm
When marriage between gays was by rite (August 11, 1998):
RITE AND REASON: A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St
Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai.
Roman Catholic.
It shows two robed Christian
saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man)
overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a
husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing
is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.
Which means it was an abomination.
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified
by Christ? The very idea initially seems shocking. The full answer
comes from other sources about the two men featured, St Serge and St
Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Church, was not
unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly
close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we
should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in
life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of
their lives, St Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and
lover" of St Bacchus.
In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they
were a homosexual couple. Unusually their orientation and relationship
was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an
image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy,
the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man
overseeing their "marriage".
The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet
after a 12-year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale
history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian
homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.
...
More at the link if you've the brains to follow it...you're welcome.
And homosexuals who claim to be Christians have these
supposed "weddings" today. According to you, that
makes it okay. So why not have a woman and a horse? That would be fun,
saw a movie about it one time.
After all, some women are into that and God made them
that way, right? So if they just put up an image of
Christ behind them and have someone take a picture and
then other write about it, you got an industry.
--
± Pastor Dave ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee:
neither have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out
of my lips was right before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/}
@#####{]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
14 Jun 2004 07:04:15 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:20:42 -0600, Rich Travsky
<traRvEsky@hotMOVEmail.com> posted thusly:
Known Forger Gajr wrote:
"HOW would a same-sex couple's getting married do
ANY harm to the marriage of ANY opposite sex couple?"
In the absence to a VALID and FACTAL answer that would
validate the premise of the loons who claim that marriage needs
somehow to be "defended" against the inclusion of same-sex
couples -- those hateful bigots have absolutely ***NO*** agenda.
Their crusade against personal liberties and EQUAL rights falls
apart like a house of cards.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
hey chilt..!
Marriage is defined by every law and religion as a union of a man and a woman.
It has been so since marriage was defined. Once that is changed it is no longer
hey junior..!
That's demonstrably false.
http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm
When marriage between gays was by rite (August 11, 1998):
RITE AND REASON: A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St
Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai.
Roman Catholic.
It shows two robed Christian
saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man)
overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a
husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing
is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.
Which means it was an abomination.
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified
by Christ? The very idea initially seems shocking. The full answer
comes from other sources about the two men featured, St Serge and St
Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Church, was not
unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly
close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we
should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in
life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of
their lives, St Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and
lover" of St Bacchus.
In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they
were a homosexual couple. Unusually their orientation and relationship
was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an
image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy,
the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man
overseeing their "marriage".
The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet
after a 12-year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale
history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian
homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.
...
More at the link if you've the brains to follow it...you're welcome.
And homosexuals who claim to be Christians have these
supposed "weddings" today. According to you, that
makes it okay. So why not have a woman and a horse?
After all, some women are into that and God made them
that way, right? So if they just put up an image of
Christ behind them and have someone take a picture and
then other write about it, who have no problem with it,
that means that God approves of it, so then it's no
problem, right?
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/}
o{}XXXXX[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\}
"I am not permitted to let my love be so merciful
as to tolerate and endure false doctrine. When
faith and doctrine are concerned and endangered,
neither love nor patience are in order... For
a defective life does not destroy Christendom,
but exercises it. However, defective doctrine
and false faith ruin everything. Therefore, when
these are concerned, neither toleration nor mercy
are in order, but only anger, dispute and
destruction - to be sure, only with the Word
of God as our weapon." - Martin Luther
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
14 Jun 2004 07:11:03 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:04:15 -0400, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:20:42 -0600, Rich Travsky
<traRvEsky@hotMOVEmail.com> posted thusly:
Known Forger Gajr wrote:
"HOW would a same-sex couple's getting married do
ANY harm to the marriage of ANY opposite sex couple?"
In the absence to a VALID and FACTAL answer that would
validate the premise of the loons who claim that marriage needs
somehow to be "defended" against the inclusion of same-sex
couples -- those hateful bigots have absolutely ***NO*** agenda.
Their crusade against personal liberties and EQUAL rights falls
apart like a house of cards.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
hey chilt..!
Marriage is defined by every law and religion as a union of a man and a woman.
It has been so since marriage was defined. Once that is changed it is no longer
hey junior..!
That's demonstrably false.
http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm
When marriage between gays was by rite (August 11, 1998):
RITE AND REASON: A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St
Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai.
Roman Catholic.
It shows two robed Christian
saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man)
overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a
husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing
is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.
Which means it was an abomination.
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified
by Christ? The very idea initially seems shocking. The full answer
comes from other sources about the two men featured, St Serge and St
Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Church, was not
unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly
close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we
should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in
life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of
their lives, St Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and
lover" of St Bacchus.
In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they
were a homosexual couple. Unusually their orientation and relationship
was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an
image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy,
the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man
overseeing their "marriage".
The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet
after a 12-year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale
history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian
homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.
...
More at the link if you've the brains to follow it...you're welcome.
And homosexuals who claim to be Christians have these
supposed "weddings" today. According to you, that
makes it okay.
I fail to see the problem.
So why not have a woman and a horse?
Homosexuals aren't animals, as you've implied.
[...]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
14 Jun 2004 08:36:02 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:11:03 -0400, Somesappywriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> posted thusly:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:04:15 -0400, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:20:42 -0600, Rich Travsky
<traRvEsky@hotMOVEmail.com> posted thusly:
Known Forger Gajr wrote:
"HOW would a same-sex couple's getting married do
ANY harm to the marriage of ANY opposite sex couple?"
In the absence to a VALID and FACTAL answer that would
validate the premise of the loons who claim that marriage needs
somehow to be "defended" against the inclusion of same-sex
couples -- those hateful bigots have absolutely ***NO*** agenda.
Their crusade against personal liberties and EQUAL rights falls
apart like a house of cards.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
hey chilt..!
Marriage is defined by every law and religion as a union of a man
and a woman. It has been so since marriage was defined. Once that
is changed it is no longer
hey junior..!
That's demonstrably false.
http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm
When marriage between gays was by rite (August 11, 1998):
RITE AND REASON: A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St
Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai.
Roman Catholic.
It shows two robed Christian
saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man)
overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a
husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one
thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.
Which means it was an abomination.
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one
sanctified by Christ? The very idea initially seems shocking. The
full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St
Serge and St Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian
martyrs.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Church, was
not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as
particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century
explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus]
who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th
century Greek account of their lives, St Serge is openly described
as the "sweet companion and lover" of St Bacchus.
In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they
were a homosexual couple. Unusually their orientation and
relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers.
Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might
border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus,
their best man overseeing their "marriage".
The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible.
Yet after a 12-year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives
Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of
Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th
century. ...
More at the link if you've the brains to follow it...you're welcome.
And homosexuals who claim to be Christians have these
supposed "weddings" today. According to you, that
makes it okay.
I fail to see the problem.
That's because you sniped what I said.
So why not have a woman and a horse?
Homosexuals aren't animals, as you've implied.
--
± Pastor Dave ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee:
neither have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out
of my lips was right before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/}
@#####{]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
14 Jun 2004 08:02:20 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:11:03 -0400, Somesappywriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> posted thusly:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:04:15 -0400, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:20:42 -0600, Rich Travsky
<traRvEsky@hotMOVEmail.com> posted thusly:
Known Forger Gajr wrote:
"HOW would a same-sex couple's getting married do
ANY harm to the marriage of ANY opposite sex couple?"
In the absence to a VALID and FACTAL answer that would
validate the premise of the loons who claim that marriage needs
somehow to be "defended" against the inclusion of same-sex
couples -- those hateful bigots have absolutely ***NO*** agenda.
Their crusade against personal liberties and EQUAL rights falls
apart like a house of cards.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
hey chilt..!
Marriage is defined by every law and religion as a union of a man and a woman.
It has been so since marriage was defined. Once that is changed it is no longer
hey junior..!
That's demonstrably false.
http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm
When marriage between gays was by rite (August 11, 1998):
RITE AND REASON: A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St
Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai.
Roman Catholic.
It shows two robed Christian
saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man)
overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a
husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing
is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.
Which means it was an abomination.
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified
by Christ? The very idea initially seems shocking. The full answer
comes from other sources about the two men featured, St Serge and St
Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Church, was not
unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly
close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we
should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in
life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of
their lives, St Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and
lover" of St Bacchus.
In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they
were a homosexual couple. Unusually their orientation and relationship
was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an
image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy,
the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man
overseeing their "marriage".
The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet
after a 12-year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale
history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian
homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.
...
More at the link if you've the brains to follow it...you're welcome.
And homosexuals who claim to be Christians have these
supposed "weddings" today. According to you, that
makes it okay.
I fail to see the problem.
That's because you snipped what I said.
So why not have a woman and a horse?
Homosexuals aren't animals, as you've implied.
According to you they are, or don't you believe in
evolution?
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"Faith is not an intellectual belief. Faith is
a belief with legs on it." - Adrian Rogers
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
14 Jun 2004 08:43:28 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:02:20 -0400, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:11:03 -0400, Somesappywriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> posted thusly:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:04:15 -0400, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:20:42 -0600, Rich Travsky
<traRvEsky@hotMOVEmail.com> posted thusly:
Known Forger Gajr wrote:
"HOW would a same-sex couple's getting married do
ANY harm to the marriage of ANY opposite sex couple?"
In the absence to a VALID and FACTAL answer that would
validate the premise of the loons who claim that marriage needs
somehow to be "defended" against the inclusion of same-sex
couples -- those hateful bigots have absolutely ***NO*** agenda.
Their crusade against personal liberties and EQUAL rights falls
apart like a house of cards.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
hey chilt..!
Marriage is defined by every law and religion as a union of a man and a woman.
It has been so since marriage was defined. Once that is changed it is no longer
hey junior..!
That's demonstrably false.
http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm
When marriage between gays was by rite (August 11, 1998):
RITE AND REASON: A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St
Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai.
Roman Catholic.
It shows two robed Christian
saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man)
overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a
husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing
is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.
Which means it was an abomination.
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified
by Christ? The very idea initially seems shocking. The full answer
comes from other sources about the two men featured, St Serge and St
Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Church, was not
unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly
close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we
should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in
life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of
their lives, St Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and
lover" of St Bacchus.
In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they
were a homosexual couple. Unusually their orientation and relationship
was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an
image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy,
the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man
overseeing their "marriage".
The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet
after a 12-year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale
history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian
homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.
...
More at the link if you've the brains to follow it...you're welcome.
And homosexuals who claim to be Christians have these
supposed "weddings" today. According to you, that
makes it okay.
I fail to see the problem.
That's because you snipped what I said.
Are you another one that's more hung up on his ego than what's
relevant here?
So why not have a woman and a horse?
Homosexuals aren't animals, as you've implied.
According to you they are...
No, I don't consider them "filthy fucking faggots."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay RightsAgenda. |
21 Jun 2004 12:36:23 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:20:42 -0600, Rich Travsky
<traRvEsky@hotMOVEmail.com> posted thusly:
Known Forger Gajr wrote:
"HOW would a same-sex couple's getting married do
ANY harm to the marriage of ANY opposite sex couple?"
In the absence to a VALID and FACTAL answer that would
validate the premise of the loons who claim that marriage needs
somehow to be "defended" against the inclusion of same-sex
couples -- those hateful bigots have absolutely ***NO*** agenda.
Their crusade against personal liberties and EQUAL rights falls
apart like a house of cards.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
hey chilt..!
Marriage is defined by every law and religion as a union of a man and a woman.
It has been so since marriage was defined. Once that is changed it is no longer
hey junior..!
That's demonstrably false.
http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm
When marriage between gays was by rite (August 11, 1998):
RITE AND REASON: A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St
Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai.
Roman Catholic.
So?
It shows two robed Christian
saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man)
overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a
husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing
is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.
Which means it was an abomination.
That explains it's sanction in the church there, eh?
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified
by Christ? The very idea initially seems shocking. The full answer
comes from other sources about the two men featured, St Serge and St
Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Church, was not
unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly
close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we
should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in
life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of
their lives, St Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and
lover" of St Bacchus.
In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they
were a homosexual couple. Unusually their orientation and relationship
was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an
image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy,
the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man
overseeing their "marriage".
The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet
after a 12-year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale
history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian
homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.
...
More at the link if you've the brains to follow it...you're welcome.
And homosexuals who claim to be Christians have these
supposed "weddings" today. According to you, that
makes it okay. So why not have a woman and a horse?
I didn't say that. All I did was post material that refuted gajr's
blanket claim.
After all, some women are into that and God made them
that way, right? So if they just put up an image of
Christ behind them and have someone take a picture and
then other write about it, who have no problem with it,
that means that God approves of it, so then it's no
problem, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
22 Jun 2004 07:27:05 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:36:23 -0600, Rich Travsky
<traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> posted thusly:
It shows two robed Christian
saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man)
overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a
husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing
is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.
Which means it was an abomination.
That explains it's sanction in the church there, eh?
You have not proved it was, "sanctioned in the church".
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"Faith is not an intellectual belief. Faith is
a belief with legs on it." - Adrian Rogers
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay RightsAgenda. |
23 Jun 2004 11:39:57 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:36:23 -0600, Rich Travsky
<traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> posted thusly:
It shows two robed Christian
saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man)
overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a
husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing
is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.
Which means it was an abomination.
That explains it's sanction in the church there, eh?
You have not proved it was, "sanctioned in the church".
When or WHEN will rightards learn to follow a link?
http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm
...
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone
since the days of Christ, but has evolved both as a concept and as a ritual.
Prof Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in
ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of
non-marital blessings such as blessings of adopted children or land) were
ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and
11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community
gathered in church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands
joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking
of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet aftet afterwards. All of which are shown in
contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I
(867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in
Ireland in the late 12th/early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales
(Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
24 Jun 2004 08:34:23 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:39:57 -0600, Rich Travsky
<traRvEsky@hotMOVEmail.com> posted thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:36:23 -0600, Rich Travsky
<traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> posted thusly:
It shows two robed Christian
saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man)
overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of
a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only
one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two
men.
Which means it was an abomination.
That explains it's sanction in the church there, eh?
You have not proved it was, "sanctioned in the church".
When or WHEN will rightards learn to follow a link?
http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm
When will you learn that a painting does not mean that
the church sanctioned gay marriage and that
Christianity approved of it from go. 80,000,000 people
could have done it in churches. That does not mean
that it was Christian to do it. The ruler of the
Christian faith is not what people do, but what God's
word says.
Lewontin himself, complaining about this exact same misquotation as
presented in an issue of the Institute for Creation Research's Acts &
Facts: "But the point of my article, 'Adaptation' in Scientific American,
from which these snippets were lifted, was precisely that the 'perfection
of organisms' is often illusory and that any attempt to describe
organisms as perfectly adapted is destined for serious contradictions.
Moreover, the appearance of careful and artful design was taken in the
nineteenth century before Darwin as 'the chief evidence of a Supreme
Designer.' The past tense of my article ('It was the marvelous fit of
organisms to the environment ... that was the chief evidence of Supreme
Designer') has been conveniently dropped by creationist [Gary] Parker in
his attempt to pass off this ancient doctrine as modern science."
Lewontin, "Misquoted Scientists Respond," Creation/Evolution VI, Fall
1981, p. 35
--
± Pastor Dave ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee:
neither have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out
of my lips was right before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/}
@#####{]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
24 Jun 2004 06:08:02 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:39:57 -0600, Rich Travsky
<traRvEsky@hotMOVEmail.com> posted thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:36:23 -0600, Rich Travsky
<traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> posted thusly:
It shows two robed Christian
saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man)
overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a
husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing
is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.
Which means it was an abomination.
That explains it's sanction in the church there, eh?
You have not proved it was, "sanctioned in the church".
When or WHEN will rightards learn to follow a link?
http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm
When will you learn that a painting does not mean that
the church sanctioned gay marriage and that
Christianity approved of it from go. 80,000,000 people
could have done it in churches. That does not mean
that it was Christian to do it. The ruler of the
Christian faith is not what people do, but what God's
word says.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/bryanp/Evolution/Gre.Sci..htm
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
12 Jun 2004 06:25:11 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:01:18 GMT,
(GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest
Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!) posted thusly:
"HOW would a same-sex couple's getting married do
ANY harm to the marriage of ANY opposite sex couple?"
By trying to demonstrate perversion as normal.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/}
@#######{]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\}
"Life has many choices.
Eternity has two.
What's yours?"
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
12 Jun 2004 07:48:03 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 07:25:11 -0400,
Pseudo-Pastor Dave <pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> (GOOD RIDDANCE on
Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!) wrote:
"HOW would a same-sex couple's getting married do
ANY harm to the marriage of ANY opposite sex couple?"
In the absence to a VALID and FACTAL answer that would
validate the premise of the loons who claim that marriage needs
somehow to be "defended" against the inclusion of same-sex
couples -- those hateful bigots have absolutely ***NO*** agenda.
Their crusade against personal liberties and EQUAL rights falls
apart like a house of cards.
By trying to demonstrate perversion as normal.
Which is precisely what the gays could say against your mindless
bigotry. Homosexuality is simply a different variation of NORMALCY,
just as left-handedness is. And in a few more years, even YOU may
become intelligent enough to figure that out. Or else be one of the
last diehard bigots, in the way that the handful of KKK Klansmen today
were among the segregationists.
Society is rapidly OUTGROWING ignorant bigotries such as yours,
and in a few more years they will only be distant and refreshingly-
extinct memories.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ALSO worth a look:
http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/pledge_acc/index.html
And... here's what happens to people like you & me:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html
However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"
www.awolbush.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
12 Jun 2004 09:01:24 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:48:03 GMT,
(GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest
Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!) posted thusly:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 07:25:11 -0400,
Pseudo-Pastor Dave <pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > (GOOD RIDDANCE on
Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!) wrote:
"HOW would a same-sex couple's getting married do
ANY harm to the marriage of ANY opposite sex couple?"
In the absence to a VALID and FACTAL answer that would
validate the premise of the loons who claim that marriage needs
somehow to be "defended" against the inclusion of same-sex
couples -- those hateful bigots have absolutely ***NO*** agenda.
Their crusade against personal liberties and EQUAL rights falls
apart like a house of cards.
By trying to demonstrate perversion as normal.
Which is precisely what the gays could say against your mindless
bigotry.
Waving around the word "bigot" in a false attempt to
discredit me, does not disqualify my point from being
valid.
And I want you to know, my biggotry is not mindless, but well thought out.
--
± Pastor Dave ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee: neither
have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out of my lips
was right before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/}
@#####{]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
12 Jun 2004 08:29:24 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:48:03 GMT,
(GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest
Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!) posted thusly:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 07:25:11 -0400,
Pseudo-Pastor Dave <pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > (GOOD RIDDANCE on
Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!) wrote:
"HOW would a same-sex couple's getting married do
ANY harm to the marriage of ANY opposite sex couple?"
In the absence to a VALID and FACTAL answer that would
validate the premise of the loons who claim that marriage needs
somehow to be "defended" against the inclusion of same-sex
couples -- those hateful bigots have absolutely ***NO*** agenda.
Their crusade against personal liberties and EQUAL rights falls
apart like a house of cards.
By trying to demonstrate perversion as normal.
Which is precisely what the gays could say against your mindless
bigotry.
Waving around the word "bigot" in a false attempt to
discredit me, does not disqualify my point from being
valid.
The gays would be wrong, if they tried to claim their
lifestyle is normal.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/}
@#######{]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\}
The real problem with creationism is that
our governments don't have the will to
prosecute the offenders (there are more
troublesome criminals around for one thing)
and our churches have lost the will to combat
heresies. - Dave Oldridge
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
12 Jun 2004 09:10:23 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:29:24 -0400,
Pseudo-pastor Dave <pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> (GOOD RIDDANCE on
Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!) wrote:
Pseudo-Pastor Dave <pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
"HOW would a same-sex couple's getting married do
ANY harm to the marriage of ANY opposite sex couple?"
In the absence to a VALID and FACTUAL answer that would
validate the premise of the loons who claim that marriage needs
somehow to be "defended" against the inclusion of same-sex
couples -- those hateful bigots have absolutely ***NO*** agenda.
Their crusade against personal liberties and EQUAL rights falls
apart like a house of cards.
By trying to demonstrate perversion as normal.
Which is precisely what the gays could say against your
mindless bigotry. ###-->* Homosexuality is simply a different
variation of NORMALCY, just as left-handedness is. And in a
few more years, even YOU may become intelligent enough to
figure that out. Or else be one of the last diehard bigots, in the
way that the handful of KKK Klansmen today were among the
segregationists.
Society is rapidly OUTGROWING ignorant bigotries such as
yours, and in a few more years they will only be distant and
refreshingly-extinct memories. <--###
Waving around the word "bigot" in a false attempt to
discredit me, does not disqualify my point from being
valid.
You point was not valid, you ARE a bigot, and by being one,
you discredit *yourself*. I merely shine a spotlight on that.
The gays would be wrong, if they tried to claim their
lifestyle is normal.
In yout opinion. Too bad for you and your ilk that the
reality is quite the opposite.
* The reality that you were afraid to deal with, and omitted,
has been RESTORED, above, between the "###"
symbols.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ALSO worth a look:
http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/pledge_acc/index.html
And... here's what happens to people like you & me:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html
However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"
www.awolbush.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
12 Jun 2004 09:00:32 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:01:18 GMT,
(GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest
Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!) posted thusly:
"HOW would a same-sex couple's getting married do
ANY harm to the marriage of ANY opposite sex couple?"
By trying to demonstrate rear end invasion as normal .
--
± Pastor Dave ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee: neither
have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out of my lips
was right before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/}
@#####{]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda. |
12 Jun 2004 11:33:08 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> writes:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:01:18 GMT,
(GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest
Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!) posted thusly:
"HOW would a same-sex couple's getting married do
ANY harm to the marriage of ANY opposite sex couple?"
By trying to demonstrate rear end invasion as normal .
It is already "normal" (assuming you are using a euphamism for a sex
act) given that something like 25% of heterosexual couple | | |
