A Sad State: Hymn-Singing Christians face a possible 47 years in prison

[Lzen]

We're heading down the wrong path here. :shake:

http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0034738.cfm

Hymn-Singing Christians Fight Back
by Stuart Shepard, correspondent

Some evangelists face a possible 47 years in prison for doing nothing more than showing up at a gay pride event.

Eleven Christians facing prison time for singing hymns at a Philadelphia gay pride event are fighting back with a federal lawsuit challenging the charges against them.

Members of "The Philadelphia 11," as the group has been dubbed, face as many as 47 years in prison. Their ordeal began in October at a pro-homosexual event called OutFest, where—amid rainbow balloons and shirtless gay men in leather—Michael Marcavage and 10 others peacefully delivered a Gospel message.

But the event's volunteer homosexual security team, the Pink Angels, corralled the group with large sheets of Styrofoam while blowing whistles to drown out their voices.

"Although these people with the pink signs (were) blocking our message and impeding our way, we (were) the ones being put under arrest," Marcavage said. "We were doing nothing more than being very peaceful, very loving, just concerned about the well-being and salvation of those in attendance of the event."

Marcavage was charged with five misdemeanors and three felonies, which included ethnic intimidation, criminal conspiracy and inciting a riot. But the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy (CLP) is filing suit in federal court to stop the case in the state courts—not a common practice.

"It's very rare," said Joe Murray, a CLP staff attorney. "It doesn't happen on a daily basis. It only is justified when the facts warrant it."

Murray especially objects to the charge of ethnic intimidation, saying the city is using the legal system to muzzle a constitutionally protected message.

"What that says is that, basically, preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ to homosexuals is tantamount to a hate crime," he explained.

A victory, he added, would send a message to other cities to not tread on the rights of those who stand up for the Gospel.

Marcavage said in spite of the recent charges, he and the others will continue to do evangelism at pro-homosexual events in Philadelphia.

The preliminary hearing on the charges in state court is Dec. 14.

[Cochise]

Pathetic.

These will eventually start standing up in liberal courts though. C250 will make its way south into the United States as well.

It's only a matter of time before you can be jailed for saying something that gays don't like.

[alpha_omega]

But the event's volunteer homosexual security team, the Pink Angels,

ROFL ROFL ROFL

[KC Jones]

C250 will make its way south into the United States as well.

It's only a matter of time before you can be jailed for saying something that gays don't like.


ROFL - No excessive reactionary hyperbole here.

I mean the recent election results were an awesome display of the power of the gay lobby. Clearly, they will soon turn the U.S. into a gay rights tyranny.

[memyselfI]

I wonder which hyms have anti-gay language in them. ROFL Boy is this incident being sold all over the internet in order to rally the flock. And boy are they good at getting the lambs in an uproar.

http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?fr=slv1-ff&p=OutFest%20Philadelphia




Here is the same story on the side of the gay folks:

http://www.phillyimc.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/14/211214&mode=thread&threshold=0


and here is the same story without spin:

http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/11/416a2e53cadfe

[BIG_DADDY]

Like I said in another thread to Vlad, "EVERYTHING IS A FELONY NOW"

You might as well just kill people. I was watching Court TV last night where some guy killed his wife and two daughters and was found to be insane. 6 months later he was released with no follow up, probation, anything. He went and got another wife and had a son. He took himself to the hospital many times and said he wanted to kill his new wife and son as well as the people he used to work with. He was released within days every time till he killed them too. We prosecute weed smokers harder than that. At the very least they get probation and if they do anything wrong they are incarcerated again. Meanwhile animals like this just keep killing. Our legal system is not about justice, it's about money. We need to seriously reconsider where our priorities lie when we are all over someone who smokes a joint and some murderers are not even checked on.

[BIG_DADDY]

I wonder which hyms have anti-gay language in them. ROFL Boy is this incident being sold all over the internet in order to rally the flock. And boy are they good at getting the lambs in an uproar.

http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?fr=slv1-ff&p=OutFest%20Philadelphia




Here is the same story on the side of the gay folks:

http://www.phillyimc.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/14/211214&mode=thread&threshold=0


and here is the same story without spin:

http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/11/416a2e53cadfe

How is that without spin it doesn't even mention the group? Does it surprise anyone that meme would come out for freedom of speach only when the people speaking are in alliance with her own agenda? Where is your backing of freedom of speach now that it's not a PC liberal agenda being promoted? Tossed out the window like everything else you claim to be behind until it doesn't suit you need any more. What a hypocrite.

[|Zach|]

Seems as though these protestors were not as vile as the gay group made them out to be but not as peaceful as the family group makes them out to be.

Sounds par for the course.

[Cochise]

I know, KC. Just seeing a point on the downward spiral.

And as usual, these people will cry free speech to have their parades but are the first to place restrictions on free speech for people that disagree with them.

[Soupnazi]

[QUOTE=Lzen]Members of "The Philadelphia 11," as the group has been dubbed, face as many as 47 years in prison. Their ordeal began in October at a pro-homosexual event called OutFest, where—amid rainbow balloons and shirtless gay men in leather—Michael Marcavage and 10 others peacefully delivered a Gospel message.

But the event's volunteer homosexual security team, the Pink Angels, corralled the group with large sheets of Styrofoam while blowing whistles to drown out their voices.[QUOTE]

So, let me get this straight. If I walk down the street and tell my white neighbor I think he's a f***in' asshole and should die, no big deal. If you say anything to the gays though, it's a hate crime? When the hell did it become federal law that you're not allowed to say anything that might upset or offend, otherwise you go to jail? This crap is getting out of hand. When did we all turn into such pussies that we got all worked up over what someone said to us (especially when they don't give a crap and are going to behave that way anyways)?

First off, they should be allowed to peacefully protest or whatever the hell they're doing. The gays should be put in jail for the 1) Pink angels and 2) Rainbow balloons and shirtless gay men in leather, as both are items that only reinforce the stereotype.

I can't for the life of me figure out why people must flaunt their lifestyle in front of everyone else. Why do you feel you need my consent to act how you do? What's next? IV drug user pride parades where men and women unite in a show of solidarity? They can walk down the road displaying their bad teeth, arms wrapped in rubber bands and used syringes sticking outta their arms. They'll hold signs with bible verses about loving thy neighbor as thyself while shouting, "We're here, we're stoned, get used to it!"

Wanna be gay? Fine!! Just do what you're gonna do and shut the f*ck up about it!!! I don't need a soccer mom parade, or a 4th generation irish immigrant parade, or a blue-eyed people parade, or a electrical workers parade, or a hemmorrhoid survivors parade, or any other shit like it.

[Duck Dog]

Just so I get this straight (no pun intended), it's freedom of speech unless it's directed toward gays then it's a hate crime?

Nice...got it.

[Duck Dog]

I wonder which hyms have anti-gay language in them. ROFL Boy is this incident being sold all over the internet in order to rally the flock. And boy are they good at getting the lambs in an uproar.

:rolleyes:

HYPOCRITE!

[Lzen]

Just so I get this straight (no pun intended), it's freedom of speech unless it's directed toward gays then it's a hate crime?

Nice...got it.

Exactly

[Saulbadguy]

I wonder if there is a non-left or right wing media source explaining what happened. Obviously they were doing more than "minding their own business" while singing nice peaceful christian hymns.

[Lzen]

Duh nese, you apparently have a problem with reading comprehension.

Members of "The Philadelphia 11," as the group has been dubbed, face as many as 47 years in prison. Their ordeal began in October at a pro-homosexual event called OutFest, where—amid rainbow balloons and shirtless gay men in leather—Michael Marcavage and 10 others peacefully delivered a Gospel message........

......."We were doing nothing more than being very peaceful, very loving, just concerned about the well-being and salvation of those in attendance of the event."

Now unless these people were disciples of Fred Phelps, I don't think they were trying to do anything other than to save a few souls, peacefully.

[BIG_DADDY]

Just so I get this straight (no pun intended), it's freedom of speech unless it's directed toward gays then it's a hate crime?

Nice...got it.

That is exactly right!!! Hate crime legislation is being used to squelch free speech. There is nothing good about hate legislation.

[Lzen]

Yup. And people wonder why we're against hate crime legislation.

[Cochise]

That is exactly right!!! Hate crime legislation is being used to squelch free speech. There is nothing good about hate legislation.

I don't like the fact that if someone wrongs a gay person, they are going to get a more severe punishment than if they wrong me because it would be deemed a "hate crime".

It's placing a higher value on the gay person's life and liberties than on mine.

2/3 of a human being, anyone?

[Duck Dog]

That is exactly right!!! Hate crime legislation is being used to squelch free speech. There is nothing good about hate legislation.

Yep, which makes a guy wonder how someone like Islamistme can laugh at it.

[Radar Chief]

I wonder if there is a non-left or right wing media source explaining what happened. Obviously they were doing more than "minding their own business" while singing nice peaceful christian hymns.

Why would that be obvious? Because they’re Christians and everyone knows they can’t "mind their own business"? :shrug:

[Saulbadguy]

Why would that be obvious? Because they’re Christians and everyone knows they can’t "mind their own business"? :shrug:
Because they face 47 years in prison. Last time I checked, it wasn't illegal to mind your own business. If they truly were minding their own business, i'm sure they will be found innocent.

[Loki]

that's so gay.
:shake:

[Boozer]

I don't like the fact that if someone wrongs a gay person, they are going to get a more severe punishment than if they wrong me because it would be deemed a "hate crime".

It's placing a higher value on the gay person's life and liberties than on mine.

2/3 of a human being, anyone?

Anyone else find it ironic that Cochise's mistaken conception of hate crimes would be paralleled by a lack of knowledge about the Constitution?

[memyselfI]

I wonder if there is a non-left or right wing media source explaining what happened. Obviously they were doing more than "minding their own business" while singing nice peaceful christian hymns.


'Christian hymns' laced with fag and queer...

The church sure has changed since I stopped going regularly. :hmmm:

What is funny is the difference in the spins of the same story. The truth is somewhere in between. Which likely means some protesters were saying some nice and naughty things and were removed from the premises for their own protection and that action caused them to cry 'crucification' and provided the impetus for fund raising. :clap:

[2bikemike]

In Meme Gay sided article the gays were crying foul about the messages the Christians were delivering. I think the quote was "In Your Face".

Well what do they think a damn gay pride or coming out parade is. Its a hyped up dressed up "in your Face" look at me I am gay statement.

They want to argue that what they do in the bedroom is their business. So then why do they publicly parade it down the street and put it your face.

[Rausch]

Just so I get this straight (no pun intended), it's freedom of speech unless it's directed toward gays then it's a hate crime?

Nice...got it.

Yes. Apparently, it's now illegal to hate someone.

[memyselfI]

In Meme Gay sided article the gays were crying foul about the messages the Christians were delivering. I think the quote was "In Your Face".

Well what do they think a damn gay pride or coming out parade is. Its a hyped up dressed up "in your Face" look at me I am gay statement.

They want to argue that what they do in the bedroom is their business. So then why do they publicly parade it down the street and put it your face.

Like I said on another thread, the AVERAGE gay couple is being made nothing more than a pawn in a political tug o' war between RWNJs and LWNJs both of whom CLAIM they 'wish' the homosexuals would live their lives without the parades and the 'in your face' mentality but both of whom do EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER to stoke the sentiment and radicalize gays to be OUT.

If I didn't know any better I'd think there was some kind of co-ordinated conspiracy between RW/LW whackos designed at keeping the AVERAGE gay couple mired in the status quo.

[KCN]

While I will speak out against any action that is purposely offensive, like marching with your harry ass sticking out or poking fun at Christians, there is nothing wrong with celebrating who you are ONCE A YEAR. I don't see what's so scary about rainbow balloons.

[craneref]

'Christian hymns' laced with fag and queer...

The church sure has changed since I stopped going regularly. :hmmm:

What is funny is the difference in the spins of the same story. The truth is somewhere in between. Which likely means some protesters were saying some nice and naughty things and were removed from the premises for their own protection and that action caused them to cry 'crucification' and provided the impetus for fund raising. :clap:

A couple of things to point out here, even if there were taunts in with the hymns, (possible, but I don't think likely here, my brother is a pastor and lives in Philadelphia and knows some of them casually), what happened to freedom of speech. Isn't screaming "Baby Killers: hate filled speech towards the defenders of our nation, how about calling the middle of America "Jesus Land" surely that is an unfavorable slur, where is your ire about that. Face it Meme, you sit on onw side of the fence alone, it is a hated crime if it goes against your views, but OK if it agrees with yours. I am a Christian and don't see any homosexual couple as "AVERAGE" as the VAST Majority of America that are married are Man to Woman, so Gay marriage would not be classified as Average, however, if the Gay Pride group wants to march peacefully and chant their Liberal mantra, they can doit, doesn't mean I have to support it, see it, like it or agree with it. On the flip side, the Christians have just as much right to be celebrating their beliefs at the same time, much the same way as the "Micheal Moore" group can say what they say, even if it is a gorss fabrication of a hint of truth. By the way, share with all of us why you quit attending church regularly, and you can't say becasue the church is full of hypocrites, because all humans are that, we go to church to Worship an Almighty Creator who has given us the choice to Worship Him or not, not because of other people. I am tolerent of others beliefs, that tolerence does not equate with acceptance "As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord" on my wall as you enter this house.

[WoodDraw]

Yeah, what the hell? All of those articles were badly biased and spinning like crazy. Either way though, that's stupid. These things wouldn't happen if both groups just learned to leave eachother alone. If people were trying to force their distorted view of a religion down my throat simply because of a condition I was born with than I'd tell them to go take their gospel and shove it but hey, free speech for all.

[Taco John]

I wonder if there is a non-left or right wing media source explaining what happened. Obviously they were doing more than "minding their own business" while singing nice peaceful christian hymns.



No dude. They were singing hymns. And now they're going to jail for 47 years for it. That's how the law works.

Damned libbies!

:cuss:



/reactionary moron off

[craneref]

Yeah, what the hell? All of those articles were badly biased and spinning like crazy. Either way though, that's stupid. These things wouldn't happen if both groups just learned to leave eachother alone. If people were trying to force their distorted view of a religion down my throat simply because of a condition I was born with than I'd tell them to go take their gospel and shove it but hey, free speech for all.

First of all there is no proof that one is born a Homosexual, you are entitled to that belief, just as I am entitled to my belief that it is a lifestyle choice that may very well be shaped by the socio-upbringing of the person. But who are you to say that the Christians had a distorted view and not the Gay Pride marchers, are you not forcing your beliefs down the throuat of those that don't agree, why can't they just have their free speech and you be TOLERENT of them, or is that a one way street.

[Taco John]

Anyone else find it ironic that Cochise's mistaken conception of hate crimes would be paralleled by a lack of knowledge about the Constitution?



Oh, I've found the irony to be quite delicious over the last few months...

[Taco John]

First of all there is no proof that one is born a Homosexual, you are entitled to that belief, just as I am entitled to my belief that it is a lifestyle choice that may very well be shaped by the socio-upbringing of the person. But who are you to say that the Christians had a distorted view and not the Gay Pride marchers, are you not forcing your beliefs down the throuat of those that don't agree, why can't they just have their free speech and you be TOLERENT of them, or is that a one way street.


Seriously dude... There are people in Iran who get sex changes from men to women. Think about that for a second. What in the hell is the benefit of changing your sex from a man to a woman in FUGGING IRAN!?

Or Saudi Arabia... There are people in Saudi Arabia who get sex changes. They cut their schlong in a place where women have virtually ZERO rights. (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=123&art_id=vn20041130052606494C786012)

What kind of proof are you "God don't make no gays" folks looking for!?

Maybe you know the secret formula that makes a heterosexual person who is repulsed by the idea of gay sex all of a sudden raise their eyebrows in delight to the idea of schlocking schlongs... Why aren't you saddled with the burden of proof on this one?

What a great lifestyle choice to make, especially in Iran. "Geez, you know, I'm not getting enough shit thrown on me by society, and every pair of boobs I see all look the same to me. But if I decided to go gay, geez... That would SOLVE EVERYTHING!"

[WoodDraw]

First of all there is no proof that one is born a Homosexual, you are entitled to that belief, just as I am entitled to my belief that it is a lifestyle choice that may very well be shaped by the socio-upbringing of the person.

You are entitled to think whatever you want but I know plenty of homosexual people raised in normal families and plenty of straight people who have lived horrible childhoods. I'm sure there are some who choose to be homosexual based on the society they live in or were brought up in but I'd say that they are the minority and not the majority. Sure, there isn't any solid proof but I think common sense and the scientific knowledge that we do have points to it at least being heavily influenced biologically if not completely genetic.

But who are you to say that the Christians had a distorted view and not the Gay Pride marchers,

That Christian group is free to believe whatever they want to but why slam it down everyones throat? They are taking phrases in a book that is thousands of years old, writen years after the life of Jesus, and translated who knows how many times and interpreting them in their own way in order to run some type of crusade against a group of people who simply want to live their lives openly in the way that they feel they were born to live. If you are against it, fine but don't take that belief and try to force it on everyone else under the guise of healing souls or spreading the gospel.

are you not forcing your beliefs down the throuat of those that don't agree, why can't they just have their free speech and you be TOLERENT of them, or is that a one way street.

I'm not forcing my belief on anyone. In fact, in my last post I said "free speech for all". I'm expressing my opinion just like you are expression yours. It's the government's job to protect free speech, not mine.

[MonroeChief]

Seriously dude... There are people in Iran who get sex changes from men to women. Think about that for a second. What in the hell is the benefit of changing your sex from a man to a woman in FUGGING IRAN!?

Or Saudi Arabia... There are people in Saudi Arabia who get sex changes. They cut their schlong in a place where women have virtually ZERO rights. (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=123&art_id=vn20041130052606494C786012)

What kind of proof are you "God don't make no gays" folks looking for!?

Maybe you know the secret formula that makes a heterosexual person who is repulsed by the idea of gay sex all of a sudden raise their eyebrows in delight to the idea of schlocking schlongs... Why aren't you saddled with the burden of proof on this one?

What a great lifestyle choice to make, especially in Iran. "Geez, you know, I'm not getting enough shit thrown on me by society, and every pair of boobs I see all look the same to me. But if I decided to go gay, geez... That would SOLVE EVERYTHING!"

It seems to me that God made Man (collective meaning male and female) to procreate. If you take all of the gay men and put them on a secluded island and take the lesbians to their own secluded island we could solve the problem. I doubt seriously that any of the gays are going to give birth nor the lesbians. There is a part missing from both equations.

Being queer (gay or lesbian) is an abnormal state of mind. They were not born queer, it is a decision they made for themselves.

[|Zach|]

If you take all of the gay men and put them on a secluded island and take the lesbians to their own secluded island we could solve the problem.
:shake:

[Logical]

Like I said in another thread to Vlad, "EVERYTHING IS A FELONY NOW"

...Our legal system is not about justice, it's about money. We need to seriously reconsider where our priorities lie when we are all over someone who smokes a joint and some murderers are not even checked on.

Cmon Troy you know I completely agree with you about that statement in bold. I just do not agree everything is a felony. Clearly however, this is an example of the problems in our judicial system.

[Logical]

That is exactly right!!! Hate crime legislation is being used to squelch free speech. There is nothing good about hate legislation.

I completely agree with you on this statement Troy.

[jAZ]

Has anyone read the actual police report on the event/incident. I'm guessing that people are expressing false outrage based on misinformation.

Somehow I don't believe that the police are arresting people and charging them with hate crimes for singing Christmas Carols.

Debate the need for "hate crimes" all you want, but lets deal with something more concrete than these articles (none of which say ANYTHING useful about the events in question from what I read).

[KCTitus]

If people were trying to force their distorted view of a religion down my throat simply because of a condition I was born with than I'd tell them to go take their gospel and shove it but hey, free speech for all.

Ive allways found this reaction fascinating...it's akin to what a vampire does when shown the crucifix.

How does Christians singing = shoving religion down my throat. Surely, if they were yelling/singing/chanting fag or queer, they're not talking religion so that cant be it.

It does sadden me to see the recoil effect on people, it shows me just how badly the enemy has them tricked.

[memyselfI]

A couple of things to point out here, even if there were taunts in with the hymns, (possible, but I don't think likely here, my brother is a pastor and lives in Philadelphia and knows some of them casually), what happened to freedom of speech. Isn't screaming "Baby Killers: hate filled speech towards the defenders of our nation, how about calling the middle of America "Jesus Land" surely that is an unfavorable slur, where is your ire about that. Face it Meme, you sit on onw side of the fence alone, it is a hated crime if it goes against your views, but OK if it agrees with yours. I am a Christian and don't see any homosexual couple as "AVERAGE" as the VAST Majority of America that are married are Man to Woman, so Gay marriage would not be classified as Average, however, if the Gay Pride group wants to march peacefully and chant their Liberal mantra, they can doit, doesn't mean I have to support it, see it, like it or agree with it. On the flip side, the Christians have just as much right to be celebrating their beliefs at the same time, much the same way as the "Micheal Moore" group can say what they say, even if it is a gorss fabrication of a hint of truth. By the way, share with all of us why you quit attending church regularly, and you can't say becasue the church is full of hypocrites, because all humans are that, we go to church to Worship an Almighty Creator who has given us the choice to Worship Him or not, not because of other people. I am tolerent of others beliefs, that tolerence does not equate with acceptance "As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord" on my wall as you enter this house.


You are missing my point. Let them show their true colors and scream all the hate they want...as long as they are merely YELLING their hateful 'words of God' then no harm, no foul.

My point was not about what they yelled or their presence there. My point was this article made it sound like these folks were being peaceful and spreading the love of God and it actually sounds like they were being more disruptive and hateful than the article states....again that is their RIGHT. But for the RWNJs to then use their arrests as some kind of religious/Christian persecution in order to solicit funds for their RWNJ organizations is a joke.

They are entitled to yell, they are entitled to lie but they are not entitled to their own facts...the same goes for the LWNJs on the scene.

[Boozer]

Just a quick recap...who actually believes that the arrestees were just singing hymns?

[jcl-kcfan2]

Seriously dude... There are people in Iran who get sex changes from men to women. Think about that for a second. What in the hell is the benefit of changing your sex from a man to a woman in FUGGING IRAN!?

Or Saudi Arabia... There are people in Saudi Arabia who get sex changes. They cut their schlong in a place where women have virtually ZERO rights. (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=123&art_id=vn20041130052606494C786012)

What kind of proof are you "God don't make no gays" folks looking for!?

Maybe you know the secret formula that makes a heterosexual person who is repulsed by the idea of gay sex all of a sudden raise their eyebrows in delight to the idea of schlocking schlongs... Why aren't you saddled with the burden of proof on this one?

What a great lifestyle choice to make, especially in Iran. "Geez, you know, I'm not getting enough shit thrown on me by society, and every pair of boobs I see all look the same to me. But if I decided to go gay, geez... That would SOLVE EVERYTHING!"


No one said it was a GOOD lifestyle choice, just a lifestyle choice, unless you are saying no one makes bad choices...

[Saulbadguy]

Just a quick recap...who actually believes that the arrestees were just singing hymns?
I don't think they will admit it.

[memyselfI]

Just a quick recap...who actually believes that the arrestees were just singing hymns?

Dontcha ya think if you truly believe woman came from a man's rib you just might believe it?

[Baby Lee]

Dontcha ya think if you truly believe woman came from a man's rib you just might believe it?
That's just f@cking insulting.

Suicide is an option, you know.

[memyselfI]

That's just f@cking insulting.

Suicide is an option, you know.

Yes, blind faith is insulting. :thumb:

[Lzen]

That Christian group is free to believe whatever they want to but why slam it down everyones throat? They are taking phrases in a book that is thousands of years old, writen years after the life of Jesus, and translated who knows how many times and interpreting them in their own way in order to run some type of crusade against a group of people who simply want to live their lives openly in the way that they feel they were born to live. If you are against it, fine but don't take that belief and try to force it on everyone else under the guise of healing souls or spreading the gospel.

I've heard that interepreted over years nonsense but it doesn't mean a whole lot. The 10 Commandments are pretty clear. As are other things. Look, I can tell by your attitude that you don't understand Christians. We don't want to force it down your throat. Personally, I don't think I could do what these people were doing. But the vast majority of Christians are simply trying to do what is commanded in the Bible. Spread the word of God. Obviously, we believe gays are lost souls and we are merely trying to help them.

I know I may not always act like a good Christian myself but, I try to do what my Lord wants of me. Trust me, we are not trying to judge. I think that's the common misconception of non-Christians. We truly believe in an afterlife. That may be very hard for you to understand but, that's what we believe. If we're wrong then big deal, right? But if you're wrong........think about it.

JAZ,
I tried to find an unbiased report on this but, I came up blank. If you know how to find a police report, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

[Chieficus]

It seems to be the claim of some that these poor homosexuals just want to be "accepted as they are." And that Christians "shouldn't try to change them."

Hmmm... So basically, the Christians need to change, but the homosexuals can stay the same... Oh, but the response will be: "We're not asking Christians to change, just to keep their beliefs in their own circles and not try to change others..."

Well, I don't recall Jesus, Paul or Peter telling anyone to keep silent. In fact, when Peter and John were arested and told to 'shut up' they replied, "Whether is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard."

Christianity is not the "feelings, nothing but feelings" belief of Schleiermacher, nor the personal "I'm leaping on wings of faith into the dark" existentialism of Kierkegaard, that so many today seem to want it to be....

Christianity is supposed to be front-lines, world and life changing...but you can't do that if you keep it to yourself...

Granted sporting "God hates the fags!" signs or chanting the logo, doesn't quite fall in line with "If your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thristy, give him a drink...." But, I've yet to see a good reason given as to why we should believe the homosexual activists' viewpoint of that actually happening...

At any rate...just don't whine about me wanting to change you when you want to change me...

[Chieficus]

Dontcha ya think if you truly believe woman came from a man's rib you just might believe it?

Well... It is better than believing the non-scientific fokelore that man and woman evolved from chimps, baboons or apes...

[Lzen]

Well... It is better than believing the non-scientific fokelore that man and woman evolved from chimps, baboons or apes...

Or that life started on a desolate planet from a puddle. What are the atronomical odds against something like that?

[memyselfI]

Well... It is better than believing the non-scientific fokelore that man and woman evolved from chimps, baboons or apes...

Both beliefs are crap.

[jspchief]

So how many christians would like having satanism preached to them? How often do they want someone to convert them to Judaism, or Muslim?

It's fine that Jesus tells you to spread the word. But to the people that don't believe in Jesus, you are trying to force your beliefs on them.

[jspchief]

Or that life started on a desolate planet from a puddle. What are the atronomical odds against something like that?

You want to bring up astronomical odds, while convincing me that there's some entity that just snapped his fingers and made the world appear?

[Lzen]

So how many christians would like having satanism preached to them? How often do they want someone to convert them to Judaism, or Muslim?

It's fine that Jesus tells you to spread the word. But to the people that don't believe in Jesus, you are trying to force your beliefs on them.

Like I said, I don't know that I could do what these people do. I mean, the people at that rally more than likely are not going to be receptive. However, there is plenty of evidence of people being reformed from their gay lifestyle.

Simply put, if someone tried to preach satanism, Judaism, Muslim, etc. I would let them know I wasn't interested.

[Chieficus]

So how many christians would like having satanism preached to them? How often do they want someone to convert them to Judaism, or Muslim?

It's fine that Jesus tells you to spread the word. But to the people that don't believe in Jesus, you are trying to force your beliefs on them.

Well, as a young, highly-theologically-conservative Southern Baptist, and there also by some to be considered a right-wing-evangelical-nut-job... My answer would be: You can preach to me whatever you want, and try to convert me to any belief you want... Just don't get your shorts in a wad when I do the same thing back...

[Baby Lee]

Yes, blind faith is insulting. :thumb:
Yet another chapter in the primer on why you deserve everything thrown your way on this board.

[Baby Lee]

So how many christians would like having satanism preached to them? How often do they want someone to convert them to Judaism, or Muslim?

It's fine that Jesus tells you to spread the word. But to the people that don't believe in Jesus, you are trying to force your beliefs on them.
I like Rocky Road ice cream.

Sorry for forcing my ice cream preferences on you.

[KCWolfman]

Because they face 47 years in prison. Last time I checked, it wasn't illegal to mind your own business. If they truly were minding their own business, i'm sure they will be found innocent.
Yup, innocent people aren't jailed for no reason, just ask Bruno Hauptmann

[Lzen]

You want to bring up astronomical odds, while convincing me that there's some entity that just snapped his fingers and made the world appear?

You apparently missed the point. I was merely pointing out the irony of the notion that believing in a supreme being is ludicrous, unintelligent, and backwoods while believing in something that is so utterly ridiculous that it makes people look like fools. There are so, so many falsities in the Theory of Evolution that it's hard to believe that scientists can pass it off as the only theory that deserves recognition.

[Chieficus]

You want to bring up astronomical odds, while convincing me that there's some entity that just snapped his fingers and made the world appear?

Well it is the simplest answer with the best explanation for what we see in the universe...

After all, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how natural mechanical and chemical processess that begin with inanimate matter eventually develop human beings that are anything but machine-like in the facts that we love, hate, think, feel, and debate moral issues...

So far the best answers I've seen by some of the brightest minds in science out there reply: "It must be some process that we haven't figured out yet." In other words: "We don't know."

Yeah, that gives me a lot of confidence.

[KCWolfman]

Seriously dude... There are people in Iran who get sex changes from men to women. Think about that for a second. What in the hell is the benefit of changing your sex from a man to a woman in FUGGING IRAN!?

Or Saudi Arabia... There are people in Saudi Arabia who get sex changes. They cut their schlong in a place where women have virtually ZERO rights. (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=123&art_id=vn20041130052606494C786012)

What kind of proof are you "God don't make no gays" folks looking for!?

Maybe you know the secret formula that makes a heterosexual person who is repulsed by the idea of gay sex all of a sudden raise their eyebrows in delight to the idea of schlocking schlongs... Why aren't you saddled with the burden of proof on this one?

What a great lifestyle choice to make, especially in Iran. "Geez, you know, I'm not getting enough shit thrown on me by society, and every pair of boobs I see all look the same to me. But if I decided to go gay, geez... That would SOLVE EVERYTHING!"
So what is your explanation for bestials and pedophiles? Are they born that way, or is it a horrid lifestyle choice?

[Saulbadguy]

Well it is the simplest answer with the best explanation for what we see in the universe...

After all, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how natural mechanical and chemical processess that begin with inanimate matter eventually develop human beings that are anything but machine-like in the facts that we love, hate, think, feel, and debate moral issues...

So far the best answers I've seen by some of the brightest minds in science out there reply: "It must be some process that we haven't figured out yet." In other words: "We don't know."

Yeah, that gives me a lot of confidence.
Yeah, but it sure sounds alot better than "let there be light."

[KCWolfman]

So how many christians would like having satanism preached to them? How often do they want someone to convert them to Judaism, or Muslim?

It's fine that Jesus tells you to spread the word. But to the people that don't believe in Jesus, you are trying to force your beliefs on them.
Forcing your beliefs?

What does that mean?

Using your analogy above, aren't you forcing your belief on us with your own statement? Why do you have that right while you deny Christians the right to do the same?

[Lzen]

Seriously dude... There are people in Iran who get sex changes from men to women. Think about that for a second. What in the hell is the benefit of changing your sex from a man to a woman in FUGGING IRAN!?

Or Saudi Arabia... There are people in Saudi Arabia who get sex changes. They cut their schlong in a place where women have virtually ZERO rights. (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=123&art_id=vn20041130052606494C786012)

What kind of proof are you "God don't make no gays" folks looking for!?

Maybe you know the secret formula that makes a heterosexual person who is repulsed by the idea of gay sex all of a sudden raise their eyebrows in delight to the idea of schlocking schlongs... Why aren't you saddled with the burden of proof on this one?

What a great lifestyle choice to make, especially in Iran. "Geez, you know, I'm not getting enough shit thrown on me by society, and every pair of boobs I see all look the same to me. But if I decided to go gay, geez... That would SOLVE EVERYTHING!"


Irrational thoughts/behavior is not exclusive to Amercans. Actually, it's probably much more prevalent over there.

[Chieficus]

Yeah, but it sure sounds alot better than "let there be light."

Now I guess that depends upon the premise of what you want to sound better... :hmmm:

[KCWolfman]

Yeah, but it sure sounds alot better than "let there be light."
Yeah, After all according to science, no matter is created (only changed) and time is linear. Who cares that matter had to initially be created before time began?

It is the same crap, just non-religious beliefs use bigger words.

[Cochise]

Yeah, After all according to science, no matter is created (only changed) and time is linear. Who cares that matter had to initially be created before time began?

It is the same crap, just non-religious beliefs use bigger words.

Yeah... where did all this matter come from if you can't create or destroy matter?

[Saulbadguy]

Now I guess that depends upon the premise of what you want to sound better... :hmmm:
Pretty much.

Did God create the earth, or the entire universe?

[KCWolfman]

Pretty much.

Did God create the earth, or the entire universe?
If God didn't, what did?

[jspchief]

Well, as a young, highly-theologically-conservative Southern Baptist, and there also by some to be considered a right-wing-evangelical-nut-job... My answer would be: You can preach to me whatever you want, and try to convert me to any belief you want... Just don't get your shorts in a wad when I do the same thing back...

You actually don't know how you'd handle it, because christians are never subjected to it at the level of which they dole it out. The christian religion is waved in the face of non-christians at every turn, sometimes in a subtle, non-offensive manner, other times in a "in your face" agressive manner. It can accumulate to the point of browbeating at times.

Most people that come off as anti-christian, aren't against christians at all. They're simply tired of others telling them what to believe, or how bad their life is for not believing it.

What is the line you draw in spreading the word of Jesus? What measures has Jesus asked you to go to in order to get his message out? It used to be that he asked you to kill Moors in his name. How did you determine that that was taking it too far?

[Saulbadguy]

If God didn't, what did?
I was just asking if he did or not. I'm not sure of what the belief is. I also do not know if it was documented that he created the universe, along with the earth.

[jspchief]

I like Rocky Road ice cream.

Sorry for forcing my ice cream preferences on you.

Am I going to perish in a fiery afterlife if I don't like Rocky Road?

It's not about what you like, It's about you judging me for not liking it also.

[Chieficus]

Pretty much.

Did God create the earth, or the entire universe?

Now remember, I'm a self-procliamed "conservative evangelical nut job" :) , so, of course, it was the entire universe...

...in all of its beauty with the millions-upon-millions of galaxies spread across the seemingly endless expanse, with the quasars and pulsars and black holes and dark matter galore...

[KCWolfman]

You actually don't know how you'd handle it, because christians are never subjected to it at the level of which they dole it out. The christian religion is waved in the face of non-christians at every turn, sometimes in a subtle, non-offensive manner, other times in a "in your face" agressive manner. It can accumulate to the point of browbeating at times.

Most people that come off as anti-christian, aren't against christians at all. They're simply tired of others telling them what to believe, or how bad their life is for not believing it.

What is the line you draw in spreading the word of Jesus? What measures has Jesus asked you to go to in order to get his message out? It used to be that he asked you to kill Moors in his name. How did you determine that that was taking it too far?
I don't recall any direct quote from Jesus asking us to kill Moors. You may mean that His word was violated and abused for gain, but your statement is horrendously inaccurate.

So how far is not too much? Isn't your statement above forcing your viewpoints on everyone here? Why do you have that right?

[KCTitus]

I was just asking if he did or not. I'm not sure of what the belief is. I also do not know if it was documented that he created the universe, along with the earth.


Genesis 1:1 documents it...

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

[KCWolfman]

Am I going to perish in a fiery afterlife if I don't like Rocky Road?

It's not about what you like, It's about you judging me for not liking it also.
Your statement was not that you didn't want peope judging you, your statement was that you didn't want people "forcing their beliefs upon you".

I seem to remember you judged me as a poor consumer for not working with a customer service rep in a manner that you would have handled differently. Why did you do so? What gave you that right?

[Saulbadguy]

Did God create other sentinent beings as well, on other planets?

[KCTitus]

Am I going to perish in a fiery afterlife if I don't like Rocky Road?

It's not about what you like, It's about you judging me for not liking it also.

Judging <> telling you the result of not believing

[Lzen]

Am I going to perish in a fiery afterlife if I don't like Rocky Road?

It's not about what you like, It's about you judging me for not liking it also.

See, that's the common misconception. Nobody is trying to judge you. Frankly, I may try to convince you once of the way to eternal life. But if you are unreceptive, I would probably just give up. I know that may or may not be what God wants but that's just the only thing I know to do.

[Cochise]

Something else I have wondered, I think it's the second law of thermodynamics, one of the most fundamental laws of physics, that says that systems tend toward disorder, not to order. But we are to believe that an infinite progression of order randomly resulted from the chaos that existed before? Doesn't seem logical to me.

[KCWolfman]

Did God create other sentinent beings as well, on other planets?
LOL - You want proof of God, but you assume there are other sentient beings without proof.


Don't you find that to be a conundrum of your own logic>?

[jspchief]

Your statement was not that you didn't want peope judging you, your statement was that you didn't want people "forcing their beliefs upon you".

I seem to remember you judged me as a poor consumer for not working with a customer service rep in a manner that you would have handled differently. Why did you do so? What gave you that right?

I never said "on me". I said on them, as in the gays that these people were protesting against. And before you wave the constitution in my face, I fully agree with your right to say it, just as I agree with their right to get pissed off and react over it.

In regards to the Moors, christians interpreted the bible in a way that justified the crusades. Were these christians wrong? How do you know you aren't as well.

[KCWolfman]

Something else I have wondered, I think it's the second law of thermodynamics, one of the most fundamental laws of physics, that says that systems tend toward disorder, not to order. But we are to believe that an infinite progression of order randomly resulted from the chaos that existed before? Doesn't seem logical to me.
Will be amended in future books, the same as Today's Impending Ice Age will be Tomorrow's Global Warming and Dinosaurs died off because of a meteor but then they changed into birds

[Baby Lee]

Am I going to perish in a fiery afterlife if I don't like Rocky Road?

It's not about what you like, It's about you judging me for not liking it also.
Whether you perish or not is not up to me.
Who knows, maybe our infinite existence actually depends on ice cream preference.
Apparently you are hung up on the prospect of there being consequences to rejecting what is preached. So which is it, the possibility that what is preached might be true, or the possibility that those preaching are judging you?
First of all, I have always held and been vocal about my opinion that those who judge their fellow man in eternal terms are sinning as bad or worse than any particular person they are judging.
But I've never understood the shrill decrying of someone stating their opinion that you're going to burn in a hell that you don't even believe exists.

[Lzen]

Did God create other sentinent beings as well, on other planets?

First, we don't even know if there are other sentient beings on other planets. And the Bible does not state one way or the other. But I think we can assume that if he created the heavens(the Universe - stars, planets, galaxies, etc.) and the earth, any beings on it would be His creation as well.

[KCWolfman]

I never said "on me". I said on them, as in the gays that these people were protesting against. And before you wave the constitution in my face, I fully agree with your right to say it, just as I agree with their right to get pissed off and react over it.

In regards to the Moors, christians interpreted the bible in a way that justified the crusades. Were these christians wrong? How do you know you aren't as well.
Ahh, I agree with your second paragraph, but that was not what you originally stated. You attributed DIRECTLY to Jesus Christ the fact that Christians killed Muslims in his name - that is false.

I don't know for a fact I am not. I know I do what is right in my heart to convince someone WITHOUT FORCE. Spread the word seems quite appropriate with my actions - you have the right to tell me you don't want to hear it - when have I ever tried to "save" someone on this board in public manner?

[Chieficus]

You actually don't know how you'd handle it, because christians are never subjected to it at the level of which they dole it out.

Hmmm... Glad you know my life so well...

The christian religion is waved in the face of non-christians at every turn, sometimes in a subtle, non-offensive manner, other times in a "in your face" agressive manner. It can accumulate to the point of browbeating at times.

Most people that come off as anti-christian, aren't against christians at all. They're simply tired of others telling them what to believe, or how bad their life is for not believing it.

What is the line you draw in spreading the word of Jesus? What measures has Jesus asked you to go to in order to get his message out? It used to be that he asked you to kill Moors in his name. How did you determine that that was taking it too far?

I draw the line where scripture draws the line.

Now in history there have been people who have claimed to heard the voice of God tell them to do this or do that... including killing people in Jesus's name... Well, I'm not finding where Jesus or His apostles say that we should do that...

Now if I pass you on the street and you look a bit worn and thirsty, I'll be more than happy to buy you a nice tall glass of ice tea... just don't be offended when I start sharing the gospel message with you... after all, I'm not offended when I'm told to "F**k off."

[Lzen]

I never said "on me". I said on them, as in the gays that these people were protesting against. And before you wave the constitution in my face, I fully agree with your right to say it, just as I agree with their right to get pissed off and react over it.

In regards to the Moors, christians interpreted the bible in a way that justified the crusades. Were these christians wrong? How do you know you aren't as well.

Just as I know what the Reverend Fred Phelps is doing here is wrong. They took the word of God and twisted it to fit their agenda. Phelps says "God hates gays". In reality, God hates the sin of homosexuality. But the people engaged in it are his children just as we are. They are just lost souls in sin. Shoot, we all are sinners and the only way we receive eternal life is by Jesus' sacrifice of being crucified on the cross.

[jspchief]

See, that's the common misconception. Nobody is trying to judge you. Frankly, I may try to convince you once of the way to eternal life. But if you are unreceptive, I would probably just give up. I know that may or may not be what God wants but that's just the only thing I know to do.

I don't think you or any of the other christian members of this BB are trying to do anything to me. You guys are among the large majority that live and let live. But I'm suprised you don't see how some of these groups are fanatical to the point of putting non-christians on the defensive.

Most people will go to church, say their prayers, and believe in their god. They'll thank god when something good happens to them, and pray for guidance in times of trouble. But you can't deny that there are groups that are pushing the edge of sanity "in god's name". These people are to christians what the people that scream "baby-killer" are to war protestors. If you go out to a gay rally to wave your bible, then you are going looking for a fight.

[KCWolfman]

Just as I know what the Reverend Fred Phelps is doing here is wrong. They took the word of God and twisted it to fit their agenda. Phelps says "God hates gays". In reality, God hates the sin of homosexuality. But the people engaged in it are his children just as we are. They are just lost souls in sin. Shoot, we all are sinners and the only way we receive eternal life is by Jesus' sacrifice of being crucified on the cross.
Rep

[KCWolfman]

I don't think you or any of the other christian members of this BB are trying to do anything to me. You guys are among the large majority that live and let live. But I'm suprised you don't see how some of these groups are fanatical to the point of putting non-christians on the defensive.



Do you let groups of wacko leftist anti-theological extremists define who you are?

No one said they didn't see anything that the extremists are doing, that doesn't mean they define who the non-extremists are.

[Lzen]

I don't think you or any of the other christian members of this BB are trying to do anything to me. You guys are among the large majority that live and let live. But I'm suprised you don't see how some of these groups are fanatical to the point of putting non-christians on the defensive.

Most people will go to church, say their prayers, and believe in their god. They'll thank god when something good happens to them, and pray for guidance in times of trouble. But you can't deny that there are groups that are pushing the edge of sanity "in god's name". These people are to christians what the people that scream "baby-killer" are to war protestors. If you go out to a gay rally to wave your bible, then you are going looking for a fight.

I understand what you are saying but I don't necessarily believe that their intention was to fight. I think nobody truly knows of their intentions. As JAz mentioned, a police report might shed a little light on the situation. Who knows.

[jspchief]

You attributed DIRECTLY to Jesus Christ the fact that Christians killed Muslims in his name - that is false.


Now in history there have been people who have claimed to heard the voice of God tell them to do this or do that... including killing people in Jesus's name... Well, I'm not finding where Jesus or His apostles say that we should do that...

So when are you allowed to "interpret" the bible to justify you doing god's work, and when are you supposed to do it as Jesus and the apostles specified in the bible?

In other words...where does Jesus ask you to convert gays?

[Cochise]

Will be amended in future books, the same as Today's Impending Ice Age will be Tomorrow's Global Warming and Dinosaurs died off because of a meteor but then they changed into birds

Maybe instead of continually correcting themselves, they could just offer some kind of an explaination of how something can come into existence out of nothing.

[Lzen]

So when are you allowed to "interpret" the bible to justify you doing god's work, and when are you supposed to do it as Jesus and the apostles specified in the bible?

In other words...where does Jesus ask you to convert gays?

Yes, the Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin. It also says in several places that we should spread the word of God.

[KCWolfman]

So when are you allowed to "interpret" the bible to justify you doing god's work, and when are you supposed to do it as Jesus and the apostles specified in the bible?

In other words...where does Jesus ask you to convert gays?
Jesus does not ask me to convert gays. God defines homosexuality as a sin. Nor does God or Jesus tell me to kill Muslims because they think differently.

You are parsing snips if you are just being facetious in your question.

[KCWolfman]

Maybe instead of continually correcting themselves, they could just offer some kind of an explaination of how something can come into existence out of nothing.
I just wish they would quit forcing their views upon the rest of us. It is offensive.

[Chieficus]

So when are you allowed to "interpret" the bible to justify you doing god's work, and when are you supposed to do it as Jesus and the apostles specified in the bible?

In other words...where does Jesus ask you to convert gays?

You interpret the Bible in a normal grammatical-historical method and let the pieces fall in their proper contextual place.

Jesus doesn't ask us to convert anyone... only God can change a person's heart, but in that God also requires a response of faith and repentence to His word, thus we are to share/spread His word, as we are commanded to do. Therefore, gay/straight, Jew/Muslim, atheist/deist...the works... We're to be equal opportunity gospel sharers...

[Baby Lee]

Jesus does not ask me to convert gays. God defines homosexuality as a sin. Nor does God or Jesus tell me to kill Muslims because they think differently.

You are parsing snips if you are just being facetious in your question.
:homer: - Mmmm parsnips.

[Mr. Kotter]

... If you go out to a gay rally to wave your bible, then you are going looking for a fight.

Looking for a fight?

What would you call homosexuals flaunting their lifestyle choice, insisting that society sanction homosexuality as the moral equivelent of the social norm, usurping democratic process through judicial fiat, and the "in-your-face" militancy of their movement??? :hmmm:

Look, you are right; most of us are "live and let live." But it isn't Christians picking this fight; homosexuals have been instigating and proding this conflict for decades.

Now they are whining that many Americans, including many non-Christians, have called their bluff. Victims? If they are victims, it is their own actions have precipitated the so-called "bigotry" they lament.

Don't ask, don't tell; live and let live....fine! If that's their fuggin' mantra, why not PRACTICE what the hell they are preaching--and leave the rest of us the hell alone. :shake:

[Saulbadguy]

LOL - You want proof of God, but you assume there are other sentient beings without proof.


Don't you find that to be a conundrum of your own logic>?
I was just wondering if the proof of other sentinent beings would disprove the God theory.

[KCWolfman]

I was just wondering if the proof of other sentinent beings would disprove the God theory.
Not unless there is something in the Bible that states God didn't create beings on other planets - which there is not that I am aware.

[Saulbadguy]

Maybe instead of continually correcting themselves, they could just offer some kind of an explaination of how something can come into existence out of nothing.
Leap of faith.

[Chieficus]

I was just wondering if the proof of other sentinent beings would disprove the God theory.

Proof of sentient alien life proves or disproves nothing about the "God theory," all it does is simply prove the existence of sentinent alien life...

[KCWolfman]

Leap of faith.
Just with longer words than the Bible uses.

[jspchief]

You interpret the Bible in a normal grammatical-historical method and let the pieces fall in their proper contextual place.

Jesus doesn't ask us to convert anyone... only God can change a person's heart, but in that God also requires a response of faith and repentence to His word, thus we are to share/spread His word, as we are commanded to do. Therefore, gay/straight, Jew/Muslim, atheist/deist...the works... We're to be equal opportunity gospel sharers...
So when is the last time Christians rallied against Jews? Or Muslims? Maybe you're supposed to be "equal opportunity gospel sharers", but the ones that are out there sharing his word the loudest are far from equal in regards to who they share it with.

[Mr. Kotter]

Leap of faith.

Non-believers are the ones insisting on "proof."

Except, of course, don't expect THEM to offer "proof" of their own theories. :rolleyes:

Don't you see how lame that is?

[Cochise]

Leap of faith.

?

Well, how did it happen?

[Chieficus]

Leap of faith.

It's like I've said on other threads...all beliefs have their crutches as do all have their sheep...

Proof, evidence, and all that can be manipulated in just about any direction... so the real debate should not be about the proofs, evidences and theories, but about whether our crutches are strong enough to support us and our shepherds are worthy enough to be followed...

[Lzen]

I was just wondering if the proof of other sentinent beings would disprove the God theory.

God theory? Saul, I'm curious. You told me at the Chiefs/Texans game that you had just celebrated Yom Kippur. Is that not a religious Jewish holiday? Don't Jews believe in God? I'm confused about where you stand on this.

[Chieficus]

So when is the last time Christians rallied against Jews? Or Muslims? Maybe you're supposed to be "equal opportunity gospel sharers", but the ones that are out there sharing his word the loudest are from from equal in regards to who they share it with.

If gospel sharing is limited to showing up at quasi-political rallies, you might have a point.

[KCN]

Yes, the Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin. It also says in several places that we should spread the word of God.

The bible also says eating shellfish is a sin. (See http://www.godhatesshrimp.com).

I don't point that out to mock the Bible or Old Testament at all, just that there are passages that have been dismissed through time, and that much of the Bible, particularly the OT, is up to much interpretation. For instance, from http://www.str.org/free/studies/homo_lev.htm,

The Hebrew word "toevah" (translated "abomination" and "detestable act") is a cultic, not a moral, term. The English "abomination" means abhorrent, loathsome, unspeakably bad. Toevah means ritually unclean. Eating pork is toevah; having sex with a menstruating woman is toevah. You cannot come to worship after doing these things until you have been purified.

I point out that Jesus Christ himself, the Son of God, never once spoke out against homosexuality in the Bible. It is mentioned a couple of times in the New Testament, yes, but not by JC.


As far as spreading the word of God, as a Christian I do believe it is our duty. However, how do we go about it? In my opinion, it must always be done in a loving, respectful manner free from judgement or any condescending tone. Afterall, as Lzen said, we are all sinners, and we are all equal in the loving eyes of God, and we must treat each other as such.

[Cochise]

God theory? Saul, I'm curious. You told me at the Chiefs/Texans game that you had just celebrated Yom Kippur. Is that not a religious Jewish holiday? Don't Jews believe in God? I'm confused about where you stand on this.

Without attempting to answer for Saul, I will observe that there is a difference between an ethnic Jew and one who actually practices the traditional religion.

[KCWolfman]

God theory? Saul, I'm curious. You told me at the Chiefs/Texans game that you had just celebrated Yom Kippur. Is that not a religious Jewish holiday? Don't Jews believe in God? I'm confused about where you stand on this.
I was kind of curious about that when he mentioned he didn't know if God created the universe, after all Genesis is part of the Pentatuech.

[jspchief]

Looking for a fight?

What would you call homosexuals flaunting their lifestyle choice ...??? :hmmm:


The same thing I would call christians flaunting their lifestyle choice...people that need to learn to be content with who they are and stop worrying about who anyone else is or how they feel about it.

I don't want to see half-naked men in leather pants either. But when is someone going to realize that coming out beating your bible does nothing but antagonize them? It's the equivalent of trying to convince Duhnese that she's an idiot...it won't make her less of an idiot, but it will make her go on parade with her idiocy.

[Lzen]

So when is the last time Christians rallied against Jews? Or Muslims? Maybe you're supposed to be "equal opportunity gospel sharers", but the ones that are out there sharing his word the loudest are from from equal in regards to who they share it with.

Where does it say they were "rallying against" them? According to the articles, they were simply trying to spread the Gospel.

[KCWolfman]

The same thing I would call christians flaunting their lifestyle choice...pepole that need to learn to be content with who they are and stop worrying about who anyone else is or how they feel about it.

I don't want to see half-naked men in leather pants either. But when is someone going to realize that coming out beating your bible does nothing but antagonize them? It's the equivalent of trying to convince Duhnese that she's an idiot...it won't make her less of an idiot, but it will make her go on parade with her idiocy.
There I agree 100%. Reverend Wacko Phelps does nothing to help the cause; however, if he is the worst of the Christian ills, then we are certainly on the right path considering the last 1900 years.

[Cochise]

...much of the Bible, particularly the OT, is up to much interpretation.

If you understand the context, I think it's normally easy to tell what was a specific instruction given to a specific people at a specific time, what is simply a recording of cultural or ceremonial customs of the time, and what is generally applicable to any time period.

If you look at some places in the Bible, you will find some types of food declared to be unclean. But the final word in my opinion is given in Mark when all foods are declared to be clean.

[Lzen]

....It's the equivalent of trying to convince Duhnese that she's an idiot...it won't make her less of an idiot, but it will make her go on parade with her idiocy.

ROFL That was good. :thumb:

[KCN]

Looking for a fight?

What would you call homosexuals flaunting their lifestyle choice, insisting that society sanction homosexuality as the moral equivelent of the social norm, usurping democratic process through judicial fiat, and the "in-your-face" militancy of their movement??? :hmmm:

Look, you are right; most of us are "live and let live." But it isn't Christians picking this fight; homosexuals have been instigating and proding this conflict for decades.

Now they are whining that many Americans, including many non-Christians, have called their bluff. Victims? If they are victims, it is their own actions have precipitated the so-called "bigotry" they lament.

Don't ask, don't tell; live and let live....fine! If that's their fuggin' mantra, why not PRACTICE what the hell they are preaching--and leave the rest of us the hell alone. :shake:

Was Martin Luther King Jr. looking for a fight?

Change needs to be made with respect to the way gays are treated in this country. You expect them to sit back and stay completely out of sight?

[jspchief]

Where does it say they were "rallying against" them? According to the articles, they were simply trying to spread the Gospel.Okay, in accordance with this particualr article...when's the last time a group of Christians gathered at a Jewish or Muslim event to try and spread the gospel?

Or ignore the article and address it from a broader perspective, where Christians have "rallied against" homosexuals.

You're still ignoring the point. You say "we share the gospel equally", but the reality is that's not the case. Christians carefully pick their fights when "sharing the gospel". They tend to aim their gospel at the groups they dislike the most.

[Lzen]

If you understand the context, I think it's normally easy to tell what was a specific instruction given to a specific people at a specific time, what is simply a recording of cultural or ceremonial customs of the time, and what is generally applicable to any time period.

If you look at some places in the Bible, you will find some types of food declared to be unclean. But the final word in my opinion is given in Mark when all foods are declared to be clean.

Thank you. Yep, taking passages out of context can be dangerous.

[KCWolfman]

Was Martin Luther King Jr. looking for a fight?

Change needs to be made with respect to the way gays are treated in this country. You expect them to sit back and stay completely out of sight?
Nope, but there is a huge difference between MLK and a man in buttless leather chaps walking down the middle of a street during gay parade week.


I agree with you that all people should be considered equal and that homosexuals frequently are not. However, I don't see how isolating those who disagree with them with threats of force and deliberating blocking of progress as noted by the author of this thread helps the cause in the least. It was more "by any means necessary" than "I have a dream".

[KCWolfman]

You're still ignoring the point. You say "we share the gospel equally", but the reality is that's not the case. Christians carefully pick their fights when "sharing the gospel". They tend to aim their gospel at the groups they dislike the most.

You just did it again. You are decrying the prejudism of some idiots using Christianity as a shelter while making prejudiced statements against an entire religious group.

That makes no sense at all.

[KCN]

If you understand the context, I think it's normally easy to tell what was a specific instruction given to a specific people at a specific time, what is simply a recording of cultural or ceremonial customs of the time, and what is generally applicable to any time period.

Good point, but how do we know that the passages regarding homosexuality are applicable to this time period? Were the causes of homosexuality around then? If not, was this passage then geared toward a 100% straight population? Or just the straight portion of that population? Since we still don't know the root cause(s) of homosexuality today, it's difficult to say.

[stevieray]

Was Martin Luther King Jr. looking for a fight?



How long before Martin Luther King's legacy is assaulted? If the Constitution is offensive, surely his platform of God will eventually be scrutinized or dismissed.

[Cochise]

Good point, but how do we know that the passages regarding homosexuality are applicable to this time period? Were the causes of homosexuality around then? If not, was this passage then geared toward a 100% straight population? Or just the straight portion of that population? Since we still don't know the root cause(s) of homosexuality today, it's difficult to say.

Obviously there are places where it is condemned, but is there another place later where it's uncondemned?

As far as I am aware, everytime it's mentioned it's either specifically called sinful or mentioned in a sinful context. Doesn't seem to be any ambiguity to me.

Perhaps an example would be useful in discussing where you see it.

[KCN]

Nope, but there is a huge difference between MLK and a man in buttless leather chaps walking down the middle of a street during gay parade week.


I agree with you that all people should be considered equal and that homosexuals frequently are not. However, I don't see how isolating those who disagree with them with threats of force and deliberating blocking of progress as noted by the author of this thread helps the cause in the least. It was more "by any means necessary" than "I have a dream".

I totally agree with you, I don't at all condone what happened in this case. However I think the majority of people marching in a gay pride parade are not out to start a fight. They want celebrate who they are and gay culture, and that is all. Many are there to march for equal rights as well. They guy in leather pants with his ass sticking out in broad public is being tacky and rude, but I don't necessarily equate it to sticking his middle finger up to the world.

Now, some gays out there are out to give the big F-you to the general population who they view as oppressive. I have spoken out against them and believe me, I've taken a LOT of shit for it. I can't tell you how many times I've been labled an extreme assimilationist or an uncle tom.

[KCN]

How long before Martin Luther King's legacy is assaulted? If the Constitution is offensive, surely his platform of God will eventually be scrutinized or dismissed.

Not if I can help it.

[jspchief]

You just did it again. You are decrying the prejudism of some idiots using Christianity as a shelter while making prejudiced statements against an entire religious group.

That makes no sense at all.
Not intentionally. It must be my misunderstanding of what Jesus wants you to do.

The way Chieficus stated it..."we are to share/spread His word, as we are commanded to do. Therefore, gay/straight, Jew/Muslim, atheist/deist...the works... We're to be equal opportunity gospel sharers..."

That makes it sound like you are supposed to be giving the same amount of attention to all of these groups. While you may not go out an rally and protest gays, in here you've certainly thrown more gospel at them than you have any of the other groups listed.

Maybe Chieficus did a poor job of stating his point. If he was trying to say "we only gospel-stomp sinners", then I don't know where jews, muslims, atheists, etc. fit in. I don't have a list of sins/sinners so I don't know who Jesus has actually targeted for gospel.

I don't think it's that out of line to say that christians have taken a stronger stance against gays, than they have against others.

[KCWolfman]

I don't think it's that out of line to say that christians have taken a stronger stance against gays, than they have against others.

I think unless you use the word "some" then you are definitely wrong and prejudiced in your statement.

Intentional or not, your bias is clear.

[jspchief]

I think unless you use the word "some" then you are definitely wrong and prejudiced in your statement.

Intentional or not, your bias is clear.
Okay, stereotype police...did you say "some" when you said "a man in buttless leather chaps" when referring to gays?

Apparently, we all keep our bias in glass jars...

[KCWolfman]

Okay, stereotype police...did you say "some" when you said "a man in buttless leather chaps" when referring to gays?

Apparently, we all keep our bias in glass jars...
Did I say ALL gays wear buttless chaps?

There was no bias to my statement at all, your own ass is chapped because you are busted in your prejudice.

[Lzen]

Not intentionally. It must be my misunderstanding of what Jesus wants you to do.

The way Chieficus stated it..."we are to share/spread His word, as we are commanded to do. Therefore, gay/straight, Jew/Muslim, atheist/deist...the works... We're to be equal opportunity gospel sharers..."

That makes it sound like you are supposed to be giving the same amount of attention to all of these groups. While you may not go out an rally and protest gays, in here you've certainly thrown more gospel at them than you have any of the other groups listed.

Maybe Chieficus did a poor job of stating his point. If he was trying to say "we only gospel-stomp sinners", then I don't know where jews, muslims, atheists, etc. fit in. I don't have a list of sins/sinners so I don't know who Jesus has actually targeted for gospel.

I don't think it's that out of line to say that christians have taken a stronger stance against gays, than they have against others.

It's simple really. The only reason you have that perception is that this is a hot button topic right now. The media never mentions the Christians who go out every day to share the gospel with other groups. I guess that isn't a story to them.

[memyselfI]

There I agree 100%. Reverend Wacko Phelps does nothing to help the cause; however, if he is the worst of the Christian ills, then we are certainly on the right path considering the last 1900 years.


The said part is his 'worst' part of the Christian ills is becoming more tolerated and actually more acceptable thus your view of being on the right path based on him being the worst of the ills is delusional. Phelps has gone from being the extreme fringe to the fringe of the extreme.

[KCWolfman]

Phelps has gone from being the extreme fringe to the fringe of the extreme.
Based upon what?

[Lzen]

The said part is his 'worst' part of the Christian ills is becoming more tolerated and actually more acceptable thus your view of being on the right path based on him being the worst of the ills is delusional. Phelps has gone from being the extreme fringe to the fringe of the extreme.

Nope. We have gone from extremists killing many people to extremists picketing. If you cannot see the huge difference then you are blind.

[KCN]

It's simple really. The only reason you have that perception is that this is a hot button topic right now. The media never mentions the Christians who go out every day to share the gospel with other groups. I guess that isn't a story to them.

Same with gays who aren't marching down a parade or flamboyantly and illegally getting married in San Francisco.

It's up to us to refrain from generalizing either group.

[KCWolfman]

Same with gays who aren't marching down a parade or flamboyantly and illegally getting married in San Francisco.

It's up to us to refrain from generalizing either group.
Bam!!! I agree. Rep

My sister works her daily routine along with her female significant other as she has for the last 15 years. She expects nothing extra and gets pissed when she is shortchanged for her sexual choices - as it should be.

[Chieficus]

Not intentionally. It must be my misunderstanding of what Jesus wants you to do.

The way Chieficus stated it..."we are to share/spread His word, as we are commanded to do. Therefore, gay/straight, Jew/Muslim, atheist/deist...the works... We're to be equal opportunity gospel sharers..."

That makes it sound like you are supposed to be giving the same amount of attention to all of these groups. While you may not go out an rally and protest gays, in here you've certainly thrown more gospel at them than you have any of the other groups listed.

Maybe Chieficus did a poor job of stating his point. If he was trying to say "we only gospel-stomp sinners", then I don't know where jews, muslims, atheists, etc. fit in. I don't have a list of sins/sinners so I don't know who Jesus has actually targeted for gospel.

I don't think it's that out of line to say that christians have taken a stronger stance against gays, than they have against others.

Last post on this from me for now... got other stuff I need to get to...

But:

1) The definition of sinner = every man and woman to ever live upon this earth...with the exception of Jesus.

2) Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian.

3) Those who, according to the standards of scripture, are Christians are still sinners but have been justified in God's eyes and saved through faith by God's grace... this doesn't mean we don't/won't sin but we should do our best not to sin.

4) As sinners saved by grace, we have a responsibility to share the love and grace of God with others who are still sinners not saved by grace, with the hope that God will save them, too.

5) Those who are doing this are mainly going to be ineteracting with the people around them... Christians as individuals are not called to share with every single individual type of person, but the Church as a whole is...this means that some will share with Muslims, some will share with Jews, some with homosexuals, some with athesits...it depends upon where God has called that person to serve (i.e. there will be differences in what you do to carry out this task when you live in Farmtown, Iowa; or New York City; or Iran).

But...if we do encounter someone of a particular group and DO NOT share the gospel with them, then we are being judgemental, unloving, and placing ourselves in the position of God by saying that they are deserving of hell. Who we encounter in our everyday lives depends on who we are mainly going to be sharing with, but to discriminate against a group and NOT share with them is to be judgemental and is wrong.

6) Obviously in the eyes of the general public, if true Christians are in an area and trying to share with a group that tends to be the public/political hot-topic of the moment, then there is going to obviously be more press surrounding that than what another group is going to get.

7) Without knowing exactly what happened, I couldn't tell ya' whether the people in the initial article or not were acting truly like Christians or just using the name of Christ in vain, but I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt until it can be show otherwise.

[memyselfI]

Nope. We have gone from extremists killing many people to extremists picketing. If you cannot see the huge difference then you are blind.

Uh, Phelps picketed Matthew Shepard's funeral...

in him you have both. And his hateful rhetoric and fear mongering are becoming status quo in the RWNJ world. He's becoming the rule and no longer the exception.

[KCWolfman]

Uh, Phelps picketed Matthew Shepard's funeral...

in him you have both. And his hateful rhetoric and fear mongering are becoming status quo in the RWNJ world. He's becoming the rule and no longer the exception.
And that relates to the average Christian how?

[memyselfI]

And that relates to the average Christian how?


I'm talking RWNJs not average Christian...I believe they are NOT one in the same. The 'average' Christian does not believe homosexuals are sinners who need saved.

[Mr. Kotter]

Was Martin Luther King Jr. looking for a fight?

Change needs to be made with respect to the way gays are treated in this country. You expect them to sit back and stay completely out of sight?

Of course he was. However, that was a fight MOST Americans, eventually, agreed with.

That's the difference. MOST Americans don't accept that the so-called "plight" of homosexuals as even close to being on par with racism and discrimination against African Americans or women.

You can cite anecdotal cases; you can manipulate statistics to demonstrate increased "hate" crimes all you want. The fact is, most of us look around our communities, and there is NOT the widespread acts of violence, lynchings, or unjust discrimination, based on a genetic condition, as was the case with blacks and women.

At best, we have truly homophobic idiots acting out in ways they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for, no epidemic of truly violent acts--only "prejudice" similar to those faced by "fat" people, "ugly" people, or drug "addicts." Such "discrimination is not unlawful. Of course, it is immature, immoral, and unwise. However, courtesy and maturity aren't subject to legislation--yet, anyway.

To compare homosexual behavior to race and gender is not a valid comparison in the minds of many of us. Reasonable people may disagree. You have been very reasonable in our discussion of this issue. We simply disagree.

[jspchief]

Did I say ALL gays wear buttless chaps?

There was no bias to my statement at all, your own ass is chapped because you are busted in your prejudice.
Did I say all christians protest gays?

When you replied to KCN, you said "there is a huge difference between MLK and a man in buttless leather chaps walking down the middle of a street during gay parade week."

But KCN was referring to gays in general, and their need to protest injustice/intolerance. Instead of saying "gays" you replaced it with "man in buttless chaps". So no, you didn't say it specifically, you just implied it.

[KCWolfman]

I'm talking RWNJs not average Christian...I believe they are NOT one in the same. The 'average' Christian does not believe homosexuals are sinners who need saved.
Yes, they do. They also believe they themselves need to be saved.

You stated that Phelps moved from the "extreme fringe" to the "fringe of the extreme", why make such a statement if it does not relate to the average Christian who is judged by that fringe?

[Lzen]

Uh, Phelps picketed Matthew Shepard's funeral...

in him you have both. And his hateful rhetoric and fear mongering are becoming status quo in the RWNJ world. He's becoming the rule and no longer the exception.

Deni se, you really are ignorant. Nobody said what Phelps does is not wrong. I was merely pointing out the difference. Crusaders killed, Phelps picketed. I don't think it's so hard to see that one is much worse than the other. Both are bad and wrong but, Phelps hasn't killed anyone. At least not to my knowledge.

[Lzen]

I'm talking RWNJs not average Christian...I believe they are NOT one in the same. The 'average' Christian does not believe homosexuals are sinners who need saved.

Uh, wrong.

[Taco John]

Now in the Bible it says
Thou shalt not watch two lesbians in bed,
Have homosexual sex
Unless of course you were given the consent to join in
Then of course, it's intercourse
And it's bi-sexual sex
Which isn't as bad, as long as you show some remorse for your actions
Either before, during or after peforming the act of that which
Is normally referred to have such, more commonly known phrases
That are more used by today's kids
In a more derogatory way but
Who's to say, what's fair to say, and what not to say?
Let's ask Dr. Dre



/eminem

[KCWolfman]

Did I say all christians protest gays?

When you replied to KCN, you said "there is a huge difference between MLK and a man in buttless leather chaps walking down the middle of a street during gay parade week."

But KCN was referring to gays in general, and their need to protest injustice/intolerance. Instead of saying "gays" you replaced it with "man in buttless chaps". So no, you didn't say it specifically, you just implied it.
KCN knew exactly what I was speaking of as his response was reasonable.

I don't think it's that out of line to say that christians have taken a stronger stance against gays, than they have against others.

There is your original statement. You don't say "some Christians" or even "most Christians" you simply say "Christians have taken a stronger stance" which implies all Christians.

Your statement is not only prejudiced and biased, it is ironic as it is exactly what you are bitching about SOME of these Christians doing.

[memyselfI]

Yes, they do. They also believe they themselves need to be saved.

You stated that Phelps moved from the "extreme fringe" to the "fringe of the extreme", why make such a statement if it does not relate to the average Christian who is judged by that fringe?

No, they don't believe that their homosexuality is a sin in itself. They might believe that we are born sinners who need to be 'saved' by JC but they are not holding homosexuals in special contempt like the RWNJs.

As far as the statement, 'average' Christians polled have indicated they want rights extended to homosexual couples but the term marriage reserved for man and woman. It is the fundamentalists and the extremists of the Christian religion who are seeking the change in the constitution and the belief that God burned homosexuals for their acts and thus we need to burn them (not literally) as well.

[Lzen]

The 'average' Christian does not believe homosexuals are sinners who need saved.

Please refrain from speaking for 'average' Christians. You apparently know absolutely nothing about us.

[memyselfI]

Please refrain from speaking for 'average' Christians. You apparently know absolutely nothing about us.

Bull, I know a number of 'average' Christians none of which are as remotely whacked out as those who pretend they respresent the 'average Christian' on this board.

[Mr. Kotter]

I'm talking RWNJs not average Christian...I believe they are NOT one in the same. The 'average' Christian does not believe homosexuals are sinners who need saved.

Bullshit.

A small minority of liberal Christian groups DON'T believe homosexuality to be a sin. The vast majority of Christianity, and Islam and Jews, believe it to be sinful.

You are simply WRONG; again.

[jspchief]

Did I say ALL gays wear buttless chaps?

There was no bias to my statement at all, your own ass is chapped because you are busted in your prejudice.

Besides, it's already been established that homosexuality is a sin. And I've also been told that it's a christian's duty to spread the word to sinners.

You can all it bias all you want. If I'm wrong, name another group that gets as much attention from christians as gays.

[KCWolfman]

No, they don't believe that their homosexuality is a sin in itself. They might believe that we are born sinners who need to be 'saved' by JC but they are not holding homosexuals in special contempt like the RWNJs.

As far as the statement, 'average' Christians polled have indicated they want rights extended to homosexual couples but the term marriage reserved for man and woman. It is the fundamentalists and the extremists of the Christian religion who are seeking the change in the constitution and the belief that God burned homosexuals for their acts and thus we need to burn them (not literally) as well.
Link?

[memyselfI]

Deni se, you really are ignorant. Nobody said what Phelps does is not wrong. I was merely pointing out the difference. Crusaders killed, Phelps picketed. I don't think it's so hard to see that one is much worse than the other. Both are bad and wrong but, Phelps hasn't killed anyone. At least not to my knowledge.

Oh, so he's only figuratively burning them as God did...nice. :thumb:

[KCWolfman]

Besides, it's already been established that homosexuality is a sin. And I've also been told that it's a christian's duty to spread the word to sinners.

You can all it bias all you want. If I'm wrong, name another group that gets as much attention from christians as gays.
To all people, not just sinners.

I never stated another group got more attention from gays; however, I do believe our local governments get a helluva lot more attention than Christians from the homosexual society.

I just find it more than a bit ironic that you don't mind telling people they are wrong in a variety of circumstances and posts on this board yet you bitch about Christians doing so, and the fact that you don't mind lumping all Christians together in a neat little prejudiced pile while complaining about their prejudices all on the same thread.

[jspchief]

Your statement is not only prejudiced and biased, it is ironic as it is exactly what you are bitching about SOME of these Christians doing.

I disagree. I don't consider discussing it on a BB (the equivalent of discussing it in a room full of friends), the same as going out to a public event waving signs and chanting protest.

[memyselfI]

Link?

Check CNN/Gallup's post election poll.

[KCWolfman]

Oh, so he's only figuratively burning them as God did...nice. :thumb:
Yup, unlike your hero Sharpton who actually orchestrated events that killed people and deliberately assisted a liar to attempt to jail innocent people.

Thank goodness you are on the side of good and right.

[KCWolfman]

I disagree. I don't consider discussing it on a BB (the equivalent of discussing it in a room full of friends), the same as going out to a public event waving signs and chanting protest.
You don't consider this to be a public bulletin board?

[Lzen]

Oh, so he's only figuratively burning them as God did...nice. :thumb:

Which part of what I said "Both are bad and wrong but, Phelps hasn't killed anyone" did you not understand?

[memyselfI]

Yup, unlike your hero Sharpton who actually orchestrated events that killed people and deliberately assisted a liar to attempt to jail innocent people.

Thank goodness you are on the side of good and right.

I have not defended Sharpton's antics. I think the guy was an idiot. He's obviously a very talented speaker who used idiotic ploys to make a name for himself and thus will never be taken seriously in the political arena. The only thing he'll be good for is rally speeches.

[memyselfI]

Which part of what I said "Both are bad and wrong but, Phelps hasn't killed anyone" did you not understand?


So, the final judgment is whether or not he killed someone. Nevermind that he works to promote hate and fear OF them...as long as he individually has not killed anyone he's cool beans. NICE!

You give Michael Moore the same pass, no doubt?

[Lzen]

Bull, I know a number of 'average' Christians none of which are as remotely whacked out as those who pretend they respresent the 'average Christian' on this board.

I would seriously doubt that anyone you know is a true or 'average' Christian. Or perhaps you just don't understand your friends, either. John 3:16 shows that they do need to be saved. If they don't accept Jesus as their savior, they won't be saved.

[KCWolfman]

I have not defended Sharpton's antics. I think the guy was an idiot. He's obviously a very talented speaker who used idiotic ploys to make a name for himself and thus will never be taken seriously in the political arena. The only thing he'll be good for is rally speeches.
So you don't mind using an assisted killer bigot to give speeches to support your candidate to millions of people, but you don't like bigoted reverends giving speeches to dozens of people?

Nice

[memyselfI]

I would seriously doubt that anyone you know is a true or 'average' Christian. Or perhaps you just don't understand your friends, either. John 3:16 shows that they do need to be saved. If they don't accept Jesus as their savior, they won't be saved.

Yes, they do understand that and in varying degrees within their respective denominations have chosen to do so. Ironically, the most devout 'saved Christian' I know is screwing my business out of payment...

so there you go.

[KCN]

Of course he was. However, that was a fight MOST Americans, eventually, agreed with.

That's the difference. MOST Americans don't accept that the so-called "plight" of homosexuals as even close to being on par with racism and discrimination against African Americans or women.

Did most Americans agree with MLK then? No. Otherwise there would have been no need for his struggle. So how can you say that eventually most Americans will not agree with the current fight for equality and acceptance of homosexuals? Are you Miss Cleo? And no one is saying that the injustice gays face are on par with the discriminations you referred to. But they are all alike in that each of these groups had/has to fight against these injustices, regardless of how severe they were/are.

You can cite anecdotal cases; you can manipulate statistics to demonstrate increased "hate" crimes all you want. The fact is, most of us look around our communities, and there is NOT the widespread acts of violence, lynchings, or unjust discrimination, based on a genetic condition, as was the case with blacks and women.

Instead you have millions of gays who feel second class, who cannot marry or adopt, who are brought up being told they are sinners, who feel ashamed of who they are growing up, are being disowned by family and friends, etc etc etc. You don't see it because the pain many gays go through is kept private. It's not nearly as bad as what happened to blacks earlier in the twentieth century, and no one is saying it is, but gays face injustices nonetheless. And you want them to sit back and accept it so you don't have to be aware of their presence? BTW, you cannot prove that homosexuality is not based on a genetic/inherent condition.

At best, we have truly homophobic idiots acting out in ways they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for, no epidemic of truly violent acts--only "prejudice" similar to those faced by "fat" people, "ugly" people, or drug "addicts." Such "discrimination is not unlawful. Of course, it is immature, immoral, and unwise. However, courtesy and maturity aren't subject to legislation--yet, anyway.

Wrong. Discrimination was just written into the constitution of several states a month ago. And in 37 states it is not illegal to be fired based on your sexual orientation.

To compare homosexual behavior to race and gender is not a valid comparison in the minds of many of us. Reasonable people may disagree. You have been very reasonable in our discussion of this issue. We simply disagree.

And it is reasonable people like us who need to take this issue from the RWNJ/LWNJs (as Denise puts it) so that progress can be made. But remember, reasonable people always keep it in mind that they may be wrong.

[memyselfI]

So you don't mind using an assisted killer bigot to give speeches to support your candidate to millions of people, but you don't like bigoted reverends giving speeches to dozens of people?

Nice

Assisted killer? He assisted in killing someone? Do tell.

[Lzen]

So, the final judgment is whether or not he killed someone. Nevermind that he works to promote hate and fear OF them...as long as he individually has not killed anyone he's cool beans. NICE!

You give Michael Moore the same pass, no doubt?

I'd suggest you take a reading comprehension class or two.

[KCWolfman]

Assisted killer? He assisted in killing someone? Do tell.
His rally of hate against the Jewish shopowners in Crown Heights in 1991 turned into antisemitic riots that killed several people.

Had a leading figure not made statements like :"Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights", many people would not have died.

I guess you missed it.

[memyselfI]

I'd suggest you take a reading comprehension class or two.


No, I understand OTOH you keep saying how wrong he is for doing what he does but OTOH you make the quatification that he's not as bad as killing someone.

It's a nice little jig...but it's people like him who stoke the fears and hate of people who do kill. So you are right, he's not holding the gun to anyone's head, or beating the crap out of anyone, or raping them before he kills them but his words certainly do rally and motivate those who would on his behalf.

[KCWolfman]

No, I understand OTOH you keep saying how wrong he is for doing what he does but OTOH you make the quatification that he's not as bad as killing someone.

It's a nice little jig...but it's people like him who stoke the fears and hate of people who do kill. So you are right, he's not holding the gun to anyone's head, or beating the crap out of anyone, or raping them before he kills them but his words certainly do rally and motivate those who would on his behalf.
You mean like you with Al Sharpton, right?

[Cochise]

I'm talking RWNJs not average Christian...I believe they are NOT one in the same. The 'average' Christian does not believe homosexuals are sinners who need saved.

Translation, I define average and anyone who disagrees with me is extreme.

[memyselfI]

His rally of hate against the Jewish shopowners in Crown Heights in 1991 turned into antisemitic riots that killed several people.

Had a leading figure not made statements like :"Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights", many people would not have died.

I guess you missed it.

So Phelps is guilty of the same when he practices hate and then someone kills based on his words?

And what about the minister who was administering to Andrea Yates telling her that the devil was watching her and that she was evil?

[KCWolfman]

So Phelps is guilty of the same when he practices hate and then someone kills based on his words?

And what about the minister who was administering to Andrea Yates telling her that the devil was watching her and that she was evil?
I place Phelps and Sharpton in the same category. I don't praise one while condoning the other (as you have done). However, Phelps has not led riots nor has he assisted in the illegal persecution of innocent people in a feeble attempt to bolster racial issues, has he? When Phelps helps his own Tawana Brawley, you have a point that they are similar. As it stands now, all you do is support one hate monger and condemn the other.

[Lzen]

No, I understand OTOH you keep saying how wrong he is for doing what he does but OTOH you make the quatification that he's not as bad as killing someone.

It's a nice little jig...but it's people like him who stoke the fears and hate of people who do kill. So you are right, he's not holding the gun to anyone's head, or beating the crap out of anyone, or raping them before he kills them but his words certainly do rally and motivate those who would on his behalf.

As far as I kno w, it is not against the law to speak hate. Although it is wrong. I will give you this, though. Both are evil sinners, no doubt. I just have a hard time equating someone who speaks hate with someone who actually commits murder. But I suppose in God's eyes, both are evil and sinners.

[jspchief]

You don't consider this to be a public bulletin board?

Of course it's a public BB.

I still don't consider talking about it in here it the equivalent of going to a christian rally and waving a " I hate Bible-beaters" sign or yelling "keep your preaching in the church!".

[KCWolfman]

Of course it's a public BB.

I still don't consider talking about it in here it the equivalent of going to a christian rally and waving a " I hate Bible-beaters" sign or yelling "keep your preaching in the church!".
So you have a predesigned limit of how much public speaking is too much when speaking on the morals and decisions of other people. How do you arrive at that limit?

[memyselfI]

I place Phelps and Sharpton in the same category. I don't praise one while condoning the other (as you have done). However, Phelps has not led riots nor has he assisted in the illegal persecution of innocent people in a feeble attempt to bolster racial issues, has he? When Phelps helps his own Tawana Brawley, you have a point that they are similar. As it stands now, all you do is support one hate monger and condemn the other.

No, I don't condone hateful rhetoric from Sharpton either...

but the difference as I see it is that Sharpton is not using GOD as his weapon of choice as Phelps is. He might be using the race card and he's wrong for doing so if it stokes hate or fear but unlike Phelps he's not claiming that he is speaking FOR God and condemning people who are not following him, Sharpton, or his version of HIM, God, to hell.

[jspchief]

So you have a predesigned limit of how much public speaking is too much when speaking on the morals and decisions of other people. How do you arrive at that limit?

When I come in here, I subject myself to discussion and alternate viewpoints. It's self-inflicted.

When someone knocks on my door wanting to deliver the Lord's message, it's not self-inflicted.

[KCWolfman]

No, I don't condone hateful rhetoric from Sharpton either...

but the difference as I see it is that Sharpton is not using GOD as his weapon of choice as Phelps is. He might be using the race card and he's wrong for doing so if it stokes hate or fear but unlike Phelps he's not claiming that he is speaking FOR God and condemning people who are not following him, Sharpton, or his version of HIM, God, to hell.
Got it - Phelps is a bum in everything he does because he used the word "God".
Sharpton is kinda bad because he assisted in a felony and started race riots, but since he didn't use "God" he is a good person to represent the Democrat ticket for prime speaker.


Your bias is plain as well.

[KCWolfman]

When I come in here, I subject myself to discussion and alternate viewpoints. It's self-inflicted.

When someone knocks on my door wanting to deliver the Lord's message, it's not self-inflicted.
Agreed. But these people weren't knocking on doors. They were in public.

[Lzen]

No, I don't condone hateful rhetoric from Sharpton either...

but the difference as I see it is that Sharpton is not using GOD as his weapon of choice as Phelps is. He might be using the race card and he's wrong for doing so if it stokes hate or fear but unlike Phelps he's not claiming that he is speaking FOR God and condemning people who are not following him, Sharpton, or his version of HIM, God, to hell.

Bwahahaha!! Hypocrite!!

[KCWolfman]

Bwahahaha!! Hypocrite!!
Yup:

hate a queer, you are bad

hate a kike, you are a leading political voice in the Democrat party

[jspchief]

Agreed. But these people weren't knocking on doors. They were in public.

No doubt. But unless they were morons, they also knew they were going to a bonfire wearing rags soaked in gas.

If you want to tell me that they were just trying to spread the word of god, fine. But their tactics suggest that they were trying to incite people. If they really wanted to spread their message, wouldn't it be more effective to do it in an environment that wasn't so emotionally charged? The fact that these gays were in a parade celebrating their gayness makes it rather obvious that they weren't riding the fence on the issue. It's the equivalent of going to a Democratic rally trying to convince people to vote Republican...not only do you know you won't change any minds, you have to know that you're just going piss people off.

I might agree that what I was saying was hypocritical if I was saying it on a christian BB.

[KCWolfman]

No doubt. But unless they were morons, they also knew they were going to a bonfire wearing rags soaked in gas.

If you want to tell me that they were just trying to spread the word of god, fine. But their tactics suggest that they were trying to incite people. If they really wanted to spread their message, wouldn't it be more effective to do it in an environment that wasn't so emotionally charged? The fact that these gays were in a parade celebrating their gayness makes it rather obvious that they weren't riding the fence on the issue. It's the equivalent of going to a Democratic rally trying to convince people to vote Republican...not only do you know you won't change any minds, you have to know that you're just going piss people off.

I might agree that what I was saying was hypocritical if I was saying it on a christian BB.
I can't make any kind of comparison with this incident. The data from all sites I have read are biased to one side or the other. However

1. Yes, they knew they were going to a hotbed
2. They may have gone with the intentions to incite hate, but they may also have gone to save even one person. Keep in mind that missionary work is not done in Picadilly Square, it is done in dangerous places with viewpoints that seem to be "rags soaked in gasoline".

[jspchief]

2. They may have gone with the intentions to incite hate, but they may also have gone to save even one person. Keep in mind that missionary work is not done in Picadilly Square, it is done in dangerous places with viewpoints that seem to be "rags soaked in gasoline".

Intelligent missionary work is setting up a church in a muslim area.
Idiotic missionary work is waving a cross in the face of muslims during an islamic gathering.

[Taco John]

Seriously... Are people *really* believing that these folks are at the risk of 47 years in prison because they were innocently singing hymns at a gay pride rally? Or maybe is it safe to assume that there's more to the story...

[KCWolfman]

Intelligent missionary work is setting up a church in a muslim area.
Idiotic missionary work is waving a cross in the face of muslims during an islamic gathering.
Saul himself was converted from killer to disciple in the midst of such hateful enemies.
Peter was crucified upside down for preaching in an unsafe enviornment.
A church is not set up until the first missionaries go into the face of the "muslims" talking peace.

[stevieray]

Intelligent missionary work is setting up a church in a muslim area.
Idiotic missionary work is waving a cross in the face of muslims during an islamic gathering.

Missinary work is missionary work. if the gays are parading down the street, that's where it is. both parties have the right to express their views.

[KCWolfman]

Seriously... Are people *really* believing that these folks are at the risk of 47 years in prison because they were innocently singing hymns at a gay pride rally? Or maybe is it safe to assume that there's more to the story...
Yup, I believe it is safe to assume. So where is the rest of the story, and why haven't those prosecuting been forthright about the charges and evidence?

[jspchief]

Saul himself was converted from killer to disciple in the midst of such hateful enemies.
Peter was crucified upside down for preaching in an unsafe enviornment.
A church is not set up until the first missionaries go into the face of the "muslims" talking peace.
And lightening comes from Thor...

[Taco John]

Yup, I believe it is safe to assume. So where is the rest of the story, and why haven't those prosecuting been forthright about the charges and evidence?



I assume because there's actually no danger of these people going to prison for 47 years and the prosecutor is just trying to make a statement to other idiots who would cost the taxpayers money because of their idiocy.

[|Zach|]

Yup, I believe it is safe to assume. So where is the rest of the story, and why haven't those prosecuting been forthright about the charges and evidence?
I am sure there is a police report or something of that nature.

[Mr. Kotter]

KCN, I'll follow your remarks, with bolded responses:

Did most Americans agree with MLK then? No. Otherwise there would have been no need for his struggle. So how can you say that eventually most Americans will not agree with the current fight for equality and acceptance of homosexuals? Are you Miss Cleo? And no one is saying that the injustice gays face are on par with the discriminations you referred to. But they are all alike in that each of these groups had/has to fight against these injustices, regardless of how severe they were/are.

Actually, most Americans DID agree with MLK, by 1960-1965--check the polling data. The process had been painstakingly slow, but the MAJORITY of Americans (nationally) DID back Civil Rights by 1960 or so. The "basis for the current fight, is much, much LESS deeply ingrained and believed as a matter or morality, than was justification for racial discrimination. The comparison is apples and watermellons. That you are willing to concede that the "injustices" are NOT comparable should be telling....IMHO.

Instead you have millions of gays who feel second class, who cannot marry or adopt, who are brought up being told they are sinners, who feel ashamed of who they are growing up, are being disowned by family and friends, etc etc etc. You don't see it because the pain many gays go through is kept private. It's not nearly as bad as what happened to blacks earlier in the twentieth century, and no one is saying it is, but gays face injustices nonetheless. And you want them to sit back and accept it so you don't have to be aware of their presence? BTW, you cannot prove that homosexuality is not based on a genetic/inherent condition.

"Feeling second class" and access to a, heretofore, exclusive privilege of heterosexual marriage, is not the same as lynchings, legal segregation, "rigged" all white juries, and turning a blind eye to REAL violence that blacks were subjected to. Fat people, drug addicts, alcoholics, bald people, "goths," and "nerds" all feel similar, "pain," as you say. The burden of proof on the biological basis for homosexuality is not on the accepted norm, but should rather be on those wishing to change the societal "norm."

Wrong. Discrimination was just written into the constitution of several states a month ago. And in 37 states it is not illegal to be fired based on your sexual orientation.

We simply disagree over what "distinctions" people are allowed to make, legally speaking. You don't think "behavior" or "lifestyle" choice should be a permissable "grouping." I say, it's fair game. In right to work states, if you smell funny, are fat, or ugly, as an employer, I can fire you. Period. You want to address that legislatively too???

And it is reasonable people like us who need to take this issue from the RWNJ/LWNJs (as Denise puts it) so that progress can be made. But remember, reasonable people always keep it in mind that they may be wrong.

"Progress" is a relative term; sure, I could be wrong. However, a lot remains left to be proven to me, before we open this pandora's box. The "plight" must be much more dispicable than what I see currently. Hell, in many circles, it's "cool" to be gay, or bisexual--I see it at the school I work at, every day. Most people have the "live and let live" attitude about it.

However, the "movement" seems intent on "shoving it down our throats"--"it," being forcing their agenda on the rest of society (seriously, no pun intended.)

[Mr. Kotter]

Wrong. Discrimination was just written into the constitution of several states a month ago. And in 37 states it is not illegal to be fired based on your sexual orientation.

KCN, FWIW.....I'm arguing we CAN'T legislate forcing people to be "tolerant" of gays, no more than we can force people to be tolerant of blacks or women in the work place. That didn't REALLY work; neither will this. It will take genuine acceptance, changes of heart and the mind--that has to come, if at all, from people themselves.

You simply CAN'T legislate the sort of "acceptance" the radical gay rights movement wishes to impose on society. If it is to happen, it must be voluntary; otherwise, to "coerce" it, with legislation, would be counterproductive in the end IMO. Like affirmative action, bussing, and quotas were for the Civil Rights Movement in my view. I view those policiies as having polarized society, more than doing any real good.

I'm convinced a "soft sell" approach would be much, much more effective in the long run. I know patience is not easy for them though.

[Mr. Kotter]

I assume because there's actually no danger of these people going to prison for 47 years and the prosecutor is just trying to make a statement to other idiots who would cost the taxpayers money because of their idiocy.

Screw the First Amendment, right TJ? :rolleyes:

But only when people exercising their right to protest disagree with me.... :rolleyes:

[memyselfI]

Bwahahaha!! Hypocrite!!


Did you see where I said Sharpton was wrong. I feel Phelps is worse for using God. Seeing that we can't actually ASK God if he wants his 'words' being used to spread hate and fear towards a segment of HIS people.

The difference with Sharpton is that there is an accountability factor with him using his race. If Blacks are offended by him they can stop paying attention to him, stop getting him on the ballot, and stop encouraging the Democrats embracing of him.

How do we reach God to see if we can get him on record for the same regarding Phelps?

[KCWolfman]

And lightening comes from Thor...
You see, I gave you facts with both Peter and missions and you attempt to debunk with some jokes about my religion. I honestly believe the issue you have with religion is your own, not the people giving the message.

You have no problem throwing ridicule, but you don't want someone speaking honestly to you on the subject because you will be offended. You have already set yourself up before you speak or type the first word.

[KCWolfman]

I assume because there's actually no danger of these people going to prison for 47 years and the prosecutor is just trying to make a statement to other idiots who would cost the taxpayers money because of their idiocy.
So they are abusing their station to send a message - and all of a sudden you are okay with that?

[KCWolfman]

Did you see where I said Sharpton was wrong. I feel Phelps is worse for using God. Seeing that we can't actually ASK God if he wants his 'words' being used to spread hate and fear towards a segment of HIS people.

The difference with Sharpton is that there is an accountability factor with him using his race. If Blacks are offended by him they can stop paying attention to him, stop getting him on the ballot, and stop encouraging the Democrats embracing of him.

How do we reach God to see if we can get him on record for the same regarding Phelps?
Phelps does not say he is God, he says he is a Christian. True Christians can do the same (as most have). Unfortunately, blacks and people like you don't do it to Sharpton.

That is why Phelps is relegated to speaking at funerals of average citizens and Sharpton is elevated to key speaker for your party.

Nice try.

[Mr. Kotter]

....How do we reach God to see if we can get him on record for the same regarding Phelps?

The nearly unanimous ostracization and disdain for Phelps by most other Christian groups isn't sufficient, eh? :rolleyes:

[memyselfI]

The nearly unanimous ostracization and disdain for Phelps by most other Christian groups isn't sufficient, eh? :rolleyes:

Not when his views are becoming more accepted by folks like Dobson, Bauer, and Falwell.

[KCWolfman]

Not when his views are becoming more accepted by folks like Dobson, Bauer, and Falwell.
I haven't been to any of their churches and they don't speak for my religion as a leader.

[Cochise]

Not when his views are becoming more accepted by folks like Dobson, Bauer, and Falwell.

What specific views of Phelps have they come out in agreement with?

[KCN]

"Feeling second class" and access to a, heretofore, exclusive privilege of heterosexual marriage, is not the same as lynchings, legal segregation, "rigged" all white juries, and turning a blind eye to REAL violence that blacks were subjected to. Fat people, drug addicts, alcoholics, bald people, "goths," and "nerds" all feel similar, "pain," as you say.

No one is saying the struggles of gays vs. blacks are the same so I'm not sure why you keep brinking it up. Nice way to put pain in quotes though. I know what it's like growing up skinny and nerdy through high school (thank God those days are over). It's not the same. You aren't brought up thinking you're going to hell because you're a nerd. Your parents don't kick you out of the house for being skinny.

The burden of proof on the biological basis for homosexuality is not on the accepted norm, but should rather be on those wishing to change the societal "norm."

What does change the societal norm mean? Make everyone gay?


We simply disagree over what "distinctions" people are allowed to make, legally speaking. You don't think "behavior" or "lifestyle" choice should be a permissable "grouping." I say, it's fair game. In right to work states, if you smell funny, are fat, or ugly, as an employer, I can fire you. Period. You want to address that legislatively too???

I'm not sure how many times I have to argue with you that homosexuality is not a behavior or lifestyle choice...

"Progress" is a relative term; sure, I could be wrong. However, a lot remains left to be proven to me, before we open this pandora's box. The "plight" must be much more dispicable than what I see currently. Hell, in many circles, it's "cool" to be gay, or bisexual--I see it at the school I work at, every day. Most people have the "live and let live" attitude about it.

Trust me it is not cool to be gay in most areas. Have you ever thought about why it's so difficult for people to come out of the closet?

And can you honestly tell me that if you had to hide who you were out of fear of being looked down upon, laughed at, or even beat up, all because you are misunderstood....that you would not want to change that misunderstanding?

EDIT Reading over that I might be coming off harsh which is unintentional because I appreciate respectable conversation coming from anyone on the opposite side of this issue.

[memyselfI]

What specific views of Phelps have they come out in agreement with?


http://www.us.net/epf/pages/rhue2.htm

From Dr. Sylvia Rhue, Director of Equal Partners in Faith. . . .
The (Dis)Harmonic Convergence of Fred Phelps and James Dobson

Remember the harmonic convergence a few years back when the planets were aligned in a cosmically unique straight line? Well, on September 7th, 2002, there was another harmonic convergence of sorts at Focus on the Family's "Love One Out" Conference at Pasadena's First Church of the Nazarine, the home church of James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family.

The conference was geared towards "telling the truth about homosexuality--that homosexuals can be changed and set free from the bounds of the homosexual lifestyle." The conference featured "experts" who have dedicated their lives to seeing that there are no more harmonic convergences between people of the same sex. They want conversion, not convergence. John Paulk, the "ex-gay" creator of the conference has said, "We continue to offer hope to families who have been devastated by homosexuality and to individuals who feel devastated by it." This is the same John Paulk who got caught socializing in a gay bar while publically posing as the main poster boy for the ex-gay movement.

But the star of the day was the ubiquitious Rev. Fred Phelps of www.GodHatesFags.com, who arrived with his "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God for 9/11" signs to protest the conference. This is the same man who pickets the funerals of gay men to inform the grieving family that God hates them and their deceased son. Phelps and Lucifer (of SatanHatesGod.com) have had a similiar career trajectory. Satan started out as a good guy. In heaven he was God's messenger to the angels. Lucifer means "Light-Bearer." But then, something corroded his soul like an acid wash and he became Satan, the Devil, the Evil One. He started a war in heaven and was kicked out.

Phelps too started out as a good guy. He became a lawyer and fought tooth and nail for civil rights. He was a light-bearer to racists and delivered messages to them in court. But then something corroded his soul and he became Satan's handmaiden. The Devil's own "Mini-Me." He started a war against gays and lesbians and has pursued them with a Luciferian fervor ever since.

Phelps told a reporter that the reason he was there protesting the conference was because James Dobson, the "Love One Out" people, and the whole "ex-gay" movement types are lying to homosexuals by saying that God loves them. Phelps position is that homosexuals are too far gone to save. They are so reprobate that they are beyond redemption, so why continue the lie that they can change. Then Phelps chuckled and said, "this is the one thing that the sodomites and I agree on. They are not going to change!"

I was also interviewed by the reporter and I told her that, "as Director of Equal Partners in Faith, and in my work with Woman Vision, I believe that the "ex-gay" movement is a fraudulent, spiritually damaging exercise that promotes a threadbare theology tied to a tinhorn psychology. As people of faith we could have put our time to better use by praying for the recovery of Trev Broudy, who was beaten senseless with a lead pipe for just the perception that he was gay. Both the "ex-gay' movement and Rev. Phelps help to create the foundational basis for the hate, rage, and violence that is directed towards gays and lesbians."

Equal Partners in Faith has worked for years exposing the "ex-gay" move-ment for it's false happy face that hides a 97% failure rate, suicides, self-mutilations, and its struggling, but deluded cadre of "ex-gays" who lead lives of quiet desperation, burdened with ficticiously fabricated guilt and maliciously manufactured shame.

Three streams of thought were present in Pasadena that day. James Dobson's "ex-gayers" who want gays and lesbians to shift their attractions from the same sex to the opposite sex. Fred Phelps who wants gays and lesbians to shift their presence from the planet and disappear. And I, and Equal Partners in Faith and Woman Vision, who want nothing less than a transformational shift in planetary consciousness that would make the world a better, safer place for love.

-----Sylvia Rhue

[KCN]

KCN, FWIW.....I'm arguing we CAN'T legislate forcing people to be "tolerant" of gays, no more than we can force people to be tolerant of blacks or women in the work place. That didn't REALLY work; neither will this. It will take genuine acceptance, changes of heart and the mind--that has to come, if at all, from people themselves.

You simply CAN'T legislate the sort of "acceptance" the radical gay rights movement wishes to impose on society. If it is to happen, it must be voluntary; otherwise, to "coerce" it, with legislation, would be counterproductive in the end IMO. Like affirmative action, bussing, and quotas were for the Civil Rights Movement in my view. I view those policiies as having polarized society, more than doing any real good.

I'm convinced a "soft sell" approach would be much, much more effective in the long run. I know patience is not easy for them though.

To clarify, the gay rights movement is for just that. Rights. Primarily marriage, protection from disrcimination in the workplace, etc.

The push for acceptance, tolerance and understanding comes from people such as myself, just trying to share my POV with others and further the knowledge of the general public so that future generations of gays don't go 20 or 30 years feeling ashamed and closeted.

It's tough because pushing for the former involves hard tactics which can take away from the latter goal.

[jspchief]

You see, I gave you facts with both Peter and missions and you attempt to debunk with some jokes about my religion. I honestly believe the issue you have with religion is your own, not the people giving the message.

You have no problem throwing ridicule, but you don't want someone speaking honestly to you on the subject because you will be offended. You have already set yourself up before you speak or type the first word.

You consider Peter to be "facts", I consider it mythology. Using stories that I consider fiction to justify the actions of these idiots doesn't work.

And how is it a joke? What differentiates the belief in the old Gods to explain that which couldn't be explained, and the belief in your God to explain that which can't be explained? IMO, the only thing that separates them is progression of science. Does science currently have an answer to every question? No. But I believe those things that currently can only be explained by a supreme being, will eventually be explained by science.

[Mr. Kotter]

...It's tough because pushing for the former involves hard tactics which can take away from the latter goal.

You are wise; too bad the leaders of the movement fail to heed such wisdom.

[Cochise]

Phelps told a reporter that the reason he was there protesting the conference was because James Dobson, the "Love One Out" people, and the whole "ex-gay" movement types are lying to homosexuals by saying that God loves them.

So, Phelps was there to protest Dobson, and that means they are just alike. Got it :spock:

[Taco John]

Screw the First Amendment, right TJ? :rolleyes:

But only when people exercising their right to protest disagree with me.... :rolleyes:



Screw the first amendment?

Only a reactionary pussy like yourself would even insinuate that is even close to what I'm saying.

[Mr. Kotter]

No one is saying the struggles of gays vs. blacks are the same so I'm not sure why you keep brinking it up. Nice way to put pain in quotes though. I know what it's like growing up skinny and nerdy through high school (thank God those days are over). It's not the same. You aren't brought up thinking you're going to hell because you're a nerd. Your parents don't kick you out of the house for being skinny.
.....
What does change the societal norm mean? Make everyone gay?
......
I'm not sure how many times I have to argue with you that homosexuality is not a behavior or lifestyle choice...
......
Trust me it is not cool to be gay in most areas. Have you ever thought about why it's so difficult for people to come out of the closet?
.....
And can you honestly tell me that if you had to hide who you were out of fear of being looked down upon, laughed at, or even beat up, all because you are misunderstood....that you would not want to change that misunderstanding?

EDIT Reading over that I might be coming off harsh which is unintentional because I appreciate respectable conversation coming from anyone on the opposite side of this issue.

You are right; it isn't the same as a being black or being a "nerd." The truth is it lies somewhere in between; the question is, how do we address the concern or the "pain" which you speak of. Do we subscribe to Booker T. Washington's or WEB DuBois's approach? Personally, the DuBois and early-Malcom X type approach is what is causing the "backlash." As far as parents, and judgemental churches, that is slowly changing to a more accomodating posture; but acceptance is different from social sanctioning and "approval."

The social norm, as it is, characterizes 'homosexuality' as a deviance from the accepted norm; similar to alcoholism, or drug addiction in the minds of many people. I'm NOT saying I necessarily subscribe to that theory, but to call it "normal" seems to be a strech to me, personally. The "change" sought is to have it declassified as a "deviance."

As far as "lifestyle choice" versus biologically based, yes, we are at an impasse. Until there is substantial quantative research one way or the other, we are likely to remain so.

The difficulty of "outing" oneself to others is similar to why criminals, addicts and alcoholics live in denial; the social costs of admitting their problem are significant, yes. No one "chooses" those lifestyles either--but there are plenty of those folks around too.

With regard to changing the "misunderstanding," I'd agree to an extent. But what is needed is education and tolerance--not a rejection of the values of mainstream Americans, and a demonization of 'homophobic' and 'religious zealots' who simply don't share your moral view.

BTW, No offense, taken KCN; I've developed a great deal of respect for you and your position; seriously. We simply have some irreconcible opinions regarding some of the specifics connected with this issue.

[Taco John]

So they are abusing their station to send a message - and all of a sudden you are okay with that?



ROFL

I'll give you a classic Brock Landers response...

"So you're telling me the government abuses it's power? Shocking."

[KCWolfman]

You consider Peter to be "facts", I consider it mythology. Using stories that I consider fiction to justify the actions of these idiots doesn't work.

And how is it a joke? What differentiates the belief in the old Gods to explain that which couldn't be explained, and the belief in your God to explain that which can't be explained? IMO, the only thing that separates them is progression of science. Does science currently have an answer to every question? No. But I believe those things that currently can only be explained by a supreme being, will eventually be explained by science.
Yes, St Peter was a living being and his upside down crucifixion is on record - it is not a "Bible story".

When you ridicule someone for their beliefs at least stick to the beliefs and not the facts.

[Brock]

Typical Liberal Talko John jive. Complain about the first amendment when someone is saying something you disagree with. What a pussy.

[Taco John]

BTW... Since when has "sending a message" been an abuse of prosecutorial powers? I've always been under the impression that was the prosecutor's job...

[Saulbadguy]

God theory? Saul, I'm curious. You told me at the Chiefs/Texans game that you had just celebrated Yom Kippur. Is that not a religious Jewish holiday? Don't Jews believe in God? I'm confused about where you stand on this.
I do it to please the family.

[Brock]

I do it to please the family.

That's a little weak.

[KCWolfman]

I do it to please the family.
So you celebrate a religious holiday that you have no faith in for no tangible reason other than to please your family......

Yet, you question those who don't have tangible reasons for God?

[Taco John]

So you celebrate a religious holiday that you have no faith in for no tangible reason other than to please your family......

Yet, you question those who don't have tangible reasons for God?


You do realize you had to dismiss his tangible reason in order to construct this connundrum...

I think he's a hypocrite for doing it, but he *did* have a tangible reason there that you completely sidestepped.

[KCWolfman]

You do realize you had to dismiss his tangible reason in order to construct this connundrum...

I think he's a hypocrite for doing it, but he *did* have a tangible reason there that you completely sidestepped.
Not tangible at all. He merely wanted to please someone by doing something he did not believe in. Feelings are not tangible.

[Taco John]

Not tangible at all. He merely wanted to please someone by doing something he did not believe in. Feelings are not tangible.



Then nothing is tangible here, and bringing up the term tangible is completely out of place.

[Saulbadguy]

So you celebrate a religious holiday that you have no faith in for no tangible reason other than to please your family......

Yet, you question those who don't have tangible reasons for God?
Neither side has proof. I'm just looking for my own answers. I don't see how either (me celebrating a holiday, questioning creationism and evolution) has anything to do with each other.

[Taco John]

For the record, I think Columbus day is a sham... But if you want to give me the day off for it, I'll sure as hell take it.

[Taco John]

Not tangible at all. He merely wanted to please someone by doing something he did not believe in. Feelings are not tangible.



Also, I'm pretty certain that his mother and father are tangible...

I'm sure you'd do what you could not to agree.

[KCN]

The social norm, as it is, characterizes 'homosexuality' as a deviance from the accepted norm; similar to alcoholism, or drug addiction in the minds of many people. I'm NOT saying I necessarily subscribe to that theory, but to call it "normal" seems to be a strech to me, personally. The "change" sought is to have it declassified as a "deviance."

Well...maybe "normal" isn't the right word choice. I have always disliked that word because how do you define it?

As far as "lifestyle choice" versus biologically based, yes, we are at an impasse. Until there is substantial quantative research one way or the other, we are likely to remain so.

I suppose. But I wish you would just a little bit heed the testimony of someone who has memories of homosexual feelings from as early as kindergarden.

The difficulty of "outing" oneself to others is similar to why criminals, addicts and alcoholics live in denial; the social costs of admitting their problem are significant, yes. No one "chooses" those lifestyles either--but there are plenty of those folks around too.

Denial is a large part of it. So is shame. And fear of being looked down upon. I am saying that there is no reason for a homosexual to have these feelings as there is for a drug addict or alcoholic (and to an extent, those folks shouldn't either).

With regard to changing the "misunderstanding," I'd agree to an extent. But what is needed is education and tolerance--not a rejection of the values of mainstream Americans, and a demonization of 'homophobic' and 'religious zealots' who simply don't share your moral view.

I totally agree, and I call upon you and others to ignore those who demonize the opposition and listen to the quieter voices. There are many respectable efforts being taken to increase education and tolerance. Look behind the big red insert in this month's Maxim. Look at ads on MTV, or "coming out day" across college campuses.

BTW, No offense, taken KCN; I've developed a great deal of respect for you and your position; seriously. We simply have some irreconcible opinions regarding some of the specifics connected with this issue.

Likewise :)

[Saulbadguy]

For the record, I think Columbus day is a sham... But if you want to give me the day off for it, I'll sure as hell take it.
Hypocrite.

[KCN]

Oh and also

But what is needed is education and tolerance--not a rejection of the values of mainstream Americans...

For many people, myself being one, the push for gay marriage is not a rejection of American values but rather the opposite, as we are asking to be included.

[Taco John]

Hypocrite.



Indeed. That would classify.

[Lzen]

Neither side has proof. I'm just looking for my own answers. I don't see how either (me celebrating a holiday, questioning creationism and evolution) has anything to do with each other.

I choose not to ridicule you, Saul because I've met you and I think you are a decent guy. I was once at the place you are when I was in my teens to early 20s. I'll just pray that someday you'll find the right path like I did.

[Taco John]

I really think the Christianity would be better off if so many Christians didn't sound so patronizing...

"I hope you find the right path, like I did..."

If that doesn't turn someone off... I don't know what does.

[Brock]

Yeah, it's almost as patronizing as your "I told my neighbor how to vote" post.

[KCWolfman]

For the record, I think Columbus day is a sham... But if you want to give me the day off for it, I'll sure as hell take it.
Do you persecute an Indian or celebrate in some other manner to please your family?

[KCWolfman]

I really think the Christianity would be better off if so many Christians didn't sound so patronizing...

"I hope you find the right path, like I did..."

If that doesn't turn someone off... I don't know what does.
Because of your own unfounded arrogance?

[Taco John]

Because of your own unfounded arrogance?



Oh, make no mistake. Any arrogance I possess is completely founded.

[KCWolfman]

Oh, make no mistake. Any arrogance I possess is completely founded.
So you don't mind being condescending, but you don't like when others do it.

That would explain your lack of posts when your team loses.

[memyselfI]

So, Phelps was there to protest Dobson, and that means they are just alike. Got it :spock:

No, they are alike in their loathing of the homosexual lifestyle, their belief that it's 'sin' and their perpetuating the fraud homosexuals living happily ever after 'converting' to heterosexuality.

They employ the same rhetoric though their methods are different...

[KCWolfman]

No, they are alike in their loathing of the homosexual lifestyle, their belief that it's 'sin' and their perpetuating the fraud homosexuals living happily ever after 'converting' to heterosexuality.

They employ the same rhetoric though their methods are different...
The Reverend Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan are alike in their outward hatred of Jews. Does that mean Sharpton is as bad as Farrakhan? If so, does that mean your party promotes racism? Or will you spin that away as well?

[Taco John]

So you don't mind being condescending, but you don't like when others do it.

That would explain your lack of posts when your team loses.



I don't mind being condesending when I know that you're on the other end of it. You're the most condescending prick I've ever known, so I figure you are capable of absorbing what you spew.

As far as lack of posts when my team loses, you couldn't be a bigger liar. I've posted more this week on the Chiefs forum than I have all season long, and we just lost.

[Cochise]

No, they are alike in their loathing of the homosexual lifestyle, their belief that it's 'sin' and their perpetuating the fraud homosexuals living happily ever after 'converting' to heterosexuality.

They employ the same rhetoric though their methods are different...

Did you even read the article? Dobson is saying that they can be rehabilitated and Phelps is protesting because he says they can't and God hates them.

It's painfully obvious that you just google a couple of words and post an article you skimmed the first paragraph of whenever someone challenges you.

[KCWolfman]

I don't mind being condesending when I know that you're on the other end of it. You're the most condescending prick I've ever known, so I figure you are capable of absorbing what you spew.

As far as lack of posts when my team loses, you couldn't be a bigger liar. I've posted more this week on the Chiefs forum than I have all season long, and we just lost.
Wow, a one week example over several years, man I can't top that.

As far as the "you started it" argument, I am sure that works well for you.

[Taco John]

Wow, a one week example over several years, man I can't top that.

As far as the "you started it" argument, I am sure that works well for you.



I've never shirked this place during losses. Not once. I've always come in to take my lumps. Problem is, we haven't lost that many games this season...

And I never made the "you started it" argument. My point was, you're the last person on this board who should complain about people being condescending pricks.

[WoodDraw]

Look, I can tell by your attitude that you don't understand Christians.

I was born Catholic, raised Catholic, and still am a Catholic so don't try to lecture me on "understanding" Christians. I reject many of the current "teachings" of the Catholic church because I think they are simply wrong and have no real truth. I don't hold the bible up as the almighty book of inspired truth because I don't think that there is any proof (both historically and spiritually) that it is. It was writen by authors who had a specific goal in mind and wrote to meet that goal. I think it is an important book that is inspired to some extent but that is all. Plus, the past (and current) mistakes of Christian leaders have pretty much blown to hell the entire idea that they are somehow an inspired group of people. I follow my own beliefs based on what I believe to be true and not what someone else tells me. Disagree if you like, but don't go off on some holier than thou lecture.

Now if you will excuse me, I'm off to sell myself into slavery. Hopefully I'm not put to death first for cursing my parents or for my extreme wickedness. We shall see...

[Mr. Kotter]

I really think the Christianity would be better off if so many Christians didn't sound so patronizing...

"I hope you find the right path, like I did..."

If that doesn't turn someone off... I don't know what does.

Patronizing? ROFL

You look that word up in the dictionary, and YOUR mug ought to be there. Seriously. I can't think of a more appropriate word. ROFL

[memyselfI]

Did you even read the article? Dobson is saying that they can be rehabilitated and Phelps is protesting because he says they can't and God hates them.

It's painfully obvious that you just google a couple of words and post an article you skimmed the first paragraph of whenever someone challenges you.

Yes, I read the article and you asked what agreements they share. I gave you an example. Yes, they might have a disagreement over who is the better/bigger fascist RWNJ but bottom line is they BOTH spew the same crap.