ChiefsPlanet - New US church leader says homosexuality no sin

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- - New US church leader says homosexuality no sin (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=142519)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

This is just my opinion, and I'm not even sure how well formed it is, but perhaps the best way to define sin is 'that which separates you from God.'
Therefore, homosexuality may or may not be 'sin.' If you accord yourself as a follower of Jesus and lover of the Lord, who happens to situate his family and obtain sexual release through a homosexual partner, the sexuality itself is no different than any other. If you allow your sexuality [homo or hetero, married or unmarried] to dominate over your striving for a relationship with God, it's sin.

Now if only I can use moral relativism on whom I can steal from. Wait, them evil Oil companies are a good target.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SquirrellyBastard

She might want to read up on what happen to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

The "conservative" U.S. Supreme court ruled Sodomy constitutional.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

And the Bible was written by a bunch of semi-literate Hebrew tribesmen who would be considered schizophrenic by the standards of the DSM-IV.

I guess that as a woman, it also doesn't bother you that women make 75 cents on the dollar for what a man makes in the same occupation. Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face :shake:

I make more than anyone on my shift at work. I really don't see what that has to do with this discussion. Is your future wife gonna be the head of your household? Call me old-fashioned, but I was not in on the woman's lib movement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I say in some ways we've paid a high price for the Marxist version.

It's infiltrated itself into the media. schools and now becoming culture...the effects are everywhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

You aren't for teaching children tolerance instead of the culturally ingrained intolerance of gay people :spock:

Artificial selection: a process that runs counter to natural selection, namely when humans interfere in normal genetic reproduction of animals in order to get desired traits out of them. It's a value neutral term, but it's a pretty damned far jump for someone to argue so stridently for a grouping of animals (Pit Bulls, which have an incredibly malleable definition) and yet be so lax when it comes to teaching people the merits of diversity and inclusion. Hypocrisy anyone??

1. First of all I am not for teaching children young children any sexual crap. That should be MY RIGHT as a parent.

2. I think you are mixing up teaching tolerance and acceptance. I tolerate you Hamas but I absolutely DO NOT accept and will not promote your far left agenda. It's perfectly alright to not accept and dislike certain people or lifestyles. I do not expect everyone to like mine. I find it perfectly acceptable that many may hate me for mine. The difference is they will have to tolerate my lifestyle and I am able to live the life I choose. IT would not be OK for me to promote my lifestyle with their children. It would not be alright for me and people like me to try and infiltrate the church and force feed the acceptance of our lifestyle amoungst those who do not wish to be exposed to it. That were the infringing on the rights of other people begins. In school they are not teaching tolerance they promoting acceptance and the lifestyle. As a parent I should have the right to not have my young children exposed to this. That is where their right to promote the lifestyle infinges on my right as a parent. You should not have the ability to trample on parents rights no matter how riteous you think you are.

As far as the dogs go all domestic animals breeding was selected by people. That doesn't make the selection artificial Mr. PETA member. The more I talk to you the more wacked you come across every time.

I am gone for the day in 10 minutes so don't think for a second I my lack of a response to your next post means anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY

It's infiltration.

She was raised Roman Catholic, converted, and eventually was elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church by its congregants.
I don't think you understand the term 'infiltrate.'

Another thing Hamas Jenkins;

Have you ever heard of a thing called division of labor?

It's very efficient. That is really all a traditional family set up is.

I have a gf who told me recently that when she doesn't work and takes care of the house and her two kids that her husband's ( who has his own business ) income actually goes up. Interesting eh? Division of labor, same concept, that a successful business, even a successful economy is based on. But no, to collectivists we're all alike and should all be same, doing the same thing with no individual talents or abilities...one big androgenous society wearing socialist scrubs! How boring!

Quote:

Originally Posted by redbrian

Really a steady decline, I’m sure you have all kinds of data to back up these statements.

All I can say is that both parishes that I have been involved in (one in St. Louis, the other here in KC), over the last twenty years have been growing leaps and bounds.

....

Well, your parishes are the exception then...

http://www.demographia.com/db-religlarge.htm

33% drop in actual membership, 58% drop in per capita membership since 1960 would qualify as a pretty precipitous drop in the minds of most people.....I would think.

I will talk trash with the best of them. However, if I cite a stat or research, generally, I'm not talking out of my ass; and I've usually done my homework. I realize stats can be twisted, but this one's pretty clear...

As for your personal experience, fine. The Episcopal Church, and some other liberal churches seem to be pursuing this "niche" if you will.....perhaps as a strategy to attract new members for the first time in decades, or to stop the bleeding so-to-speak. And it may be working.....however, it goes against the trends.....

If you look at that same page, see which churches are losing members.....and, generally, they are the more liberal churches, with a couple of exceptions. The conservative churches? Most have been growing....several of them, substantially. But I'll let you look at the stats yourself, since you seem dubious.....

http://www.demographia.com/db-religlarge.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

She was raised Roman Catholic, converted, and eventually was elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church by its congregants.
I don't think you understand the term 'infiltrate.'

So someone can't have and agenda IYO and still be elected and bring it our later? Interesting.

For the record I think calling any sex between consenting adults is ridiculous. That's my right. It is also my opinion that taking what I think is right and infiltrating a church I know does not carry my same belief and getting myself elected into a high position so I can pull that out and divide the church is wrong. Then again that's JMHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

"when everyone is special, nobody is..'

The Incredibles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

There is a huge difference between Pit Bulls and Human Beings. If you want to debase yourself and lower your existence to the level of a braying ass, go ahead, be yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY

Its a great opinion. It is why even though I disagree with some of your lifestyle choices, I still respect you greatly as a human being.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunnytrdr

There is a huge difference between Pit Bulls and Human Beings. If you want to debase yourself and lower your existence to the level of a braying ass, go ahead, be yourself.

Comparing slaughtering to promotion of a lifestyle is beyond ridiculous as well but it's what we have come to expect from Hamas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That's not what I was talking about Uncle Joe.

By whom?

Ah yes by another self-appointed expert.

Please don't tell me what the female experience is. I am one. I am both a mother and a professional, even if these days that's more part-time.

I've read numerous studies backing up what I just said on choices. One most recent. I was also a feminist in college and abandoned much of it once out of college. It just doesn't work as claimed. I have had my own business once and made more money than some men for a period of time. I coulda' continued but didn't, at least not at that level, for the reasons the same studies say about women's choices. I am happy with those decisions even if I have suffered on the pay scales. ( I can make more again if I wanted to) But I could NEVER put a PRICE on seeing my child grow up. Time is more valuable to me as it is to many other women. The trend has been for women to return home if they have children. I've been on both sides as a dependent and independent. But your reasons for women being poorer are nonsense. They are just commonly and uncritically accepted by Marxists.

Yeah, I also never said that. The sarcasm was over your head. Read it again.

One thing is undeniable: a women's natural biology is totally set up for producing offspring. That's exactly what our bodies are made for. This includes the rush of hormones after birth that make a woman inclined to nuture. It was really modern technology that is responsible for the major portion of a woman's freeing as it gave her more time, even the ability to control her reproduction so that she could break out of traditional roles if she so chose.

Unfortunately, being a communist and all, you subscribe to Marx's version of female liberation: to free her from her social and biological because his belief was that the bourgeois family needed to go. Unfortunately, that family is society's smallest governing unit. When it goes, so does the society. But that's where the Marxists step in with state sponsored day-care and full-service schools.

I say in some ways we've paid a high price for the cultural Marxist version.

That is preposterous, a sheer emanation of Reagan-era culture wars and the facade of family-values. Well, riddle me this then, why have many other societies flourished for centuries with social units that in no way resembled the artifice of the American nuclear family?? Could it be that the nuclear famility as a panacea is a complete myth?? Ding, ding ding!!

I love that you automatically assume that I'm a Marxist feminist, a la Catherine MacKinnon, but you could not be further from the truth. Of course you still assume I'm a communist because I said "anarcho-socialist" which is about the same assumption as calling patteau and Donger "liberal" since they both participate in the traditional conservative wing of Western Liberal Humanism.

Of course you mention nothing of the cultural impetus behind woman being the rearer of children...well if this belief is in fact so immutable, why do female lionness do the majority of the hunting while males nurture the offspring?? You are speaking in absolutes where absolutes do not exist. The feminine and what is considered "women" do not exist, they are cultural constructions that seek to lump females into a single underclass by which their continued discrimination can be engaged in more willingly

Furthermore, this expert which you choose to so ignornantly shuck aside, also stated that women are also responsible in part for their roles in society as they accept and encourage their own marginalization. You are a direct affirmation of that very belief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunnytrdr

There is a huge difference between Pit Bulls and Human Beings. If you want to debase yourself and lower your existence to the level of a braying ass, go ahead, be yourself.

No shit, dumbass. The mere point of that post sailed way over your head. I find it funny that he can debase the push for equality among people as so reprehensible (as this push desires to do) and yet finds it so damnable for dogs to be considered for specific legislation when they might be considered dangerous. It's a logical inconsistency that I was pointing out. :thumb: