News

Rant

The Manhattan Declaration,Gay Marriage

Posted 59 months ago|133 comments|6,559 views
Written by
A Christian coalition is vowing civil disobedience and even vowed to face jail if forced by law to officiate at homosexual "marriages".

The Washington Times reports as follows on the "Manhattan Declaration", a document signed by a broad spectrum of Christian clergy.

"More than 150 leaders across a spectrum of conservative Christianity on Friday released a 4,700-word document vowing civil disobedience if they are forced to take part in "anti-life acts" or bless gay marriages.

Called the "Manhattan Declaration," the six-page, single-spaced document was drafted by Prison Fellowship founder Charles Colson, an evangelical, and Princeton University professor Robert P. George, a Roman Catholic, and included a bevy of Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox bishops, archbishops and cardinals as signatories along with dozens of clergy and laity."


There is a web site for the Manhattan Declaration with over 1200 signatories. The document quotes extensively from Christian scripture and speaks glowingly of Christian history in the Middle Ages. The document comes at a time when traditional marriage is under attack at a level that could not have been imagined 20 years ago. Even states that have not approved homosexual marriage are now faced with the legal question of whether or not to recognise same sex marriages performed in other states. There is a genuine crisis of conscience for those who view marriage as a sacred covenant consisting of a man and a woman. Shall such individuals be prosecuted?

The fundamentally Christian nature of the declaration made it unfortunately a document that I as a Jew could not sign. My opposition to homosexual marriage is rooted in the Jewish Scriptures. I would welcome a chance to engage in common political action with Christians who are of like mind. I recognise that there are overlapping and separate aspects to our beliefs. I feel that a united front on common practical matters is a very good idea.

The Jewish vow of marriage is very simple "Behold, you are consecrated to me with this ring according to the laws of Moses and Israel." These words are uttered in Hebrew by the groom as he puts the ring on the finger of the bride. There are a number of laws governing marriage and intimate relations. There are laws against adultery, incest, fornication and homosexuality. By definition, a same sex marriage is no more a marriage than that between brother and sister or a woman to two husbands. To ask a rabbi to officiate at such a "wedding" is against his religion.

Christians and Muslims are in the same predicament. The first line of defense should be to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. But a clergy person who officiates at a marriage should sign a declaration that he or she is solemnising a marriage according to the laws of his or her state and his or her religious denomination. If it is not possible for the officiating clergy to so attest, he should be free of any obligation to do so. Indeed, it should be considered a false declaration to declare that a wedding is lawful according to the faith of officiating clergy if this is not the case.

There should additionally be a way to bundle the services of clergy, caterers and others involved in the wedding party so that those who provide their services to a wedding not be forced to transgress their conscience.

We have reached the point where "gay rights" are being asserted in a way that abridges the religious freedom of Christians, Jews, Muslims and others whose religious beliefs do not condone homosexuality.

We need a declaration that unites Christians, Jews and Muslims in defense of shared convictions and beliefs, no matter how different the scriptural underpinnings may be. There are many forms of intolerance In Massachusetts, a man named David Parker was told by the courts there that he had no right to have his son excused from lessons in kindergarten in which homosexual rights are promoted.

http://www.massresistance.org/index.html

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/main.html

Those who preach loudest about inclusiveness and tolerance have proven most unwilling to extend it to others. There is a malignant quality to this attack on our freedoms. It is time to unite and protect those who define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The Manhattan Declaration is on the right track. It needs some serious fine tuning. But if non Christian supporters of traditional marriage are to be included, then a broader declaration is in order.

Reprinted with permission from Magdeburgerjoe.com



http://manhattandeclaration.org/

http://geoimages.berkeley.edu/libyajew/LibyanJews/museum/manuscripts/manuscript4b.jpg
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
59 months ago: Interesting commentary. I think everyone is entitled to their own views and beliefs, as this is what constitutes the fabric of our democracy and individual rights. There are many beliefs and laws that go against the teachings and belief system of the Catholic church, such as abortion, divorce and same sex unions. Please realize what makes this country so wonderful is that so many people of different creeds, religions, races and cultural values can live and coexist by leading lives by adhering to their own values and norms. This is essentially the divison of church and state. Marriage is a civil right and a practice that existing long before the church made it a religious sacrament. Marriage was not an institution or practice that was created by the church, although for many deeply religous individuals marriage and their religion have been fused inseperably to become a bedrock pillar of their religoius idealogy. Therefore, these individuals lose sight between the division of church and state. If we lived and abided by the laws of religion we may be living in a country with a similar structure to that of Iran. Realize marriage is a civil law and right commonly practiced by complete atheists, a clear example of the division of church and state. Therefore, the union of two people and their marriage is also a civil right that exists independently of the church, and all individuals in this country should be allowed this civil right regardless of differing value systems and beliefs. The fundamental issue is granting this right to all individuals in this country, which does not require the blessing, acknowledgment, or approval in any way shape or form by any religious institution. Ultimately, this is a simple matter of civil right, which has been clouded and cloaked in unnecessary religious rhetoric.
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: "We have reached the point where "gay rights" are being asserted in a way that abridges the religious freedom of Christians, Jews, Muslims and others whose religious beliefs do not condone homosexuality. "

Oh, that's absolute, utter hooey. What "abridgment" of religious freedom are we talking about? Has any religious organization in the USA been in any way forced to alter its doctrine to reflect views of human sexuality that are less than 2000 years old? Has any priest, rabbi, or Moonie in Massachusetts been forced to marry a couple against his will? Can you say "straw dog?" You may still believe, as per the OT, that homosexuals, fortunetellers, and disobedient children should be put to death: just don't expect civil law to mirror that. And don't expect religious leaders to somehow be above criticism for views they espouse. You know, like how the Mormons view other Christians sects as abominations, or how fundie Protestants decry the Pope as the Antichrist?

Bus service on Saturday violates the beliefs of Orthodox Jews. The war in Iraq violates the views of pacifist Quakers. And I bet that Jehovah's Witnesses are peeved at their tax dollars paying for blood transfusions at state-run hospitals. That's the price for not living in a theocracy.

It's swell that the statement praises the Middle Ages, that Golden Age when homosexuals were publicly castrated, uppity women were condemned as witches and burned at the stake, and Jews were thrown out of good, Christian countries. Now, at least, when I decry the antigay bunch as "medieval," I won't be accused of hyperbole.
Truth27
Truth27
Pompano Beach, FL
59 months ago: As a member of the Jewish community this really breaks my heart. Civil rights, including the right to marry under the rights to liberty, justice and the persuit of happiness, are to be shared by everyone. The Jewish community has faced soooo many trials and tribulations at the hands of different religions and states. How could we as a people, as a nation, go on the offense and try to stop people who love each other from committing to each other for life? Whether we agree with it or not is irrevelant. Every same sex marriage law that has passed includes an 'out' clause for religious leaders to abstain from performing marriages they do not believe is right to sanction and this will continue to happen either by legislatures or by court sanctioned marriage equality, religious leaders will still have their freedom in this great land of ours.
CornetMustich
CornetMustich
Washington, CT
59 months ago: Marriage is firstly a civil matter in America, as marriage licenses are issued by and recorded in town halls not church halls. or mosques or temples.

Cheers, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA.

And kudos to CT on the one year anniversary of its marriage equality law!

59 months ago: "...civil disobedience if they are forced to take part in 'anti-life acts' or bless gay marriages."

The above statement is utter nonsense.

Clergy are NOT being forced to solemnize religious same-sex marriages.

Every states which allows same-sex couples civil marriage ALSO PERMITS clergy to REFUSE solemnizing religious marriages which conflict with their religious doctrine.

So Rudi Stettner, you seem to be acting like a spoiled brat.
59 months ago: A Catholic can remarry under civil law without leaving the Catholic Church.

He or she cannot have a second marriage by the Catholic Church, but a civil ceremony is allowed, granting all the state and federal rights and benefits associated with matrimony. In that case there is separation of church and state.

Why does this not apply to same-sex couples seeking a civil marriage?
59 months ago: Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Any educated Christian would know that. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.

http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/romans_inter.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
http://www.gaychristian101.com/

Thats why Jesus never mentions it as well. There is nothing immoral, wrong, or sinful about being gay. Jesus, however, clearly states he HATES hypocrites. If you preach goodness, then promote hate and twist the words of the Bible, you are a hypocrite, and will be judged and sent to hell. Homosexuals will not go to hell, hypocrites will.

This is very similar to the religious bigots of the past, where they took Bible passages to condone slavery, keep women down, and used Bible passages to claim blacks as curses who should be enslaved by the white man. People used God to claim that blacks marrying whites was unnatural, and not of God's will.
59 months ago: Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.


And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organisations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."
59 months ago: shadow.

What Bible are you reading?

Jesus clearly and absolutely states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.
Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: Romans 1;27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Like it or lump it. It says what it says.
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: LHuey Newton: "Like it or lump it. It says what it says."

"Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh day shall be a holy day for you, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death." Exodus 35:2

So I sure as hell hope you didn't do any work today; if you did, G-d says you should be henceforth pushing up daisies. Like it or lump it.
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: LHuey Newton: "Like it or lump it. It says what it says."

"Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh day shall be a holy day for you, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death." Exodus 35:2

So I sure as hell hope you didn't do any work today; if you did, G-d says you should be henceforth pushing up daisies. Like it or lump it.
59 months ago: Again, this is a civil matter and has nothing to do with what Jesus or God said. Also, it's sad to think that the only purpose for a union of two people is to bring sexual pleasure to themselves, or that this should only be allowed if they are able to reproduce. What a about people who are born sterile, should they not be allowed to marry? What about the children with cancer that I treat in the hospital that often end up sterile as a side effect of their chemotherapy treatment? Should they be told you're unable to marry because you are now sterile? Clearly, let's try to post and discuss meaningful and intelligent information. These type of posted comments are for mongoloids that are ignorant and intellectually disenfranchised.
Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: Colossians 2:16
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--

Romans 6:14
For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

I'm a New Testament Christian, not an Old Testament Jew.
Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: "this is a civil matter and has nothing to do with what Jesus or God said."

Maybe not for you, but for many it does.
59 months ago: Steaming pile of one-sided opinionated crap. . . Move on people, nothing new to see here. Just another nut justifying his bigotry so he can be proud of himself.

His rights and beliefs supersede yours. Move on.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: "Steaming pile of one-sided opinionated crap. . . Move on people, nothing new to see here. Just another nut justifying his bigotry so he can be proud of himself.

His rights and beliefs supersede yours. Move on"

And yours do not? The only bigotry I see is people saying they are born homosexuals using it as some sort of an excuse to do what they want. Homosexuals will never be looked on as normal, tell me why two men can not produce a baby? Tell me why two women can not produce a baby? Because it is against natures laws. You see it throughout the animal kingdom as well.

Certainly where you logic fails you is that marriage and sex on the marriage bed was too produce offspring. Nothing more nothing less.

Being a homosexual literally can kill you, it is by no mistake the homosexual community has been plagued with the HIV-Aids. Should we be promoting this disease to spread even farther throughout society? No I think that is quite irresponsible.

I agree Rudi I think we all need to take a stand and draw a line in the stand of what is moral and immoral. We have seen time and time again throughout history of how many a great empires fell through immortality. You would think we learned from that. God though is the ultimate judge.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: "Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Any educated Christian would know that. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. "

You are being purposely misled,homosexuality is a definately a sin according to the Bible. I can give verse after verse showing homosexuality is a sin from the Bible.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: Look up the word effeminate...both in the Bible and in a dictionary..don't forget to cross reference with ancient Greek and Hebrew.
59 months ago: To scotmanster:

You are revealing your true colors. Your aversion to anyone other than heterosexual is deeply rooted in hate and you are doing quite a nice job of displaying it.

Thanks
59 months ago: Scotmanster - thanks for your enlightening revelations. I think I understand everything better after reading your truly insightful comments. Your debating skills about as good as two kindergarteners getting into a booger fight. The mongoloid chatroom is next door kiddo! Good luck.
59 months ago: The hate seems to be coming from the pro gay comments. MD2010 has sunk to repulsive imagery, name calling and insulting the developmentally disabled. Talk about "true colours"!
59 months ago: First, I'm not pro anything. Second, I never insulted the developmentally disabled only the developmentally disabled ignorants. There's a big difference. I realize you may have a reading disability Rudi because you're clearly struggling to comprehend the content of these posts. If that's the case, I am truly sorry and can recommend some reading remediation programs for you.
59 months ago: Well put Kate, nonetheless we should move on as Mongoloids will be Mongoloids. There capacity to absorb and understand cogent facts and legitimate logic is their disability. Like trying to squeeze water out of a rock, a Mongoloid will never yield anything of value.
59 months ago: MD2010, you are making my case better than I ever could have. Please keep posting your comments. I was reading your biographical sketch. "I am a doctor." Wow.
59 months ago: Dear Rudi, I hope you find a paying job one day! Good luck. I know it's hard but don't give up!
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: MD2010 can you tell me why things like homosexuals purposely passing on HIV becuase of their hatred for society becuase that same society rejects them? Can you please tell us how this is well known within the homosexual community but gets ignored when being brought up? HIV has not been passed around unknowingly and innocently as soo many like to think.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: Can you please explain to us all how the rest of society is suffering from HIV becuase it started within the homosexual community moved into the bi-sexual community and can be now be found in the straight community? You and you knowledge should be able to answer simple questions like these.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
59 months ago: Homosexual marriage should be legal, but no church should be forced to perform the marriages. But if a church does decide that it will perform gay marriages then they should not be stopped. The Bible does say that its a sin, but is the bible meant to be taken literally on every single statement?
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: Lets really tell the truth here. Tell us about the orgies within the bi-sexual, homosexual and lesbian communities that happen every weekend in our cities.

Don't let Hollywood paint a picture for you all that being immoral is some innocent fantasy. I heard all the dirty little secrets firsthand.
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: scotmanster: "We have seen time and time again throughout history of how many a great empires fell through immortality. You would think we learned from that."

And which empires are those, pray tell, oh great student of history? I mean, seriously...which empires do sane historians agree fell because of "immorality?" Surely you're not speaking of the Roman Empire, which reached its greatest height under the openly gay emperor Hadrian and survived for centuries until Cona\stantine Christianized Rome and banned homosexuality, after which Rome pretty promptly declined and fell? The Incan and Aztec Empires fell because cross-brandishing Spaniards invaded in search of gold and gleefully slaughtered the Indians they found. So perhaps you're saying that the British Empire came to an end because of hanky-panky, rather than WWII and the rise of indigenous liberation movements? Or what? As yiou so pungently declare, "You and you knowledge should be able to answer simple questions like these." So tell us, o wise man, without resorting to Biblical myth: which empires, precisely, fell because of "immorality?"
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: It is not at all about hate Jon I call it the way I see it. I have personally seen what AIDS can do firsthand. I know it runs rampant within the homosexual community. Just so happens by law infected homosexuals do not have to report it. Nor does anyone that is infected has to report it. Any statistics right now are not valid since they came out with drugs to prolong the virus from going to full blown AIDS. When those numbers skyrocket and they will, laws will be set inplace finally.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: No you tell everyone mishi the dirty little secrets..this is not Holloywood...
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: You want to come here and start a fight start answering questions....
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: "You want to come here and start a fight start answering questions...."

Interestingly, dear, I'M the one who asked YOU a direct question: as per your assertion that immorality repeatedly destroyed empires, can you actually name at least one, with some sort of rational evidenceto back that up? And did you answer that? No, you simply went off and accused me of wanting to start a fight.

Here's the deal: if I make an assertion, you may then ask me to back it up. That seems fair I have yet to say anything about HIV. Should I, you may challenge me. But meanwhile, though I know it probably rankles to have your authority challenged: WHICH EMPIRES?
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: Here is the deal answer my question, I was the one asking the questions first not you...

It kinda of reminds of me of that gay march of that homosexual man knocking that old lady down on purpose. Shows you to what extent they are willing to go to push their views on the rest of society. I am not challenging you either, no matter what arguement you set forth about HIV the statistics are on my side. I could careless what these new age college professors are teaching either, they clearly brainwashed you all anyways.

Was watching a show recently and less than half of the college students could not even tell you who the current Vice President was. So people and their degrees do not impress me much.
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: scotmanster: " Because it is against natures laws. You see it throughout the animal kingdom as well. "

Here's another question for you, o wise one. You are aware, no doubt, that same-sex behaviors - including such things as anal intercourse to orgasm, pair bonding, and shared child rearing - have been observed in something like 400 animal species in the wild, correct? And therefore, may we not assume that homosexuality is a natural variant in, um, nature? Or is the Empire of the Bonobos about to be destroyed by rampant immorality?

Oh, and please answer the question this time. Or else retract your assertion. One or the other. This is not, as you have thoughtfully reminded me, Hollywood, where fantasies are purveyed with gay abandon.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: Go play your childish games somewhere else kid. I don't retract none of my assertions they are backed up.
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: scotmanster: "Was watching a show recently and less than half of the college students could not even tell you who the current Vice President was. So people and their degrees do not impress me much."

So is that your cutesy way of saying, "When I said that many great empires fell because of immorality, I had no idea of what I was talking about, so I'll just change the subject?"

Once again, in pretty simple ters: I am not here to answer your random questions, you are no here to answer mine. But if either of us makes an assertion, it's reasonable to be asked to back it up with something that resembles a verifiable fact. No?

Hey, I'll make an assertion here. Many - certainly not all, but a goodly number - obsessively antigay campaigners have leetle ol' skeletons in their closets. And there's some scientific evidence that the more antigay a "straight" man, the more likely he is to respond to gay imagery. Want to ask me to back that up, or does it strike you, with your firsthand knowledge of the dirty little secrets of the LGBT community, a bit too close to homo, er, home?

Anyway, I'll be happy to substantiate my assertions. After you tell me - and gee, it's not so hard really, which empires you were referring to. Degrees do not impress me either, but the shameless use of false assertions impresses me even less.
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: scotmanster: "Go play your childish games somewhere else kid. I don't retract none of my assertions they are backed up."

Um, nice try. "I don't have to show you no stinking facts."

(I'll assume your flagrant use of a double negative - similar to the above - is likewise an affectation, not a sign of ignorance.)

I'm not playing childish games. I'm asking you to elaborate on something we're all supposed to have, you say, learned from. Many great empires fell from immorality? Well, if we're going to learn, it certainly behooves us all to know which ones, and under which circumstances. Really, since you're so knowledgeable, it would be easy to simply list a few, right?

But gee, you repeated combination of weaseling and bullying might lead one to suspect you can't come up with any. Hey, you can talk out of your butt as loudly as you like, but it'll still smell like crap.

So go peddle your childish lies somewhere else kid.
32 months ago: Rome was a Republic form of government, but, in the end it declined, due to immorality and debauchery. The United States of America, is also a Republic form of government, and, it too is also declining, due to immorality and debauchery. The nation as a whole is declining politically. It is declining economically, and, it is in decline socially.
http://www.bowtieprofessor.com/politics-...
32 months ago: "Reason why the Roman Empire fell - Decline in Morals
A decline in morals, especially in the rich upper classes and the emperors, had a devastating impact on the Romans. Immoral and promiscuous sexual behaviour including adultery and orgies."
http://www.roman-colosseum.info/roman-em...
32 months ago: Similar to the Incan Empire, Egyptian and Mongolian Empire...
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: Oh, and scotmanster, I will graciously answer your questions about HIV, even though I don't have to. Just shows you what a nice guy I am.

Evidence shows that HIV originated perhaps a century ago in sub-Saharan Africa where it most likely was and remains primarily spread through heterosexual contact. It was not seen in the West until the 1980s, where it was first seen in men having sex with men, and therefore one might reasonably conclude it might well have transmitted from the primarily heterosexual community to the gay community, not vice versa. Heterosexual intercourse is responsible for 70-80% of all new infections worldwide (and clearly, not all the remaining infections were spread by male-male sex).

In the United States, a disproportionate number of men having sex with men are infected, though two large population studies have shown that most American gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners per year as straights. This may very well be due to "versatile" behavior in anal sex, since oral sex, practiced by most all sexually active gay men, poses minimal risk.

However, in other parts of the world, female-to-male transmission is more likely than in the West. This may be due to a number of factor. Therefore, we're seeing, for instance, in India that many women are infected by male partners who have had unprotected sex with HIV-positive female sex workers.

Female-female sexual behaviors place lesbians at very low risk for HIV transmission. This linking "homosexuality" with "HIV" is misguided.

No, "being homosexual" cannot kill you. Having unprotected high-risk sex with an infected person can. Using HIV as a club is unprincipled. For instance, in the USA, the infection rate among African-AMericans is over four times higher than among whites, yet saying "being black can kill you" would be viewed - correctly - as racist crap.

Now, Mr. Scotmanster, perhaps you can tell me about those empires?
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: scotmanster: "It kinda of reminds of me of that gay march of that homosexual man knocking that old lady down on purpose. Shows you to what extent they are willing to go to push their views on the rest of society."

Which kinda reminds me of how, in October, a 62-year-old gay man was kicked to death in Trafalgar Square by two teenage girls shouting homophobic insults. That same month, a gay police cadet in Liverpool was beaten nearly to death by a gang of teenage boys. In Puerto Rico this month, a young gay man was decapitated, dismembered, and his body burned. In Baltimore, a gay teen was found in a closet, gagged and stabbed to death. In Georgetown this month, two students were physically assaulted by attackers shouting antigay slurs.

Does this show us something about the extent heterosexuals are willing to go to demonstrate their superiority to LGBT people?

I mean, I'm just asking...
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: The fact is HIV in the United States started in a community of gay men in California. You can speculate all you want and claim it started in within the heterosexual community. The statistics throughout the 80's and 90's in the US are on my side no matter what you find or all of sudden discover. Homosexuals that don't report being HIV positive will greatly offset any new findings you come up with. I am talking about all the suicides and drug overdoses of the 80's and 90's becuase of them finding out they are HIV positive are not counted in either.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: I guess it would not be intelligent to say that HIV was passed on through blood donors as well back in the 80's. Back then HIV was not even tested for at blood banks. Another way for HIV to spread into the straight community.
59 months ago: Mishi- don't waste your time debating with these mongoloids, just move on and forget about it. These mongoloids have little more than reptilian brains. Just toss em some peanuts or whatever other gruel these mongoloids eat and call it a day.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: Speaking of animals I thought the HIV started in chimps or is that no longer the going excuse? Debunked maybe?
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: I can tell you of a story of a young man in his 20's pleaded to have sex with a HIV positive male, the young man knew the man was infected. But I am sure this is just one story in a million that holds any weight or credence. I can also tell you a story of a another gay man fully knowing he was infected sleeping with unsuspecting uninfected males. Your answer is to have safe sex? I am sorry that is simply not enough. Call me a bigot a racist or whatever makes you sleep better at night. I am none of the above. I have seen firsthand what homosexuality is all about. I heard all the dirty little secrets. Gay men fearing other gay men are purposely passing on HIV. It is real, it is a story that will never see the light of day, as long as we think HIV positive individuals have the right to sleep with whomever they choose.

The question is should all HIV infected individuals be databased with the FBI and local law enforcement agencies? I mean really political correctness is at the end of its last thread.
Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: Whatever. I know no man is to be my judge with regard to the Sabbath.

You can say what you want, still ends up between God and I.

Colossians 2:16
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--

Romans 14:5
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

If someone wants to try to keep ALL of the Old Testament laws, that's their prerogative.

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath -- Mark 2:27

Jesus used to get in trouble all the time for Sabbath violations, so I guess I'm in good company.

BTW- SS I believe you are on the money with the rest.

Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: Back on topic:

The Bible does not endorse homosexuality. It's called an abomination. (Lev 18:22)

If a person wants to be homosexual that is their prerogative too, just don't drag the Bible into it.

We are called to love and not judge.

However we have to be able to recognize sin when we see it, and offer hope and help to those seeking deliverance.

I believe we all sin and all we need a Savior.

That's simply my opinion. Others are free to have their own opinions as well.

No haters allowed.

mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: SiempreSolo: "Are you reading this Mishi ? G-d’s moral law is irrefutable and permanent despite you and Huey’s assertion to the contrary. "

Yes, I'm reading it. And the only "laws" that even approach irrefutable and permanent are those amenable to scientific proof. When the three major monotheistic religions can't even agree on which day is the Sabbath, why on Earth should I - a perfectly happy unbeliever - care?

My point is not that anyone should believe anything. It's that religion, whatever its nicey-nicey side, is full of vile (and self-canceling) stuff. (Some faiths more than others, of course.) The deity of the OT gleefully killed a bunch of innocent Egyptian kids to effect political change - what we'd call "terrorism" today - then apparently sent his son down to preach nonviolence. Then JC's followers lovingly threatened nonbelievers with gruesome eternal torture. OK, whatever. Yaweh is bipolar. I don't care. You guys fight it out amongst yourselves, as you've been doing quite well for a couple of bloody millennia.

Theology is not the basis for American civil law. Nor should it be. It's just fairly galling for a bunch of Christians, representatives of a religion responsible for the deaths of millions, playing the victim card.

wever, your point about cherry-picking is valid. Doesn't take a rocket science to see that the rightwing Christians who quote Paul on hanky-panky generally seem to care not at all about, oh, Jesus denouncing the rich.

To go back to my original point: nobody is asking religious people to change their doctrines. Catholics may go on believing they're eating sanctified cosmic flesh, Pentecostals may believe they're speaking in actual-but-unknown languages while they're thrashing about on the floor, Mormons may believe the Garden of Eden was near St. Louis, Muslims may believe that their Prophet rode to Heaven on a horse. Good for them. Just not a valid basis for civil law. And THAT's my point.

Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
59 months ago: Is the Bible meant to be taken literally on every point? What about other religions views on homosexuality?
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: scotmanster: "The fact is HIV in the United States started in a community of gay men in California. You can speculate all you want and claim it started in within the heterosexual community. The statistics throughout the 80's and 90's in the US are on my side no matter what you find or all of sudden discover."

Yes, dear, I agree that the first cases in the USA were seen in urban gay men. And I certainly respect your efforts to use a disease to prove that homosexuals (well, male homosexuals) are vile. What I don't particularly respect is your tendency to write off the well-documented research of epidemiologists as something I just "suddenly discovered." Your posts certainly indicate contempt for anyone who might actually use his intellect. Fact is, as near as we can discern them, that sexually transmitted HIV started in Africa, where it jumped and mutated from primates, and was then and is now primarily heterosexually transmitted. The American prevalence in men who have sex with men has a lot to do with anal sex, not sexual orientation. A guy who gets blown by a thousand men is most like;y at less risk that a straight man who has unprotected vaginal sex with a couple of nonmonogamous women. Ain't the orientation. It's the activity. Got that?

And I can't help but notice that you still, despite your dissing my respect for facts, haven't backed up your "homos destroyed empires" nonsense with anything resembling a single fact. Oh, I know, I know. You set the rules around here.

Anyhow, since we may all agree that lesbians are at less risk of HIV infection than straight men and women, not to mention gay and bisexual men, may we not agree - by the lights of your "argument" - that that's a reason for them to be permitted to wed one another? If not, why not?
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: MD2010: "Mishi- don't waste your time debating with these mongoloids, just move on and forget about it."

Oh, I agree that trying to get scotmanster to substantiate his arguments is a thorough waste of time. He seems fairly utterly fact-challenged, quite happy to purvey what Colbert calls "truthiness." And then to get all self-righteous when asked to put up or **** up.

I'm doing this because a) he's not the only person reading this board. It comes up fairly high on Google, so I'm kinda speaking to the lurkers.

And b) as a sometime student of history, few things irk me more than the "homos destroyed empires" argument. FIrst, because it's largely based on the musings of Thomas Gibbon, who wrote "Decline and Fall" back around the time of the American Revolution. And second, because it assumes that imperialism - that is, one country holding military and political sway over other territories, often for the purpose of material gain - is a desirable thing. Whatever their "civilizing" influences, empires are usually pretty evil, and if a little bit of buttsex helps briing down what, say, the Belgians did in the Congo, then bring out the lube, says I.

Oh, and c) I'm still waiting for scotmanster to come up with that list of empires. But I ain't holding my breath.
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: perfecthorizon: "Is the Bible meant to be taken literally on every point? What about other religions views on homosexuality?"

I sometimes contemplate going up to some literalist Christian and slapping him on the cheek, just to see how fast he turns the other one. Which brings up the question: am I crazy?

Reform Jews officially support same-sex marriage, as do Unitarians. Episcopalians support LGBT rights.

Buddhism views all desire -sexual or not -as a barrier to enlightenment. Some Buddhist countries are officially antigay. The Dalai Lama - a swell guy and undoubtedly the world's most famous Buddhist - supports gay rights.

Hinduism has no central organizing doctrine. There's plenty of evidence that before the English and Muslims entered India, homosexuality was viewed as just another valid sexual variation; it's even celebrated in sacred art. And transsexuals still serve a ritual - though ambiguous in terms of status - role in India. The officially Hindu country of Nepal has OKed same-sex marriage.

Don't really know about Zoroastrians. Baha'is forbid all sex out of marriage, gay or straight. The Scientologists have lately stated they're not antigay, but whether that is a real religion is still up in the air - like Tom Cruise on Oprah.

Most atheists don't care what other adults do, as long as its consensual and doesn't frighten the horses. But then, atheists tend to be more educated than believers.
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: Huey Newton: "The Bible does not endorse homosexuality. It's called an abomination. (Lev 18:22) "

So I'm confused. I'm getting two messages from you, and they're kind of, um, contradictory.

1) Jesus' arrival overturned the rule of OT law. But

2) Christians may still quote Levitical law when it suits their purposes.

Now, I know that Jesus reportedly overturned Jewish dietary law, so Christians get to eat pulled pork. But as far as I know, he said not a word about fortune-tellers. So am I to assume that fortune-tellers are still to be put to death (Lev 20:27)? Please respond, as I'm about to sponsor a ballot resolution preventing astrologers from getting married, and want to be sure I'm on firm Biblical grounds.

Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: Mao, Stalin and Marx are great examples of educated atheist intellectuals. The world sure is a better place because of them.

All Unitarians are not the same, all Scientologists are not the same, all Baha'i are not the same, all atheists are the same, all Jews are not the same, all agnostics are not the same, all Muslims are not the same, all Christians are not the same, all Buddhists are not the same...the list goes on and on.

People need to stop generalizing and lumping every member of a particular group in the same category. Use your brain and stop being a bigotted reactionary.

There are all kind of diversity of opinions in various belief systems for better or for worse.

Still, everybody worships something. Be it some type of diety or simply their own intllect. Everyone bows at some alter. That's word.

Prejudice kills. Stop hating.
Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: "I'm about to sponsor a ballot resolution preventing astrologers from getting married, and want to be sure I'm on firm Biblical grounds."

That's funny. You have a good sense of humor.

Listen. I'm not anti-homosexual. If that's the way they want to live, I'm not going to jump in the middle of it. I personally don't think it's normal. My opinion, right or wrong.

With regard to the Leviticus scripture, good point. The Leviticus reference is in the OT. But in the prior post I purposefully put in a NT reference from Romans as well.

Romans 1:27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

The act is condemned in both OT and NT.

This is a free country. I never even addressed the issue of homosexual marriage in any of my comments here. I just stated that the Bible does not endorse homosexuality.

The homosexual sex act is a sin just like fornication or adultery. No better, no worse.

If a person wants to be a homosexual, that's up to them.

Just don't try to use Bible scripture to back up that lifestyle. That bird won't fly.
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: Huey Newton: "Mao, Stalin and Marx are great examples of educated atheist intellectuals. The world sure is a better place because of them."

Well, I refer you to a fascinating webpage that reminds us, "On Internet debates between Christians and atheists, many times the crimes of Christianity come into debate. The Christian may claim that all atheists are evil and refer to people like Joseph Stalin or Benito Mussolini. Since they were atheists, the Christian says, atheists are evil."

(Not sure I can post a link here, but try http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/scotsman.htm)

Since the author already did my work for me, I'll thank him and quote further: "Though atheism was not the motive for the evildoings by Stalin and Mussolini, one can certainly say that many of the motives for the evildoings by Christians (e.g. the Inquisition) was a direct result of their interpretation of the bible. Bolshevism and Fascism are ideologies, so the reasons for the actions of Stalin and Mussolini should be sought in these ideologies - and many bosheviks and fascists were Christians, by the way."

He also addresses Siempre Solo's assertion that " Any references to that from Christians is misinterpretation and not accurate." That's what's known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, which requires a shift of meaning so that we end up with "Christians who believe nonbelievers are doomed to Hell are not, at least in that respect, true Christians." Convenient, but not a valid logical argument.

By the way, Einstein, no intellectual slouch hinmself, said, "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." On the other hand, the 9/11 crew were neither atheist nor intellectual. But then, no true Scotsman, er, Muslim, would have destroyed the Twin Towers.

59 months ago: What Huey said 2 hours ago.

Back on topic:

The Bible does not endorse homosexuality. It's called an abomination. (Lev 18:22)

If a person wants to be homosexual that is their prerogative too, just don't drag the Bible into it.

We are called to love and not judge.

However we have to be able to recognize sin when we see it, and offer hope and help to those seeking deliverance.

I believe we all sin and all we need a Savior.

That's simply my opinion. Others are free to have their own opinions as well.

No haters allowed.
59 months ago: Mishi:

G-d loves athiests just as much.
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: Huey: "People need to stop generalizing and lumping every member of a particular group in the same category. Use your brain and stop being a bigotted reactionary."

No, I wasn't speaking of individuals; I was speaking of the doctrine of an organized religion. Perhaps I should have been clearer, viz: The Catholic Church is officially antigay. Reform Judaism is officially pro-gay. Hinduism have no single official line on gay sex. Better?

Of course, we then get back to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. There are, obviously, prochoice Catholics out there. But the Pope would say, "No true Catholic is prochoice." Don't take my word for it; Bishop Thomas Tobin wants to ban Rep. Patrick Kennedy from taking communion, because, apparently, no true, wafer-deserving Catholic is prochoice.

I do find the double standard of the original article interesting. If the Pope says that homosexuals are "intrinsically disordered" and that gay families are "obstacles on the road to peace," he's not being a "reactionary bigot," merely being papal. If a Mormon says that Catholicism is an "abomination," he's merely being theological. But if I were to say that both Catholic and Mormon doctrines are an utter load of codswallop, I would then be a reactionary bigot. Fascinating how that works...
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: "G-d loves athiests just as much."

Whew! That's a relief!

After all, we could all use an Imaginary Friend.
Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: SS - No problem, I appreciate your perspective.

RSG - Always a welcome addition.

Mishi- I'm smart enough to know that the three atheist I named do not typify atheistic behavior. They are simply an example of how evil comes in all packages. You also should be smart enough to know that the acts and attitudes of some Christians do not typify the acts and attitudes of the entire group.
Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: Wham!
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: Siempre Solo:"By the way Mishi I suggeste that Rome might be one of those who let debauchery be their downfall but neither you or Scottmanster took that on. Why not?'

Oh, 'cause I was talking about theology for a while. I certainly agree with you that inequality was one of the weaknesses of the Roman Empire. There was a small ruling elite living in indulgent luxury, while the masses of Romans shared a tiny piece of the country's great wealth. Kinda like, oh, the U.S.A., huh? (I would, in fact, argue that allowing people to starve in the richest country in the world is more deeply immoral than anything that happens in my bedroom. But that's just me.)

But if the Technicolor "debaucheries" of the Neronian era dissolved the Empire, they took a bloody long time to do it - 400 years, in fact. More logical, perhaps, to look at things like military overextension, fiscal problems, and threats from the East than to lay the blame on some Cecil B. deMille fantasy, no?

Anyway, by the time of the Fall, Rome had been officially Christian for 150 years. So, if we were talking mythology, it would be more reasonable to believe that Jupiter destroyed Rome for its infidelity to him than to imagine Yahweh letting Earth's only Christian empire go down the tubes, no?
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: Siempre Solo, re: eternal torture: "None of the 12 apostles or the followers of JC that are mentioned in the Bible made such an assertion."

Okay, we can split hairs and agree that Rev 21:8's promise that "...the...unbelieving...shall have their part in the lake which brims with fire and brimstone" refers to temporary torture, not the everlasting sort. Either way, I'm effin doomed.

And hey, it's been nearly 500 years since Michelangelo painted The Last Judgement, but I don't reall any demands from theologians to cover up the inaccurate parts with souls in torment and all that. (They did paint over the pee-pees, though.)

I do find it interesting that you proclaimed that the god of the OT is not, in fact, the god of the NT. This is a Gnostic heresy, used to explain how the vengeful, jealous, peevish god of the Jews could be compatible with the loving, forgiving Father of the NT. It, like many another heresy, was stomped out by the CHurch hierarchy. Rather vigorously, as I recall.
Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: Siempre is on the one.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: I read through half of the rubbish and then dropped down to the last post. Don't be a fool and think Misha has a sense of humor it is not at all about that. What it is about is he/she thinks the Bible is a joke and would spit on it or burn it if given the chance. His/her contempt is anything but innocent humor. He/she laughs in the face of religions. I will give Misha this much credit,the "Either way, I'm affine doomed." quote holds truth for him/her.

PH the answer your question should the Bible be taken literal? Yes it should be under most circumstances but if you cross reference certain beliefs with the ancient Greek,Aramaic and Hebrew, it tells a different story that most would or do not accept. The old testament is the story of civilization that can not be interpreted or understood by an unbeliever. It can be read by anyone that knows how to read but if you do not have a relationship with Christ, He will hide the truth from you. It is not a regular book, your favorite novel you dust off the shelf open up and read and expect everyone to understand it if you read it to them. That is why it is almost utterly pointless to give explanations to unbelievers. I do not mean all unbelievers some are actually curious have hit or are going to hit rock bottom,maybe that voice in their head says I am ready to believe because I can not handle life without supreme direction. These are the ones in the Bible Jesus talks about being ready for harvest.

The God of the old testament is the God of the new testament. The point being God had mercy on us and gave his only begotten son that so whoever believes in him shall not perish but shall have everlasting life. That is the story of the new testament.

scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: "It, like many another heresy, was stomped out by the Church hierarchy."

What do you care what happens within the church or what is Hersey? You do not even hold the same beliefs, it is no huge burden for you because you are not even involved. You care because it supports your argument, it ties it up in a neat little package and makes you sleep better at night. The inner workings and beliefs in the church do not stop you from doing what you want to do. They should be no business of yours. The fact is the Church is not stopping gay marriage it is your Representatives in the State and federal Government.

"Einstein, no intellectual slouch himself, said, "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."

You idol is Einstein how fitting the man that created the atomic bomb that killed hundreds of thousands of people. That is sure some idol you have there. No intellectual slouch at all, someone that should be looked Upto in academic circles, revered. If it was not for him......

"One final note, The god of Christians is not the god of Jews is not the god of Muslims. "

There is only one God, just many different idealogoies but all the same God.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: My point who are you to say Siempre becuase a Jew does not believe the same as a Chrisitan their God is any less than your God. They are the one in the same God. If you understood anything about the Jes and there plight you would know they are held to different standards. Call it God playing favorites but that is what God does throughout the Bible.
59 months ago: The ground has shifted on the debate about homosexuality to the point that Massachusetts will not allow a parent of a child in public school to keep their child out of a public school class in which homosexuality is promoted as normal. If that man(David Parker) wants to send his child to private school where biblical values are taught, he must pay thousands of dollars more than would a parent who chooses to accept the public school policy on homosexuality. This makes a travesty of the idea of "choice". Siempre, Huey, Scotmaster and Red State Guy a s well as others have covered the religious angle of their faith very well. The constitutional ramifications of the shift in public discussion as well as the hatred voiced by the pro gay side in this comment string are certainly give a reasonable person cause for concern
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: I totally agree Rudi it is alot like them teaching evolution in school but anti-american crowd yelling no religion in school. If you teach the lack of God then that should be recognized as a religion.

You raise a good point private religious schools you have to pay thousands of dollars a year to keep your child enrolled. But public schools all the taxpayers have to pay for them including the ones that send their kids to private schools. Pretty good racket they have going. They get to push their personal agendas and teach what they want to teach and the parent have little say so.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: I found it appalling that the pro-gay crowd somehow feels it is ok to knock down a old lady carrying a bible becuase somehow they feel society has mistreated them firstly.

scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: I totally agree with you there SS.
59 months ago: Scientology Volunteer Ministers fight drug abuse and homosexuality in Tonga:
http://www.rantrave.com/Rave/Scientology-Volunteer-Ministers-in-Tonga.aspx
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: scotmanster: "What do you care what happens within the church or what is Hersey? You do not even hold the same beliefs, it is no huge burden for you because you are not even involved. You care because it supports your argument, it ties it up in a neat little package and makes you sleep better at night. "

You really are a mindreader, ain't ya?

I happen to know about the Gnostic heresies because I was a philosphy major and studied world religions, including Christianity. Which is to say, I'm one of these educated people you apparently hold in contempt. Which is to say, I don't believe the pursuit of knowledge is a waste of time. Sorry if you don't agree.

Which is to say that I'm currently betting that I know a hell of a lot more about the history of Christianity, and the beliefs of other religions, than you do.

I bet, come to think of it, I know more about evolution (which you frame as "lack of religion") than you do, including the fact that, oh, the Pope approves of evolution, as do many other religious people. Have you even READ Darwin? (Stupid question.)

I also, comes to that, spent over a decade workiing in HIV prevention, and bet I know more about THAT than you do, bub.

I'm sorry, but you really do show your ignorance at every turn. Worse, you even seem proud of it.

I mean, I might turn it around and ask why you seem to care so damn much about what other people do in bed. Clearly, it's an obsession for you. Does crapping on other people make YOU sleep better at night? Or do you have to resort to booze?

Oh, and once again: You claim that homosexuality was a cause of the collapse of many civilizations. Name one. We all know you're not just an ignorant, pathetic, self-righteous know-nothing. We all know you can come up with an actual fact or two. So do it.
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: scotmanster: "I found it appalling that the pro-gay crowd somehow feels it is ok to knock down a old lady carrying a bible becuase somehow they feel society has mistreated them firstly."

Listen, I know you feel you're above having to back up what you say, but can you actually substantiate your claim that the "pro-gay crowd feels it is ok?" (Beyond, that is, anonymous Internet postings .)

Let's get the story, so to speak, straight. We're talking, right, about Phyllis Burgess, an experienced antigay agitator who showed up at a same-sex marriage rally carrying a tacky styrofoam cross? If it's she you're talking about, she had, according to eyewitness reports, previously knocked a disabled No on 8 protestor to the ground, screaming "Get out of my way." And if you watch the video of the news coverage, you can clearly see she's not just some random, frail granny, but a media-hogging agitator looking for trouble.

She subsequently did have the cross knocked from her hand, but, as video of the event clearly shows, she herself was not "knocked down." So, gee, no Bible, no knock down. Par for the course when it comes to your "facts."

No, I would say it's not right to assault old women. But that cross-to-the-ground moment and a young girl getting coffee poured on her head, seem to be the only documented incidents of physical attacks against either Prop. 8 supporters or their Styrofoam props. Since then, gay people have, as usual, been brutally killed by homophobes. I'm sorry, but I find a man in his 60s being kicked to death in Trafalgar Square by teenage girls shouting anti-gay slurs, or a gay teenager being beheaded in Puerto Rico, to be a LOT more appalling than poor Phyllis's on-camera moment of trumped-up martyrdom. I'm sure you feel likewise, right?

I'll allow that you may be referring to some other documented incident altogether. If you are, please post a link to a reputable report, and I will be happy to apologize.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
59 months ago: Hey Scot, I respect and understand what you are saying about the literal interpretation but I have some questions (not because I hate Christians or anything like that as you know, I respect all religions and as such these are just questions). First, do you take Leviticus 11:12 literally, because if you do then you also feel that shellfish is an abomination? (I mean this seriously, not sarcastically)

I am not saying that the Bible is wrong, just that a literal interpretation of any religious text tends to be the reason for a lot of extremist action. Literal interpretation of the Qu'ran leads to radical Muslim extremists. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian extremist that took the Bible literally. This is also true for most other religious extremists.

Also interesting is that in all these posts about how the Jewish God and Christian God being the same people yet nobody mentioned that Allah (the Arabic word for God) is the same as well.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: "KEN HUTCHERSON: Thank you. Appreciate the opportunity to speak towards this.

We believe that there is an opportunity to correct a process that this company is, should I say, not being very open-minded to who we support, why we support because we are supporting the issue that we believe, especially as an African-American, that there are problems in where you are sending your charitable gifts towards the homosexual community. I do not believe our company would ever support a group of people that is very prejudicial in their views, that is very intolerant in their views, that is very hateful in their views.

And I think that you gentlemen, and the rest of the stockholders, if you watch television, have seen the example of many of the homosexual groups and activists that this company is putting millions of dollars in supporting. And I don't think this company and the stockholders, and myself, is pretty excited about a group of individuals that would run around and call the African-American community, especially, 70 percent of the traditional Black church that voted, and helped pass Proposition 8, have been called the N-word on national television. This company is saying that we will continue to support groups like that.

They have attacked groups, you've seen it on television if you have a television, if you watch the news at all, what has taken place towards the African-American church, what has happened to evangelical churches, that have stood and just voted, and exercised their freedom in voting. And they have been attacked by these groups. One old lady was taken, and a cross was taken out of her hand, stomped, and she was pushed around. One woman had her bible taken out of her hand, and was hit across the head and knocked down. And if it was a white supremacy group that was doing exactly the same thing, this company would be the first to stand up and deny that we're going to support any group that was doing such things.

scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: continued...

And yet, still, I'm asking this company to make sure we vote down putting this kind of money, millions of dollars, in a group that is not good for the family; millions of dollars in a group that has proven intolerance; millions of dollars in a group that has proven that they do not like anyone that does not think the way they do; and I think this company has a right and a responsibility not to put millions of dollars in an intolerant, hateful group such as this. That is why we have this resolution, that is why we would like for the stockholders to vote it down, and the board not to support this group."

I can't seem to find the links to the story probably got squashed through youtube and google.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: Pay special attention to the third paragraph. The women getting hit over the head with her own Bible and then knocked down.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: PH I am glad we came to an understanding sometimes I can be bullheaded, I do understand your intentions are not harmful.

To your question about shell fish. Are we bound by all Old Testament laws yes and no. We are bound by the Ten Commandments those are not laws but Commandments. Some religions feel like we still need to make burnt offerings and sacrifice animals. I do not think we are no longer bound by those laws because the ultimate sacrifice was Jesus Christ.

I guess what I am saying is extremism is just that they are using the word of God to propel their own agenda's, they are not led by God and they certainly don't have a relationship with Christ. The Muslims religion has certainly has been hurt, where many think anyone that talks of Allah is automatically coined a terrorist. They do not recognize that the literal interpretation of the Old Testament is no longer required by mankind. Because God gave us the ultimate sacrifice and that was his son.

Although if refraining from eating shellfish helps you become closer with God then sure I don't believe their is any harm done. It is just when people take those words and use them to propel their own extreme agenda is when the harm comes.

We are bound by mans laws as well and God requires us to follow them. Do I think because homosexuality is an abomination in the Old testament no longer applies now? I certainly do not, it does still apply. An abomination which is not a law so to speak but it will get you a fast ticket to hell if you do not repent.

scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: "Also interesting is that in all these posts about how the Jewish God and Christian God being the same people yet nobody mentioned that Allah (the Arabic word for God) is the same as well."

I believe Allah is the same God PH. But then again the Muslim religion Islam has been hi-jacked by an extreme group of people aimed at destroying the USA. I read many articles about the Islam church leaders and they went into depth how a group of young Muslims are using Islam to push their hatred for America.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: "So, gee, no Bible, no knock down. Par for the course when it comes to your "facts.""

Ignorance is bliss? Is it not mishi?
Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: When one is in bondage they need deliverance. However it is very tough for that deliverance to come when one wants to justify their sin.

The first step in deliverance is realizing that something is wrong. There can be no positive change without first admitting there is a problem.

Homosexuality is simply one of the many sinful expressions men and women chose that reveals our depraved nature.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
59 months ago: Scot, while I disagree about homosexuality, which I consider to be a natural rather than choice, being an abomination but I understand that for people that have a highly developed relationship with a deity, in this case God, would be legitimate in their feelings. My only concern is that even if viewed as an abomination that should not lead to hateful actions or statements by those people. Rest assured, if everything in the Bible is in fact true then those of us who act in appropriately will "get ours" in the end. The stone should not be cast by men, for only your deity can truly make the final judgment, right?

"But then again the Muslim religion Islam has been hi-jacked by an extreme group of people aimed at destroying the USA"
Sort of but not necessarily, there are extremists from every religion in the world (except maybe Hindu and the Pagan religions, which interestingly enough have some ties to Christianity). Also, it is not just the United States that the extremist groups are after, it is all of the West (U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Spain etc.).
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: scotmanster:
Ignorance is bliss? Is it not mishi?"

As I said, I apologize for my misapprehension. I did a Google search for "woman with Bible knocked down," and could find no such story. However, I stand corrected...as I said I would be. (Though an actual link would be nice. Still, I'm sure you're right, and that the truth-hating gay activists at Google "squashed" the story.)

I did Google Ken Hutcherson, who turns out to be a noted, longtime antigay activist opposed to, among other things, employment non-discrimination laws, making him an absolutely trustworthy, objective conduit for an otherwise - as far as we both could ascertain -unsourced and untraceable story. Right?

And, though that unknown old lady getting allegedly knocked down by someone somewhere, I repeat - are you not even more appalled when LGBT people are beheaded, strangled, or kicked to death by homophobes? I know I am. And I bet those guys would have wished that all that had happened to them was that they were knocked to the ground.

In fact, today's news notes an 11% rise in reported hate crimes against LGBT people over the past year. (Yes, there was a rise in religiously motivated crimes as well, but most all of that seems to be directed against Muslims, some it, I bet, by folks who regard themselves as Christians.) But, of course, those who shout that LGBT people are depraved, sinful, unnatural, hate-filled folks who are destroying the country, bear ABSOLUTELY NO responsibility for homophobic violence, huh?

Anyhow, I apologized, as I said I would. Now then, are you willing to tell us just how you know that the LGBT community "feels it is OK" to assault said reputed old lady? Did you read that somewhere? Anywhere? Or did you just make that up because it sounds good?

Hell, at least give us all some examples of those empires-destroyed-by-sexual-license you said we should all learn from. Please?

Or are you above all that?
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: correction: I MEANT to say: "And, though that unknown old lady getting allegedly knocked down by someone somewhere may be upsetting, I repeat - are you not even more appalled when LGBT people are beheaded, strangled, or kicked to death by homophobes?"
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: Perfect Horizon: "Sort of but not necessarily, there are extremists from every religion in the world (except maybe Hindu and the Pagan religions, which interestingly enough have some ties to Christianity). "

There are plenty of Hindu extremists, too - tearing down mosques, slaughtering Muslims and Sikhs, attacking Christians. Hinduism really has no tie to Christianity, except that Portugese Christians landed in Western India and built some, and then the British came in, built more churches ( and criminalized homosexuality.)

As far as "pagans" go...the big tie-in is that ealy Christians appropriated existing pagan celebrations and symbols, pretty much as they did with Egyptian mythology. That's why Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate Christmas - it's a holiday with pre-Christian roots.(Nope, there's no evidence that Jesus was born in late December - quite the opposite. But there were pre-Christian wintertime rituals at that time. Bingo.)
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: Mishi I recall I seen it on the news I am still looking for it. That was the only article I could find about it. But I specifically remember the the lady getting hit with her own bible and her getting knocked down.

I certainly don't condone homosexuals being beat up or anyone for that matter. Trust me I had two brothers that where homosexuals I certainly did not hate them for what I believe. Actually there deaths provoked me from being "oh it is ok if it doesn't hurt anyone" to "it actually is hurting people.". Then onto being a anti-gay activist.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: I accept the apology if I am right. I certainly did not think you would apologize that is under rare circumstances around here. But thank you.
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: Huey Newton: "When one is in bondage they need deliverance. However it is very tough for that deliverance to come when one wants to justify their sin.

The first step in deliverance is realizing that something is wrong. There can be no positive change without first admitting there is a problem."

I honestly don't feel there's much wrong with my life, except I seem to be spending entirely too much time debating with the brick wall that is scotmanster, rather than going to the gym.

Neither do I accept your definition of "sin." Where things get sticky is the notion that Jesus came to redeem us from "original sin." See, the problem is that "original sin" is a Christian concept: It's not even present in Judaism, much less other religions. So basically, it's circular: you believe in Jesus, you believe in original sin. You believe in original sin, you believe in Jesus. Closed system.

I think that humanity is a mixed lot, including inheriting a lot of animal impulses that might have been useful when we were fighting saber-toothed tigers, but are largely maladaptive in modern civilizations. We haven't yet learned to reconcile our intellects with our back-brain greed and aggression. And that we are, thanks in part, rife with inner conflicts...including sexual shame.

However, I think that my solution to finding something wrong with my life would be to try to make it better, to behave less viciously, perhaps, or to love myself and others more. To me, Buddhist meditation does make sense. Bowing down to some mythical sky god doesn't. And blood sacrifice - whether it's Jesus on the cross, Incan priests tearing out hearts, or islanders throwing virgins into volcanoes - strikes me as part of that vestigal, primitive human mindset.
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: scotmanster: I described you as a "brick wall" before I read your gracious response to me. Apologies again.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: Some might say I am emotionally tied to this issue but I don't think so, their is so much more I could be doing than typing on the web about it. But it is a choice nonetheless no matter how much I dislike it. If your interested in reading further Rudi talked about more of this in other articles he posted. I do not think Rudi or I our at all being bigots like some have posted mishi, not you though that I recall.

Here are the articles I'm referring to..

http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/Gay-Rights-Defeat-in-Maine.aspx

http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/Gay-Marriage-Supporters-Icy-Calculation.aspx
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: In the Bible it says multitudes will go to heaven I do not think it is as a closed system you believe it is. I am no Bible scholar but it is stated all will be able to get right with God so to speak way.
Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: Mishi - It's not my definition of sin. It's the Bible's. If you don't subscribe to that, that's okay. That's your choice.

"However, I think that my solution to finding something wrong with my life would be to try to make it better, to behave less viciously, perhaps, or to love myself and others more."

That's beautiful. We all need to do that.

scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: "scotmanster: I described you as a "brick wall" before I read your gracious response to me. Apologies again."

Don't worry I kinda figured that your not as bad as I made you out to be either. This topic is a very emotional topic nonetheless.

I am still trying to think how to make the first question y you posed to me not a book.

Simply put it started with The Tower of Babel that was recently found. God confused their tongues which sent them out across the lands. Due to sin and if I recall correctly sexual perversion.

Secondly was Sodom and Gomorrah first major city that was burnt to the ground in fire and brimstone for sexual sin of all kinds. Their have been recent archaeological finds that do in fact prove where Sodom and Gomorrah was located and that they found the layer made up of ash in the western temple. Sodom and Gomorrah was found on a fault line that explains why the brick walls caved in.

I will finish this up later then move into the "well documented history" not that the Bible is not a good source of documentation but that people don't believe nothing mentioned of the Bible..
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: I think where religion went wrong is when the catholic church most notably Augustine if I recall corectly turned the church upside down. They went out and burned all the "heresies" along with the heretics and many God given gospel were lost forever. Well not all of them you should read the story of how they found the Nag Hammadi gospels some fascinating things. I will have to check my books here at home I know I have the book somewhere buried around here. Not only the quest in stumbling across them at Nag Hammadi and the farmer that used one for kindling but what the gospel had to say. Like Mary Magdalen could have been possibly been Jesus's wife and that she was the actual head of the church. Not that I am into believing any new thing that is found but it certainly makes you wonder.

You mention the Catholic church specifically the gnostic heresies in which you are right, you speak of the catholic church conforming to the times in which you are right. I think it actually shows their true colors it is not so much about God but how much money they have filling up in the Vatican coffers. Did they purposely squash those lost gospel of the Bible to build an empire of their own made of gold? I have believed this for a long time now and I was raised a strict catholic but God does reveal his hidden teachings no matter how hard the Church tried to hide them. God can use even the worsted of people unknowingly as tools to get his message across.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
59 months ago: Mishi, I never said Hinduism had any ties Christianity. I was referring to the interesting ties between Pagan religions (which, inconsequently I am a big fan of) and Christianity.
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: scotmanster: Well, you know, the problem with the Bible being used as a historical source of Yaweh's supposed actions is that it's not particularly accurate. Even the story of the creation contradicts itself. Egyptian records do not confirm the story in Exodus - in fact, it seems that the Egyptian workforce was made up of empolyees, not slaves. The Roman census in the Jesus story is not in any Roman record - and the Romans knew how to keep records, especially of censuses. (Besides, it would have been in the wrong year, historically speaking.) And, of course, there are no independent records of the "Tower of Babel" or the destruction of the Cities of the Plain. (The may, indee, have been towns in the area that burned because of mineral deposits, which pretty much sounds right. The Bible, like many ancient texts, sought to explain natural phenomena in supernatural terms: "The Sacred Serpent is eating the sun."

Sorry, but we're talking real history and real empires here (and besides, Sodom was a town, not a civilization."

If we look at recent history, two major expansionist powers with antigay policies - Nazi Germany and the USSR - fell with a crash. The British Empire fell while homosexuality was still illegal there. And, as I pointed out before, Rome fell well after homosexuality was banned.

So if I were to play that game, I might well, if simple-mindedly, argue that homophobia led to the decline of empires. It's not true, of course, but at least I can cite actual historical records - rather than mythology - while making the case.

But hey, if some believers can accept that grizzly bears, wallabies, and tigers all survived a gigantic flood because pairs of them somehow made it the Middle East in time to be put aboard a big boat, they can probably accept just about anything, historically speaking.
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: "Mishi, I never said Hinduism had any ties Christianity. I was referring to the interesting ties between Pagan religions (which, inconsequently I am a big fan of) and Christianity."

OK...sorry, misread the syntax, Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go put a wreath of mistletoe on my head...
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: "Egyptian records"

The hieroglyphs to this date are still disputed. They can not even account for a literal interpretation more of a guess work game. It is funny how they can not even tie the latest mummies that are found to certain Pharaohs. If they where such great record keepers then should be no room for error who is who in the Valley of the Kings. Yes many of the mummies where defamed to hinder people from deciphering them. So at best it is much guess work.

Roman record is not much better. There is huge gaps in Roman record that most historians and philosophers write their own history to fill the extreme gaps. Much of it is peace mealed together.

As for the Bible you certainly are mistaken and would beg to differ you know of little of the archaeological discoveries. Alot of them are being found exactly where the Bible said they would be. The Temples have the same dimensions. Tower of Babel was destroyed as God fortold in the Bible. The tower of Babel is exactly where the Bible said it would be. This is discounting all the false claims by the religious groups. The fact is secular archaeologist used the Bible as a reference to find these places. When performing an archaeological digs you can not set out about and guess were these places might be. These digs are financed and are expected to show results.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: Funny how you had to goto college to be told Roman Record is complete and you can not even recognize a professor is filling in blanks.

I have studied Ancient Civilizations enough to know there record keeping is far from complete. One ruler might have kept great records and the next ruler that took over destroyed those records. Just like Egyptian Pharaohs that turned away from the old gods, that pharaoh was soon replaced by a pharaoh that respected the old gods and blotted out everything they could of the previous pharaoh. Blotted out and destroyed every trace of the "heretic" pharaoh. I do not need a college degree to recognize this.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: "Sorry, but we're talking real history and real empires here (and besides, Sodom was a town, not a civilization."

So your real history is not so real is it? I know the truth I studied enough to know that huge gaps in record keeping is suspect to discount much that came before and after it.

Atleast the Bible has a line by line History and every day that passes more evidence proves the Bible is a legitimate source of record keeping. As to your discrepancies in the Bible. Surely God does not throw his pearls before swines. Read read your discrepancies and check the ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic and you will soon find out the discrepancy comes when the bible was revised and misinterpreted by man.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: I honestly do not expect an unbeliever or skeptic to understand the Bible without the direction of God, the truth will always be hidden to unbelievers. Even with believers if they can not understand, Jesus states in the Bible what the most important parable we as believers need to understand. If we can not understand this one parable the rest of the Bible will be hidden to our eyes.
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: scotmanster: "Funny how you had to goto college to be told Roman Record is complete and you can not even recognize a professor is filling in blanks."

Yeah, well..here are some of the blanks. Outside of the Bible, there is no reference to the worldwide census (and the chronology given in the account is incorrect, but it's complicated to explain.) There is no record, outside of a single gospel, of Herod killing babies. There is no record in Egypt of of Israelite slave labor being used, nor of them escaping into Sinai, an entire generation of firstborn sons being killed, nor of an entire army being drowned in the sea.

Oh, and the "tower of Babel" was not found anywhere. There were the remains of a ziggurat in a mound of debris. Just a leap of faith on your part, anyway, like my claiming Gone With the Wind is historical fact, Scarlett O'Hara and all, because there was a city named Atlanta, and it burned.

And, of course, there's no reliable extra-Biblical evidnce for the existence of Jesus.

One might, if one were objective, things this might call into question the historical veracity of the Biblical method. And one need not go to college to understand that.
scotmanster
scotmanster
59 months ago: "Oh, and the "tower of Babel" was not found anywhere. There were the remains of a ziggurat in a mound of debris. Just a leap of faith on your part, anyway,"

Actually it was found I am not going to bicker back and forth and prove everything you perceive to be a lie to be truth. Pretty much exhausted this topic as it is.
Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: Scot - you are a true warrior.

Your patience and compassion are seen clearly in the time spent and the detail given in dealings with individuals on this site.

There does come a time when we have to just leave it with Him and believe for the best. It will all pan out in the end.

Keep doing your homework. You are great inspiration to the Body of Christ.

Don't forget to intercede for the folk we encounter here. God bless.
59 months ago: We
59 months ago: Christians, says the Declaration's preamble, were the ones who rescued abandoned babies in trash heaps in ancient Rome, tended to the sick during the plagues, ended slavery in the West, uplifted the poor, created the conditions for democracy, and ushered in women's suffrage. Their bizarre self-righteousness in claiming the mantle of all the great things that have happened in history makes you wonder if these modern moral crusaderRs have a pathological need to feel that they are good people, which is usually the first sign that they have reason to worry they are not. (Sure enough, one of the three drafters of the document is Nixon's former special counsel, Chuck Colson, convicted of obstructing justice surrounding the Watergate scandal.)

You self righteous bas@?!'s. There was a era of time in which it was considered's God's way and the right way to have blacks as slaves picking cotton on your plantations. In looking back at history, there were bas@"&rds just like yourselves vehemently saying this was God's will and the way of the bible. Do you think these beliefs have stood the test of time? I think not. One day, when you die, you will face judgment by a higher being, and if that's the case you'll certainly burn in hell. I hope you roast slowly and painfully in the underworld.
The following link provides the rest of this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathaniel-frank/christian-leaders-scapego_b_370525.html
Truth27
Truth27
Pompano Beach, FL
59 months ago: Hey Siempre Solo,



You and people like you need to understand something. If what you say is truly the way you feel, then you are actually (well, mostly likely) bisexual. I think this is what confuses people when they hear others say that the homosexual lifestyle is a choice and I honestly believe that it is brought on by bisexual religious nuts that feel that since they have a choice and can "overcome' their homosexual tendencies and function well with a female, that homosexuality is in face a choice. The fact is, that people are either Heterosexual, Homosexual or Bisexual.
I myself am homosexual. I choose to be attracted to neither gender, I just so happened to have naturally been attracted to males since I was a little boy and not once in my life have I ever felt an attraction to females.
I'll say it again. If you are advocating fiercly that homosexaulity is a choice...you are most likely struggling with your bisexuality. It's unfortunate because these self loathers ususally become the gay communities most vicious opponenets ::enter Ted Haggard::.
Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: "One day, when you die, you will face judgment by a higher being, and if that's the case you'll certainly burn in hell. I hope you roast slowly and painfully in the underworld."

That doesn't sound very loving.

An opinion like that makes you no different than the so called "Christians" out there that want the same for you.

Do yourself a favor and don't sink to that level.
59 months ago: Washington – The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, today responded to the “Manhattan Declaration” produced and released by 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders indicating that they will not cooperate with laws that conflict with their beliefs, including those recognizing same-sex couples. The document also references the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) as a threat to religious liberty.  Yet ENDA – which prohibits workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity – broadly exempts religious organizations.  The declaration also argues that religious groups that receive public funds to perform social services are unfairly burdened by state and local laws on marriage equality and non-discrimination.

“This declaration simply perpetuates the fallacy that equality and religious liberty are incompatible and that every step toward fairness for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community is another burden on religious people.  In reality, non-discrimination laws are working all over this country, where religious freedom is existing side-by-side with equal opportunity," said Harry Knox, director of the Human Rights Campaign’s Religion & Faith Program.  "Advocates of LGBT equality have taken great pains in their legislative efforts to ensure that the rights of religious organizations and people under the First Amendment are protected.  It is deeply cynical for the authors of this document to paint themselves as victims because they cannot have a free hand to discriminate, including with taxpayer dollars."
59 months ago: “As a rabbi I am offended that this group of Catholics, Orthodox Christian and evangelical Christians are once again trying to foist their theology on government,” said Rabbi Denise Eger, member of the HRC's Religion Council and the founder of Congregation Kol Ami.  “They already have the religious freedom to discriminate against gay people in their churches. But if they take government funds for social services then they must abide by the rules of equality that are a foundation of our Constitution.”

Knox also commented upon the claim that religious entities should be able to take public funds without treating LGBT people and same-sex couples equally.  "These organizations must decide if they are in the charitable business for charitable reasons or for political reasons.  Governments representing entire communities must not be held hostage by any group that puts its own desire to discriminate above the needs of the larger community,” said Knox.

Please visit the human rights campaign for more information.

Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: Rabbi Denise Eger - "They already have the religious freedom to discriminate against gay people in their churches."

No church (or Synagogue for that matter) has the right to discriminate against gays or anyone else. That's just a stupid statement.

As a Rabbi, Eger should know the Torah's stance on homosexual acts. Obviously she either doesn't know or doesn't care what her scriptures teach. Any teacher like that we can do without.

The homosexual lifestyle is condemned in both the NT and the Torah.

If one is a fornicator, adulterer, homosexual, alcoholic, gossip, thief or whatever it makes no difference: Sin is sin. Sin is not to be glossed over or condoned.

An unrepentant, sinful life should not be tolerated by any church or synagogue. Love and help is what these people need.
59 months ago: Clearly Huey you are pretty ignorant on this matter.Does the church sanction and allow gay marriages within the Church? Does it recognize same sex couples and their children? Clearly not, this is discrimination you a&@@.

You mention that homosexuality is a sin, just like fornication, drinking and so forth, a sin is a sin. But doesn't your church or synagouge or whatever other camp of hatred you subscribe to still allow alcoholics to get married? So why discrimate so much on one sin but not another? If the logic you state were applied equally to all sinners, including homosexuals, most people probably wouldn't be allowed to get married in the church. If you want to be a practicing bigot, you should at least be fair and equal opportunity bigot and discriminate against all sinners. More than the bible, the hatred you espouse toward gays is a reflection of your inner soul and messed up beliefs, don't cower and shield your bigotry and hatred under the veil of the bible. At least own up to your hatred and take responsibility for it as your choice. Just as easily as there are many like you who proclaim the bible clearly says homosexuality is a sin, there are just as many rabbi's and preachers that say it is not and that these passages are taken out of context and misinterpreted. So who's right? Over time, history will show that you're on the wrong side of the fence. Take responibilty for your own choice to be a practicing bigot, and don't pin it on the bible or God. Jesus Christ and God are likely more loving, non-biggoted and non-prejudicial people than you could ever hope to be in your lifetime.
Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: "Jesus Christ and God are likely more loving, non-biggoted and non-prejudicial people than you could ever hope to be in your lifetime"

You are right. And the same goes for you.

That is why according to the Bible WE BOTH need a Savior.

Have you accepted Christ as your Savior?

If not, that's up to you, just don't go around acting like you know who He is.

BTW - Any church that marries two known and confessed alcoholics is doing them a disservice and is setting them up for failure.

If some individuals cannot tell the difference between disagreement and hatred, that's their problem not mine.

All people need to be loved. That's the bottom line. You can love the sinner, yet hate the sin. Get it?

No haters allowed.
Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: Also, if you take the time to read, you can get your own information. Then we can have an intelligent discussion regarding the The Bible or the Torah. Until that time there's nothing more to say with regard to what they teach.
59 months ago: "As a Rabbi, Eger should know the Torah's stance on homosexual acts. Obviously she either doesn't know or doesn't care what her scriptures teach. Any teacher like that we can do without."

So I don't know the bible, correct? Neither does rabbi Egar know the Torah? But obviously you know best. Who made you judge and jury to deem who knows the bible and who doesn't? Going back to your comment about loving the sinner but hating the sin, doesn't your religion label everyone as a sinner? Are you then bound to hate some characteristics of every single person that you meet? Do some sins require that you hate them more intensely or do you hate them all equally?
59 months ago: When Jesus said that the second greatest commandment was to "love thy neighbor as yourself," He didn't say, love your neighbor as yourself, but feel free to hate something that they do. He does say to pray for those that persecute you, but you will have to point out to me where Jesus instructs you to hate. Unchecked hate spawns the Fred Phelp's of the world who preach and carry signs that read "God hates fags" and not "God hates the fag's sin", which underscores the notion that in reality it is much more unlikely and difficult to separate hating a person's actions from just hating the person.
59 months ago: Doesn't the bible say in Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged?" You should also take note of Leviticus 19:17-18 and Proverbs 14:21. The concept of "love thy neighbor" is so prevalent in the Bible that it is metioned in 9 separate passages (Lev. 19:18; Matt. 5:43-44; Matt. 19:19; Matt. 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14; and James 2:8) and not a single one of these passages gives any permission to hate. Your discrimation and particular prejudice to single out this "sin" more than most others is YOUR choice, and it's certainly not the word or commandment of the bible. Do YOU get it? In the future don't ever be so arrogant and pompous to presume that simply because one doesn't agree and subscribe to YOUR views, beliefs and interpretation of the bible that they haven't read the bible, or are not well versed in it's teachings or can't have an intelligent conversation with you arrogant bonehead.
59 months ago: Another interesting article online:http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/1361/response:_gay_or_black,_it’s_still_church-sanctioned_discrimination

That said, I am deeply troubled by the notion that drawing parallels between the struggle for civil rights for African Americans and the struggle for civil rights for GLBTQ folks is a “faulty argument.” To deny that there are parallels obscures a key element that is, for me, deeply troubling: The forces opposing gay marriage and the forces supporting racism both use the Bible and Christianity to do their dirty work. Many of the arguments Christians use to prove that homosexuality is a sin and therefore not worthy of protection under the law (it says so in the Bible, it’s God’s will, it’s the natural order God intended for humanity)are the very same arguments that were used to justify slavery, to support segregation, and to sanction racism.
59 months ago: Another paragraph from the referenced online article in the above posting:

But I also know that homosexuals were among the first rounded up by the Nazis. And I know that people are murdered and beaten because they are gay, that GLBTQ folks are routinely viewed and named as deviant and as subhuman, and that discrimination sanctioned by our laws and referenda affect GLBTQ folks in profound ways that are hard to imagine by those with heterosexual privilege. Choosing to ignore those parallels allows heterosexism to flourish, which is itself a form of violence. It is yet another example of how we are willing to do theological and political backflips to retain the right to discriminate against those deemed less than “us”—a core component of this nation’s history.
Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: MD -

Whatever. You are now wasting my time.

We are to love each other PERIOD. That does not mean that we condone everything each other does.

You seem stuck. You use the words hate, and bigot over and over again in a vain attempt to project your own personality on to mine. You are the hater, not me.

I have friends who are homosexual and they know where I stand yet they are nowhere near as insecure as you are.

They know I love and care for them. But I will never endorse that lifestyle. That's where I am whether you or anyone else likes it or not. That's YOUR problem.

You are constantly calling me names and trying to insult me. Not very mature.

I have not made one disparaging remark toward you personally. Yet you feel the need to attempt to insult me, call me names and belittle my point of view. That's a pretty shabby debate tecnique.

BTW - anyone can grab and handful of scriptures and make them say whatever they want to out of context. Duh.

You don't strike me as either a Bible student or one who actually believes it is the Word of God anyway, so you arguments are from ignorance not knowledge.

Yet you say I'm the bad guy. Again I say, whatever.

I ain't buying it.

I'm lover and not a hater and you my friend are disturbed.

Nothing you say or do will change what either the Bible or the Torah says with regard to homosexuality or any other sin. The Word does not change wether you like it or not. Get it?

You seem to have a lot of hate and bitterness in your heart toward people who don't see eye to eye with you.

I hope you overcome that one day.
59 months ago: Ahh now the real Huey comes out, I do admit to being passionate and sometimes rude, but calling you an arrogant bonehead is not the end all be all of personal attacks, is it? I consider myself an arrogant bonehead as well. I certainly wasn't trying to attack you so deeply and so personally, so I apologize if that's the way I came off. If calling you an arrogant bonehead was all it took to rattle your cage and to post that reply that's pretty sad. It makes me wonder who really is the insecure one? Did I strike a nerve? Perhaps something I said made a chink in the armor of your rigid and dogmatic belief system. Whatever personal attack you believe I inflicted on you, you certainly stooped to my level and way beyond in your last post. So congrats on that one. I do view your beliefs and ways of thinking as hateful and discriminatory, but this certainly doesn't mean you're a bad person, as you could still be a loving and compassionate person in many other dimensions. I hate your sin but not the sinner. I also have many biggoted and racist friends (that's true by the way), and although I certainly don't agree with their alternative lifestyle of bigotry and racism, they are still good people in most other regards and I still love them dearly and they love me.
Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: You did not rattle me in the least. If it makes you feel better to think that you did, ok.

I appreciate the apology, but none was needed. I have dealt with individuals that are far rudder and cruder than you. And it has never been my intent to insult you either, just to inform you.

I just have a hard time taking seriously anyone that resorts to name calling and profanity. To me that shows a lack of intelligence and wit. Very immature and poor debate technique in my book. May work in some circles, but not with me. Usually I cut individuals like that off by now.

My views are based on the scriptures. Clear ones that any honest thinking individual would have to twist to misunderstand. I did not write the books, I just do my best to follow what they say.

Again,

Romans 1:27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

How can you misunderstand that? One of many scriptures and I'm not going to take the time to give you a Bible lesson. You can do that for yourself.

You cannot honestly follow the Bible/Torah and endorse homosexuality without ignoring the scriptures you don't like and twisting others to say what you want them to say.

But why get married in a Church of synogue if you want to play games with the Bible/Torah? To me that's just stupid. And then to expect the minister/rabbi to endorse it is an abomination.

If one doesn't follow those books fine. Just don't try to use them as some type of escape hatch to justify pet sins.

Eger still does not know what she is talking about, but there are a slew of others out there like her. That makes her no one special in that regard.

A person can be whatever they want, just don't try to use the Bible/Torah to justify the sin, that's all.
mishi
mishi
San Francisco, CA
59 months ago: "You cannot honestly follow the Bible/Torah and endorse homosexuality without ignoring the scriptures you don't like and twisting others to say what you want them to say."

Yes, Huey, so does that mean that if someone follows the Torah, he should demand that spirit mediums be put to death? That if his child curses him, he should kill the kid? That menstruating women should be sequestered as unclean? That people with physical deformities be kept away from the altar? The vast majority of believers cherry-pick. (For instance, only a tiny fraction of anti-gay Christians seem to look down on moneylenders and rich people.)

As a nonbeliever, I find it hard to understand why, oh, coveting a neighbor's iPod or working on the Sabbath seems to cause so little consternation, while so there's so very, very much hoo-hah ove S-E-X. If I were a Freudian-type guy, I'd say that sexual repression and the fear of death reflected in the religious quest for immortality seem entwined in some sort of pathological dance.
Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: Yo Mishi,

Long time no hear from. I hope all is well.

As an non-believer you need to learn the difference between the Old and the New Testament. Once you do that things will be a little easier to understand.

Have a nice day.
Huey Newton
Huey Newton
 Administrator
59 months ago: BTW - I have no fear of death and I've been married for almost two decades. Life is good.
Hawkeye
Hawkeye
Altamont, NY
54 months ago: Glenn Beck mentioned the Manhattan Declaration on his show today which led me to this rant. I haven't read all of the comments but it seems no one focused on Ruddi's point that the Declaration was prepared by Christions leaving out any members of other religions who may be of the same opinion. I, like Ruddi, believe that marriage should be between a man and a women but would not have supported the Declaration because of who authored it. I also believe that no clergy should be allowed to solemnize a marriage on behalf of a religious order that does not believe this. If such clergy officiates at such a marriage, this marriage should not be valid. I believe Ruddi was saying he hoped the Declaration could be changed to include Jews and Muslims. No one has commented on this.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.