Pope John Paul II RIP

[Eggs]

A doctrine that is supposed to be based on an absolute document would have no reason to change.

Thats not cut and dry, there are certainly different ways to looking at that. And then that leaves different denominations open to saying that they havent changed, blah blah. If a homosexual were to say that they were Christian however, they would have to firmly believe that the Bible is a living document that adjusts as society adjusts. This would certainly allow for the changes with the church over time. However, I believe most Christians would simply respond, that while the Bible is perfect, man is not. Hence he does not always accurately portray the contents of the Bible. Or something along those lines.

Uh...."WE know?" So much for your clever statement at the bottom of your posts - now you are issuing opinions for others? I haven't made the statement that I "don't like christianity"..that's just your interpretation. But I do recall that I recently clarified that I don't like christian impersonaters.

No, I'm counting my split personality in there. But if you'd like to I could make a poll and ask people... then could share the results here. I think by and large most people would agree that you protest against what Christians say more often than not in this forum, instead of being like minded. I wouldnt want to put words in anyones mouth though, but I could make a poll if you desire that.

The same issue was raised in Wisconsin at about the same time when a young man claimed to kill a man after having sex. I think that case is currently under appeal.

I agree that using gayness as a reason for a crime is pretty, for lake of a better word, retarded. Because this is a diverse country, in some places that might fly. In others it will not. However, to put that in contrast, a girl in my sisters school as speeding one night, drunk and coked up, and hit a guys car and killed him, leaving his wife and child fatherless (/husbandless...). Because she was underage, she pretty much got of without a hitch. I'm not saying thats any better or worse, but this kind of shit happens in our society, to gays, and not to gays. Being shafted is a very real possibility in life from any angle.

I always thought that statement did more to show how vulnerable our military is than anything else. After all, a man who can't protect his own peepee sure isn't going to be too capable of protecting a nation.

I know what you're saying. At the same time I have to admit I was a bit relieved that there werent though. Especially this one guy, in boot camp we'd be in the showers and this 6'3" dude would walk into the shower and his dick would be hanging down past his knee. I never turned my back to that guy Gay or not, thats just plain dangerous. He could have slipped and stabbed me with it

 

[ZAGLOBA]

have a little trouble reading? he was pope for over 20 years and when do you remember the media becoming swamped with molesting priest stories? i am sure his decisions were complicated by more than i will ever fully understand but for many years after this scandle broke the standard in dealing with these men was still simply to move them and if more victims came forward where they were moved to they were merely moved again and again. these men had victims numbering over 200 at times in as many as 5 states. do you need someone to explain to you that all the men who approved of that policy and had the power to change it but failed to do so for whatever reason did indeed contribute to more children being abused? it is something any 3rd grader can grasp. like i said he personally may have wished these men dead we don't know but he could have done more and he could have done it sooner. read.

Nice figures, victims numbering over 200 at times in as many as 5 states? WTF is 5 states?! Nothing considering that the Catholic church has over 1 billion members in it and the Pope is supposed to know about 200 boys who got ass raped? That's like saying that a top official of the 1.2 billion China is supposed to know about a few sex crimes. That's not only ridiculous that ludicrous and stupid. How was he supposed to help? was the Pope to come over here and personally root out the offenders from the church? Furthermore, the Pope as you claim, moved the sex offenders around. WRONG the Pope did not move anyone around rather the archbishops did. Yes, HE was the Pope for over twenty years however who knows how many of these molesting were actually real. I have a hard time believing in some of these cases were the victims only came forward 20 or 30 years after the crime. Additionally, some of the "boys" being "molested" were almost adults in that they were 15, 16, 17 years old. Those "boys" are hardly children and I fail to understand how they could not defend themselves against one other priest. These older "boys" probably had consensual sex with the priests then felt guilty or wanted to extort money from the Catholic Church when the sex scandal floodgates opened up. Why doesn't G.W. Bush protect children from sexual predators? Oh, that's right, because he is not the police and child molestation is a matter that should be reported to the police and not the POPE.

STOP HATING THE POPE!

 

[kbm8795]

Thats not cut and dry, there are certainly different ways to looking at that. And then that leaves different denominations open to saying that they havent changed, blah blah. If a homosexual were to say that they were Christian however, they would have to firmly believe that the Bible is a living document that adjusts as society adjusts. This would certainly allow for the changes with the church over time. However, I believe most Christians would simply respond, that while the Bible is perfect, man is not. Hence he does not always accurately portray the contents of the Bible. Or something along those lines.

Which would, of course, naturally mean that churches have already accepted that the Bible is a living document that adjusts over time and that their interpretations of the portrayal of homosexuality may not be perfect. There aren't many denominations that haven't changed over the years.

No, I'm counting my split personality in there. But if you'd like to I could make a poll and ask people... then could share the results here. I think by and large most people would agree that you protest against what Christians say more often than not in this forum, instead of being like minded. I wouldnt want to put words in anyones mouth though, but I could make a poll if you desire that.

I think the split personality reason works best in this situation. Otherwise,
you already did put words in another's mouth. A poll taken after the fact doesn't confirm your statement, it only acts in a self-serving manner to justify an action already completed. Even then, a statement of "we" without disclaimer wouldn't represent any other opinion expressed. You'd have to list the names of each person or the names of the exceptions, or provide an explanation of who "we" is on every statement just to make sure you didn't misrepresent someone who might not want to be part of your "we" statement the next time. And that doesn't even begin to get into defining the terms of each word or phrase of the question. Even with this first statement you would have problems defining "protest" since your own statement on your posts indicates that you don't ever define anything you type as more than an opinion. . .not a protest, not an argument, not a discourse. . .this means you couldn't accurately construct a balanced poll without using the same definitions that you apply to yourself. But then, that wasn't the intention.

On the other hand, who cares if "by and large most people would agree" with your statement? You didn't type "by and large most people agree that more often than not"- you typed "we", without any such disclaimer. And since you would be attempting to get an opinion on posts that are measureable and recorded, the poll wouldn't reveal anything of what that opinion is based upon...or if it is based on content or context...did some people read one post or two. .. or maybe ten or 100?

You could, however, take a poll on how many people wish you to represent their opinions of other members on these forums in your own posts, and then add their names each time you make those statements. That would be much more scientifically sound and provide you with ample coverage when you decide to unilaterally represent a complete group of people.

I agree that using gayness as a reason for a crime is pretty, for lake of a better word, retarded. Because this is a diverse country, in some places that might fly. In others it will not. However, to put that in contrast, a girl in my sisters school as speeding one night, drunk and coked up, and hit a guys car and killed him, leaving his wife and child fatherless (/husbandless...). Because she was underage, she pretty much got of without a hitch. I'm not saying thats any better or worse, but this kind of shit happens in our society, to gays, and not to gays. Being shafted is a very real possibility in life from any angle.

Unfortunately, after Matt Shepard's death, gay panic defenses were rarely used or successful. But after the rhetorical attacks on those Americans over the past year, they've been given new life in the courtroom. That's another reason why gays don't believe conservatives who claim that a "murder is a murder"- they know the history of how it was really applied.


I know what you're saying. At the same time I have to admit I was a bit relieved that there werent though. Especially this one guy, in boot camp we'd be in the showers and this 6'3" dude would walk into the shower and his dick would be hanging down past his knee. I never turned my back to that guy Gay or not, thats just plain dangerous. He could have slipped and stabbed me with it

The only group that studies gays in the military estimates that 65,000 are in active service and there are a million veterans. Seems like, despite the history of disrespectful witch hunts, a hypocritical policy that allows the military to selectively choose who they want booted out, and the extra burden placed on those people to hide themselves on duty, the benefits to the protection of American manhood has hurt our country more than maintained an image of sexual purity. One of the worst examples of the destructiveness of this image is the case of the married American soldier who murdered a young Iraqi man after having sex with him while on duty. That's just the military's version of gay panic, though at least the military is persecuting the perpetrator as if it was a real murder. I do always wonder, though. . .why is it that the soldier always waits until AFTER they have had the sex to decide they need to kill the partner?

It's amazing that the armed forces of so many other nations have overcome their insecurities, yet our own nation continues to play a game of "let's pretend." It provides a whole different viewpoint on fighting for freedom, particularly when the American gay soldier in Iraq knows the Brits down the road don't have to hide a thing, can accept packages from their partners, and can be united in civil unions in the service.

 

[Little Wing]

child molestation is a matter that should be reported to priests

wow you have really grasped the concept here

 

[ZAGLOBA]

wow you have really grasped the concept here

SORRY meant POLICE and not priests

 

[Little Wing]

i know sorry i was being silly. and i admire the man for much. i don't hate him at all and would never want the responsibility on my shoulders that he had on his. like i said, i took exception w one facet of a many faceted man.

 

[Pepper]

It is only a sin because the religious leader interprets scripture in that manner.

This statement is absurd. The Bible is clear, homosexuality is wrong. I say that sitting here with plenty of sin in my life, so I do not judge. Stating that sexual sins are a matter of biblical interpretaion is about as silly a notion as there is. Very few sins are so clearly laid out as sexual ones.

People invent a "lack of clarity" because the Bible disagrees with what the culture thinks is fair. Sorry, that is not they way it works. The problem with religion in this age is that the church is trying despartely to fit in with the culture for "marketing" purposes and in doing so they look like fools as they abandon part of the Bible to make the message for "sellable."

I am not Catholic and I have many issues with the Catholic Church, but I applaud the Pope for standing up for what is right. He was a good man and may he rest in peace.

 

[Minotaur]

This statement is absurd. The Bible is clear, homosexuality is wrong. I say that sitting here with plenty of sin in my life, so I do not judge. Stating that sexual sins are a matter of biblical interpretaion is about as silly a notion as there is. Very few sins are so clearly laid out as sexual ones.

I'm really reluctant to post here, because every thread becomes a testosterone laden pissing contest and a general pain in the ass. However, I do want to respond to this and only this...

The bible was not written in the English that we read. The word homosexual did not exist in the Greek of the New Testament. In fact, there IS no word in Greek for homosexual. That word is made up of two words from different languages: homo from Greek 'same' and sexual from Latin 'sexualis'. Guess the meaning. Paul never used the word homosexual, because it didn't exist, nor was he referring to a same sex couple. He was railing against ALL the promiscuous sexual practices of the day, especially in Corinth, which was the equivalent of NY's Times Square. Corinth was a hotbed of sex and idolatry.

This word was coined in the 1800s and used by later translations of the bible. Even in the Old Testament, Lev. 18:22 is taken completely out of context and does not refer to what we think of as homosexual sex. It refers to the pagan practices of temple prostitutes.

Now, if you want to take the bible literally, fine. That's a matter of faith. I can also say that any of the Hindu scriptures are just as true as the bible. It's all a matter of faith, with absolutely nothing to prove its veracity. And keep in mind that the bible has been edited by centuries of churchmen and says what they wanted it to say. It is not the preserved inerrant word of God. Now, accept that or don't. I can give you references, but I've done that in the past, and people who are not even historians or linguists (aka people on this board) dismiss those references out of hand without anything to back themselves up with. Like ostriches, they stick their heads in the sand to avoid any other way of thinking, or to avoid the possibility that everything they've been taught and believed is a lie. Some people can't handle their worlds being shaken.

 

[Eggs]

Which would, of course, naturally mean that churches have already accepted that the Bible is a living document that adjusts over time <snip>

Indeed, if the first part were true. But you ignored the second option that I said was probably more accurate.

On the other hand, who cares if "by and large most people would agree" with your statement?

Not I. I could really care less if you take exception with a statement I made. From now on I'll just use "we" whenever I speak and you can either ignore it or go on about it. Do we understand that?

That's another reason why gays don't believe conservatives who claim that a "murder is a murder"- they know the history of how it was really applied.

Hrm, how many gays have been killed? Enough that you can generalize for oh, quite a few million people? Saying that is about on par with me saying "we". To stereotype millions of conservatives because a few shitty court trials isnt so open minded or concerned with accuracy.

. . .why is it that the soldier always waits until AFTER they have had the sex to decide they need to kill the partner?

Do they "always"? You only showed me one instance of it. I'm sure there are more, but when I was in the military I dont recall any of our members killing homosexuals. Of course, I never really saw a military person that I knew to be gay. Regardless, if murder had been taking place in any of the bases I was at I would have heard something.

 

[Eggs]

What about in the original hebrew? Or is the OT something you dont count in?

Regardless of that, if you want to say that Paul was railing against "promiscuous sex", then homosexuality would probably be counted in that if you arent married to your partner. A bit of a catch 22 that one.

 

[Minotaur]

What about in the original hebrew? Or is the OT something you dont count in?

Regardless of that, if you want to say that Paul was railing against "promiscuous sex", then homosexuality would probably be counted in that if you arent married to your partner. A bit of a catch 22 that one.

Good try. Go look up promiscuous. We're in a monogamous committed relationship, with a state domestic partner registry certificate. That is as close to marriage as we can get right now. But I suppose you'd then consider a long-term unmarried heterosexual couple as being promiscuous?

Do feel free to contnue being a hater, not to mention "uninformed".

As for your comment about Hebrew: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

Have a nice day.

 

[Pepper]

Minotaur,

Here's a free tip...the threads you hate b/c they turn into pissing contest...your tone is what turns them into pissing contests...

Also, you views on the Bible are pure fantasy. Feel free to re-write it to say whatever you want. There is little debate among Biblical scholars that the only sex permitted by the Bible is between husband and wife.

As for the Bible being re-written over time. Again, pure fantasy. Considerable efforts have been made throughout history to translate from the orginal Greek and Hebrew texts. Is the translation process perfect? No, but saying that it was molded and shaped by the translator is ridiculous.

 

[Minotaur]

Minotaur,

Here's a free tip...the threads you hate b/c they turn into pissing contest...your tone is what turns them into pissing contests...

Also, you views on the Bible are pure fantasy. Feel free to re-write it to say whatever you want. There is little debate among Biblical scholars that the only sex permitted by the Bible is between husband and wife.

As for the Bible being re-written over time. Again, pure fantasy. Considerable efforts have been made throughout history to translate from the orginal Greek and Hebrew texts. Is the translation process perfect? No, but saying that it was molded and shaped by the translator is ridiculous.

Keep believing your fantasies; when you earn your degrees in linguistics and biblical history, then you can refute the degreed scholars. You just made yourself look so incredibly ill-informed. Did you READ what I posted? Are you afraid to read it, perhaps? Does it destroy everything you ever believed?

Moreover, my tone becomes what it is because I am tired of the attacks against what gays are, by the cretins that post on this site. I am tired of the need to justify and defend us. We harm no one and have a right to live and be who and what we are without you holy rollers and Jeebus freaks always vomiting SIN! SIN! SIN! HOMOSECSHULS AH SINNUHS! REPENT AND LET JEEEEEZUS SAVE YOU!

Get a clue.

 

[kbm8795]

Indeed, if the first part were true. But you ignored the second option that I said was probably more accurate.



Not I. I could really care less if you take exception with a statement I made. From now on I'll just use "we" whenever I speak and you can either ignore it or go on about it. Do we understand that?

Sure, as long as you document that as reflecting your split personality.



Hrm, how many gays have been killed? Enough that you can generalize for oh, quite a few million people? Saying that is about on par with me saying "we". To stereotype millions of conservatives because a few shitty court trials isnt so open minded or concerned with accuracy.

The history was already there. It doesn't change because millions of "conservatives" woke up one day and said "murder is murder." A "gay panic" defense would have never existed if it wasn't historically successful. The statement itself would have been unnecessary to apply to gay citizens if it had been believed and practiced all along.



Do they "always"? You only showed me one instance of it. I'm sure there are more, but when I was in the military I dont recall any of our members killing homosexuals. Of course, I never really saw a military person that I knew to be gay. Regardless, if murder had been taking place in any of the bases I was at I would have heard something.

Actually, it isn't always after they've had sex, or so a defendant claims. I think in the case of the naval enlisted man who was beaten to death in Japan several years ago by shipmates, it was apparently before they had done anything -in a public bathroom...just the claim of solicitation of sex or perception of sex. Of course, that is only what the defense claimed at the time. And of course you never saw a military person that you "knew" to be gay - it would be the end of their career, unless, of course, the unit commander decided to overlook their existence.

 

[Eggs]

Good try. Go look up promiscuous. We're in a monogamous committed relationship, with a state domestic partner registry certificate. That is as close to marriage as we can get right now. But I suppose you'd then consider a long-term unmarried heterosexual couple as being promiscuous?

Do feel free to contnue being a hater, not to mention "uninformed". [/QUOTE]

Yes, of course, I dont agree with you so I'm a hater and "uninformed". You're obviously the only source of who are "haters" and who are "uninformed". Whee. As to the meaning of promiscuity, their definition back then could very well have involved a situation like yours. Since obviously you dont think things translate 100% accuretly. Regardless of all that, I'm not much of a hater... I pretty much wouldnt care if you sucked every gay guys dick from the East to the West coast.

As for your comment about Hebrew: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

Have a nice day.

Nice article... basically it said NOTHING. It gave some different opinions and suggested meanings. Some of which would have been against homosexuality. The argument that "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" means that two homosexuals shouldnt sleep in a girls bed is about funny and a half. Now thats about a stretch. If homosexuality was so okay, I'm sure there would have been more references of it. But umm, nice link to the religious tolerance site, it would have been nice if they were actually making a point though

 

[kbm8795]

This statement is absurd. The Bible is clear, homosexuality is wrong. I say that sitting here with plenty of sin in my life, so I do not judge. Stating that sexual sins are a matter of biblical interpretaion is about as silly a notion as there is. Very few sins are so clearly laid out as sexual ones.

I could care less if your church has decided that the Bible is clear about this subject or not, especially when most of the verses are wrapped up with other abominations that are quite nicely overlooked as punishable sins with social and legal sanctions. Your beliefs apply to your own life, and I can admire them if they've worked well for your conscience, but it doesn't mean my conscience is required to accept them or have freedom curtailed in order to make yours feel more secure about embracing universal truth. I would wager your own church has spent more time on a dozen verses attacking these people over the past year than the hundreds about helping the poor - and all I have to do is turn on the Coral Ridge Ministries every Sunday morning and see another political tirade against the evil homosexual agenda.

You might be sitting there with plenty of sin in your own life, but you don't expect the rest of the community, or your country, to count those sins for you and legislate sanctions specifically targeting your sins. And if a gay christian doesn't happen to believe those verses meant their existence was a sin, it doesn't make them any less a christian than you are for not stoning children for sassing back to their parents or demanding the death penalty for adulterers.

People invent a "lack of clarity" because the Bible disagrees with what the culture thinks is fair. Sorry, that is not they way it works. The problem with religion in this age is that the church is trying despartely to fit in with the culture for "marketing" purposes and in doing so they look like fools as they abandon part of the Bible to make the message for "sellable."

Some churches are an industry, and that isn't a new concept at all. Male-dominated religious denominations, for example, never supported the right of a woman to own property or vote until they realized they were having difficulty influencing men to attend church and the country was having an increasingly disturbing problem with male alcoholism. In order to exert influence, they supported women's suffrage, passed a constitutional amendment and repainted the images of Jesus to look more masculine in order to attract men back into the churches.

I am not Catholic and I have many issues with the Catholic Church, but I applaud the Pope for standing up for what is right. He was a good man and may he rest in peace.

I'm not a Catholic either, and don't expect to be required to live under Catholic doctrine. The Pope did do a lot of good things, even if I disagree strongly with positions I believe hurt some people. But no human being goes through life without causing some pain, no matter how hard one might try - and his attempts to influence people with a more open and reconciling church are reflected in the warm response to his passing.

 

[Eggs]

Sure, as long as you document that as reflecting your split personality.

We feel the need to document jack shit

The history was already there.

So tell me, how many cases involving that defense are there on the books?

And of course you never saw a military person that you "knew" to be gay

Actually, people I knew in the military had known people that were gay, and there were people that in conversation would talk about somebody they knew that was gay in the service. Most people could really care less as long as it isnt interfering with their lives.

 

[kbm8795]

Do feel free to contnue being a hater, not to mention "uninformed".

Yes, of course, I dont agree with you so I'm a hater and "uninformed". You're obviously the only source of who are "haters" and who are "uninformed". Whee. As to the meaning of promiscuity, their definition back then could very well have involved a situation like yours. Since obviously you dont think things translate 100% accuretly. Regardless of all that, I'm not much of a hater... I pretty much wouldnt care if you sucked every gay guys dick from the East to the West coast.

Why shouldn't his religious interpretations be considered as valid as anyone who claims it is sinful?


Nice article... basically it said NOTHING. It gave some different opinions and suggested meanings. Some of which would have been against homosexuality. The argument that "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" means that two homosexuals shouldnt sleep in a girls bed is about funny and a half. Now thats about a stretch. If homosexuality was so okay, I'm sure there would have been more references of it. But umm, nice link to the religious tolerance site, it would have been nice if they were actually making a point though [/QUOTE]


I think it would be rather logical to realize that a gay man, for instance, would never be lying with a woman in the same manner he would lie with another man. If one did, he obviously wouldn't be gay.

 

[Eggs]

Your beliefs apply to your own life, and I can admire them if they've worked well for your conscience, but it doesn't mean my conscience is required to accept them

I take it you dont vote then Kbm? If so, you're trying to force what you believe to be right on my life. Whether you vote somebody into office that will do it for you, or yo vote directly for something, its still you trying to push what you believe is right on the other citizens of the country. Or is it somehow not?

I would wager your own church has spent more time on a dozen verses attacking these people over the past year than the hundreds about helping the poor - and all I have to do is turn on the Coral Ridge Ministries

You'd probably lose that wager with a good deal of churches. And most of those churches also spend a good deal more money helping the poor than paying to have gays bumped off Also, perhaps Coral Ridge isnt the best church to stereotype every other church in the world by, is it?

 

[Decker]

Is the translation process perfect? No, but saying that it was molded and shaped by the translator is ridiculous.

Pepper, molding and shaping is exactly what translators do when translating texts. They pick and choose words to adequately communicate the ideas represented by the language of the native text. Etymology, perspective, judgment, prejudice, among other things all play a role in the translator's concordance btn the original text and his translation.

Like you said, 'not all translations are perfect', but all translations differ from the original text--something is lost or changed.

E.g., 'The kingdom of God is within you', v.

'The kingdom of God is amongst you'---These statements mean different things but one is closer to the original and one is a "bad" translation.

As an aside, does anyone know why the much of the bible was written in greek originally instead of the prevailing language of Aramaic?

 

[kbm8795]

We feel the need to document jack shit

Naturally.


So tell me, how many cases involving that defense are there on the books?

A day in the library would work wonders for you.


Actually, people I knew in the military had known people that were gay, and there were people that in conversation would talk about somebody they knew that was gay in the service. Most people could really care less as long as it isnt interfering with their lives.

This, of course, would coincide with the official hysteria over the change to the "don't ask-don't tell" policy a dozen years ago.

 

[Eggs]

Why shouldn't his religious interpretations be considered as valid as anyone who claims it is sinful?

They can be, he just needs to start his own religion to try and get people to follow them. If not, he cant expect everybody that has specific beliefs to all of a sudden jump over and believe what he believes. That akin to Muhammed telling the Jews in Mecca that they should worship him now and that he is the latest profit with the newest buzz.

I think it would be rather logical to realize that a gay man, for instance, would never be lying with a woman in the same manner he would lie with another man. If one did, he obviously wouldn't be gay.

Cute, but I'm not falling for it. Being that they were a bit prudish with the dick/vagina words, its just as easy to take lying with as to have sexual relations with.

 

[Eggs]

A day in the library would work wonders for you.

While a day in the library looking up dead gay men sounds veeery interesting, I have to go for a run and do some work. Take it easy.

 

[Minotaur]

As an aside, does anyone know why the much of the bible was written in greek originally instead of the prevailing language of Aramaic?

The Old Testament is in Hebrew, the Gospels are in Aramaic a close relative of Hebrew and Arabic. The epistles of St. Paul are in Greek because even though Paul was a Jew, he spent much of his time in Asia Minor, which was primarily Greek speaking. He was also a citizen of the Roman Empire and travelled frequently, and was fairly well educated. Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, after Latin.

I think I got that right.

Note to Pepper et al: See the tone of response when one poses a question or statement in a civil and mature manner? Like begets like.

 

[Minotaur]

They can be, he just needs to start his own religion to try and get people to follow them. If not, he cant expect everybody that has specific beliefs to all of a sudden jump over and believe what he believes.

No one expects that. Where you dug that up is a mystery. Either keep an open mind or a closed mouth. Simple, n'est-ce pas?

 

[kbm8795]

I take it you dont vote then Kbm? If so, you're trying to force what you believe to be right on my life. Whether you vote somebody into office that will do it for you, or yo vote directly for something, its still you trying to push what you believe is right on the other citizens of the country. Or is it somehow not?

This shouldn't even need to be addressed. If I was campaigning to have a religious denomination closed, the churches burned, the religious teachings impounded and the ministers arrested, then it imposes something on those who are believers of that faith. If the church is disbanded, branded "non-christian" refused the right to call to prayer, that would be an imposition. On the other hand, supporting a constitutional amendment defining "marriage" when there are several thousand legally wed same-sex couples living in the country, would effectively enforce dissolution of their families and the beliefs of religious groups who recognize them. So, who exactly is forcing something on others?


You'd probably lose that wager with a good deal of churches. And most of those churches also spend a good deal more money helping the poor than paying to have gays bumped off Also, perhaps Coral Ridge isnt the best church to stereotype every other church in the world by, is it?

The beliefs of a "good deal of churches" has nothing to do with the individual right to worship according to conscience. Coral Ridge ministries is only one example. Perhaps you could tell all of us how much more money is spent by these churches in helping the poor than they shell out to vilify a group of fellow citizens? You could maybe start with some of the "pro-family" organizations that are financed through a number of these ministries through general unrelated collections during their broadcasting use of public airwaves.

 

[kbm8795]

They can be, he just needs to start his own religion to try and get people to follow them. If not, he cant expect everybody that has specific beliefs to all of a sudden jump over and believe what he believes. That akin to Muhammed telling the Jews in Mecca that they should worship him now and that he is the latest profit with the newest buzz.

Those churches already exist.



Cute, but I'm not falling for it. Being that they were a bit prudish with the dick/vagina words, its just as easy to take lying with as to have sexual relations with.

Since the "prudish" use is a man-created approach, that alone would indicate lots of room for misinterpretation.

 

[Decker]

Thanks for the info Minotaur.

 

[Minotaur]

Most welcome.

 

[Eggs]

No one expects that. Where you dug that up is a mystery. Either keep an open mind or a closed mouth. Simple, n'est-ce pas?

Then shut the fuck up and quit bitching about the situation. If you cant expect the Pope to just jump on your side because you consider it the "right" thing to do, get off his ass.