So now there's no reason to keep the toy a mystery?

Just kidding.

"opponents of the shift decried what they saw as straying from clear Scriptural direction"

They did it, of course, while sporting a fresh haircut, wearing poly-cotton shirts, and nibbling on a shrimp cocktail.

"nibbling"

You're a funny man, danforth.

Lutherans to allow sexually active gays as clergy

hahahahahahahahahahahaha cough cough.... hahahahahahahahahahaha.... Brilliant!

Carry on!

Some will be upset with this decision.

Tell me of one minister who is sinless.

We all sin.

Some will then say, we are to repent in order to be forgiven.

Tell me one minister who hasn't repeated a sin they have previously committed.

There....played the devils advocate!

Just for clarity's sake, there are at least five 'Lutheran' denominations and ELCA has long been the most liberal.

It's no different than the Presbyterian Church fracturing into different denominations, nor the coming schizm in the United Methodist Church.

My friends in the more conservative branches of the Lutheran Church (Missouri-Synod and Wisconsin-Synod) say they are already getting defectors from ELCA over this issue.
----------
The three things you learn in heaven:

Q: Which wins, the irresistible force or the immovable object?
A: The irresistible force.

Q: Is wrestling real?
A: Yes

Q:What is God's favorite religion?
A: Lutheran

(This is an old Lutheran joke)

A local Universalist-Unitarian Church has a Minister, who is "trangendered, is a woman who had her body mutilated and took hormones so that she now outwardly appears to be a chubby ugly man. (In her prime - before surgical and glandular mutilation - she may have appeared to be a chubby ugly woman.)

Anyway, the church advertises it self as a haven for LGBT individuals and has a congregation that is different. I don't know how many members it has who do not suffer from some distress regarding their misdirected sexuality.

It doesn't seem like a place to bring your kids, who might then perceive what is a sort of freak show as mormality.

This move was to protect the alter boys.

Oohrah:

Yep!

I am not saying I agree or disagree with the Lutheran decision, but really Oohrah, show me Scripture that says being gay is worse than lying, stealing, adultery!

I belonged to an ELC church at one time. Waaaaay to liberal for me.

Tell me of one minister who is sinless.

We all sin.

Tell me one minister who hasn't repeated a sin they have previously committed.

There....played the devils advocate!

#5 | Posted by Lisa

You're obviously confused! No one is saying minsters are to be sinless, but they should recognize sin as sin and renounce it.

But Lisa likes to say such things because she doesn't want to offend or be rejected by the debauched ones here on DR. So she lets her insecurity and her need to be accepted by the debauched ones come between her and a biblical understanding of sin. Instead of calling out sin, Lisa comes to the defense of the debauched ones. Cuz we wouldn't want to offend anyone, now would we Lisa?

What would you think if the church ordained professing serial adulterers Lisa? That's right, "Come on in, and let's celebrate our diversity. Won't you become our minister? We have many married women in our congregation who could probably be persuaded to let you into their marriages and express yourself! Here at the 1st Church of Debauchery we affirm everyones form of sexual expression. That's right, we don't get hung up on sin. We just love everybody!"

In case you haven't figured it out airhead, homosexuality is not regarded as sin by the debauched ones on this board. Instead it is celebrated and affirmed as a good gift of God...if God happens to be acknowledged at all. And you and your stupid post simply enables them!

br />

Hello Theone!

First of all, I am not anyones judge, we have but one. I choose not to "offend" one because of Mat 7:1-5.

You have no idea who is or isn't an adulterer. You have no idea who commits what sins.

That is the point. There is no one but ONE that is sinnless.

I don't sit in judgement, if you feel comfortable playing God...knock yourself out and do it.

That's not my place.

But if you want my sincere opinion....anyone who does not repent is not truly saved.

But I'm not the one to shove that down their throat.

Happy?

Lutherans are like Catholics without the guilt.

Guess that comment is proven correct.

Homosexuality is celebrated as an affirmed. Good gift of God???

WHAT???

I assume you have Scripture to support that claim, right??

I'd like to see that, Please.

Love,

Airhead

Murph:

That's true.

I belong to a Christian BIble Church. We go strictly from the Bible, with Scripture interpreting Scripture so there is no false interpretation.

Sounds like they brainwash the parishioners.

Homosexuality is celebrated as an affirmed. Good gift of God???

WHAT???

I assume you have Scripture to support that claim, right??

I'd like to see that, Please.

Love,

Airhead

#14 | Posted by Lisa

Obviously the point went over your head!

Should a practicing homosexual be ordained as a minister Lisa? If he/she behaves in this way, refusing to acknowledge it as sin, shall he/she be ordained by the Church regardless?

Answering with, "All ministers sin" is a cop out and does not answer the question. The point is the candidate for ministry does not acknowledge the behavior as sin, but instead embraces it as part of his/her person.

So, saying, "I won't be the judge...that's for God to decide" is also a cop out. I doubt seriously you would say the same if the candidate was a pedophile? Yet when it comes to homosexuality, you and your ilk want to embrace it and then dodge the question of its sinfulness with, "Judge not lest you be judged!"

Again, a cop out...and a cowardly one at that.

So it really isn't a church anymore. Interesting.

Here's another Theone:

Rom 14:9-13

And BTW...we are SUPPOSE to love one another!

hahahahahahahahahahahaha cough cough.... hahahahahahahahahahaha.... Brilliant!

Carry on!

#4 | Posted by Tosser

FLAG: Homophobic & divisive

Be Well.

I belong to a Christian BIble Church. We go strictly from the Bible, with Scripture interpreting Scripture so there is no false interpretation.

Crap! I used to deal with born again Christians several times a week and still pay attention now and then and they have a different interpretation of every verse depending on the circumstances and their agenda.

Not that there's anything wrong with being a Christian as long as you don't wear it on your sleeve. Well kinda nothing wrong - I'd trust a Jew before I'd trust a Christian though. No I'm not and never have been a Jew but I'm half way there(wink, wink)

hahahahahahahahahahahaha cough cough.... hahahahahahahahahahaha.... Brilliant!

Carry on!

#4 | Posted by Tosser

FLAG: Homophobic & divisive

#20 | Posted by skip_wellington at 2009-08-22 11:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose) Boohoo boohoo

Here's another Theone:

Rom 14:9-13

And BTW...we are SUPPOSE to love one another!

#19 | Posted by Lisa

And here's one for you Lisa: 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, and you might want to read the story which comes before it in order to see the nasty sexual behavior that Paul is being so judgmental and unloving over.

And BTW...we are SUPPOSE to love one another!

#19 | Posted by Lisa

Yet you hate me. I guess you are a hypocrite.

Theone:

Do you understand what repentance is???

Do you understand that if one intentionally continues the sin, they are truly not saved?

Have I not stated that I once belonged to an ELC church but it was way to liberal???

Do you need a brick wall to fall on your head before you realize what I mean????

However, I will NOT stoop to your judgemental ways and condemn anyone when I myself am not pure of sin.

Love the sinner hate the sin.

You don't like it?

Oh well.

Christ went to the sinners.

You have no idea what I do in my life to reach out to people.

Coward?? LOL

I am well familiar with those versus, Theone.

If you read 1 Cor 6:9-10, it says "neither fornicators, nor idolitors, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God"

Therfore, what sins are worse than homosexuality???

NONE but one and it isn't any of those.

However, I will NOT stoop to your judgemental ways and condemn anyone when I myself am not pure of sin.

Love the sinner hate the sin.

You don't like it?

Oh well.

Christ went to the sinners.

You have no idea what I do in my life to reach out to people.

Coward?? LOL

#25 | Posted by Lisa

...and Paul called on the Corinthian church to judge and expel the man engaged in debauchery.

So if we're not supposed to judge those in the church, then what do you do with Paul's instruction 1 Cor 5?

Yes, Christ went to sinners...accepted them where they were in life...and told them to go and sin no more.

But because we can't do that, and continue to sin, well then let's just accept the sin and allow the behavior...even ordain it to ministry....cuz we're nice Christians and we don't want to call anyone to account and hold them responsible. That's not very nice and Jesus wants us to be nice.

I puke at your chickified Christianity. You're the perfect example of why women should not be leaders in the church.

Focus on one verse if you wish. I choose to take the Bible in it's entirity.

You choose to also ignore that I believe the ELC is too liberal.

Men are to be leaders of not only the Church but also to be the head of their households. Women are the hearts of both.
We each have our roles.

Again Theone....sit on your throne of judgement.

It's not Christianity you spread, it's hatred of gays.

Why not so angry towards liars? How about adulteres? You do know that even looking at a woman lustfully is considered adultery don't you? How about Coveters?

Find me one minister who is free from any sin.

Do you understand that a sin is a sin is a sin in the eyes of God, except one???

I puke at your chickified Christianity. You're the perfect example of why women should not be leaders in the church.

#27 | Posted by TheOneBS

I puke at your cowardice. You are not a real man.

I puke at your cowardice. You are not a real man.

#29 | Posted by jackass

Are you defending Christianity, Lisa or both?

Whichever it is it definitely belongs in Ripley's Believe It Or Not.

One more thing before I head out for the evening, Theone:

You "PUKE" at my Christianity?

You display hatred, resort to insulting a fellow "sister" in Christ.

We are instructed to pray for one another, not insult. We are to pray for those we consider our enemy, also.

Instead of your actions, you might want to replace them with that!

Have a pleasant evening.

Nite

Lisa, I hate to say this, but you do realize you sound more like Niceville lately, then Nicey ever did?

As I remember it, you used to get pissed because he talked about 'god' constantly.

I would talk about god all the time too, but I don't want to piss her off.

It's not Christianity you spread, it's hatred of gays.

Why not so angry towards liars? How about adulteres? You do know that even looking at a woman lustfully is considered adultery don't you? How about Coveters?

#28 | Posted by Lisa

Again, you refuse to see it.

Why am I not so angry towards liars? Well, I probably would be if liars suddenly began professing that lying isn't a sin, and the church decided it was going embrace lying, no longer calling it sin. And if clergy-to-be decided that lying was ok and part of who they are as God's good creation, and not to be condemned, but instead embraced. Yep, then I'd be angry.

And if the church decided it was now going to ordain self-affirmed practicing adulterers because adultery is simply just one form of the rich diversity of expression in human sexuality, then yes I'd be angry.

And when the church begins to embrace homosexuality, no longer calling it sin...even ordaining it, cuz this is how God made people, then yes I get angry.

But the Lisa's of the world just don't see what's happening around them. Indeed they lead the church further into darkness with their hairbrained interpretations of "judge not lest you be judged." They say "love the sinner, hate the sin," but really they're embracing the sin when they refuse to call it out! Wouldn't want to sound judgmental now. It's better to allow evil to purcolate into the church than to sound judgmental.

PUKE

Rex:

What bothered me about Nicey is NOT that he talked about God.

What bothered me was that he didn't walk his talk.

So many non believers have a right to be so critical of self proclaimed Christians because they do just that.

If you recall, I consistantly told Nicey that he hinders his cause, not help it!

See the difference?

I hear ya.

First of all, I am not anyones judge, we have but one. I choose not to "offend" one because of Mat 7:1-5.

I don't sit in judgement, if you feel comfortable playing God...knock yourself out and do it.

#12 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-08-22 10:46 PM | Reply | Flag:
-------

Matt. 7:1 -- "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
-------

This a frequently misunderstood passage, and the fact is that you judge people all the time, Lisa.

-Does this salesman get a commission I'm not aware of?
-Did the waiter get me a fresh drink, or just stick his finger in the same one to get out the bug?
-Is this person telling the truth?

you makes judgments all day.

The verse you cite does not say "NEVER JUDGE ANYBODY!"

It says to judge others with the same compassion and discernment that you want to be judged

Ummmm....I read the article prior to posting. Nowhere did it say that homosexuality was no longer a sin.

This just keeps going over your head doesn't it? Your hatred of gays prevents you from understanding that their sin is no different from any other minister's.

If you belong to a church where the minister states he is not a sinner, then I suggest going to a different church!!

He's proven to be a liar.

Rex I am surprised you did not like Dukes. I ate at the one in Tacoma and loved it.

"It says to judge others with the same compassion and discernment that you want to be judged"

Let us know when you want others to vote on whether you should be considered a second-class citizen.

Do you understand that a sin is a sin is a sin in the eyes of God, except one???

#28 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-08-22 11:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lisa is correct that there is no such thing as a 'worse' sin, but that's also not the point here.

Lutheran denominations also have rules against practicing alcoholics, practicing drug abusers, practicing adulterers, etc.

The definitive word being "practicing." These are not sins of thought but sins of behavior.

The Church accepts that its leaders are also fallible humans, and they can be restored to their positions if they repent their chronic sins and promise to cease the behavior.

The difference with ELCA today is that this sin of behavior is being openly committed.

I find myself in an odd position--defending Lisa. Theone, you are an ass. While I may fervently disagree with Lisa's beliefs, I respect her devotion to them and to degrade her beliefs because of her gender is just proof that you have a tiny prick.

As to your comment about women not being leaders in the church, I laugh. The reason women have long been kept out of any role in the Christian clergy other than nuns--who are basically slaves--it is just the long standing Christian effort to keep women in their place. One more reason I think your god is an ass. He doesn't recognize his sisters. probably because they were mean to him when he was little...lol.

That's the one I ate at JA, the chicken slider was covered in goopy cheese.

I should have got the chowder and prawns.

Vernon:

LOL

You claim to know that I have thought or said those things???

That cracks me up you would think that.

Vernon, we are speaking of spirituality and sin. I do not judge what is in ones heart regarding those matters.

Earthly actions such as the examples you gave, are far different than hating one for a sin and excluding the multitude of other sins that people like Theone like to focus on.

To think that ones minister is sinless or to think their ministers sin is less offensive to God, and therefore they have a right to preach to a congregation is ludecrious.

Now, I'm really heading to bed...church comes early.

Have a pleasant nite, Vernon.

"show me Scripture that says being gay is worse than lying, stealing, adultery!"

Well, according to Leviticus, being gay is about as bad as eating scallops.

Rex, Nog or Randy?

I had the Chowder. It was great.

Let us know when you want others to vote on whether you should be considered a second-class citizen.

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-08-23 12:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

As a Christian and an American, I believe all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law.

I don't stop anyone from voting, holding a contrary political point of view, going to school and legally avoiding taxes.

I also don't think anybody is entitled to special consideration because of their skin color, intelligence or behavior.

If an alcoholic crashes his car and kills someone, claiming innocence because he's a drunk is no defense. "It's the way God made me, your honor!"

I sin every day and I know everyone else sins every day. But I don't think it is something to celebrate and brag about.

"I also don't think anybody is entitled to special consideration because of their skin color, intelligence or behavior. "

Name one "special consideration" gays want that my wife and I didn't get the moment we said "I do".

#41 | Posted by missesmerelda

Miss Esmerelda, get back to your Wiccan coven. You don't know what the hell you're talking about!

#40

Ughhhhh...I need to get to bed...lol!

Vernon,

It is the absolute point, sweetie!!!

What if your minister does not admit to be in the practice of lying? The practice of adultery?

Does that mean he isn't practicing those things??

What reason is one against gays preaching? Because it's a sin.

Therefore, those who oppose a sinner preaching, should oppose ALL sinners from preaching.

What slays me is that Theone would rather beat me over the head with his hatred of gays, and insult my Christianity, than to see that I left this liberal church.

My entire point was, if you believe that a sinner should not preach...the pulpits would all be empty!!!!!!!!!!!

neither do you dickhead. And, i'm not wiccan. They are almost as narrow minded as the christians.

Well, according to Leviticus, being gay is about as bad as eating scallops.

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-08-23 12:21 AM | Reply | Flag

Danny, Danny, Danny ..... is this a serious statement or are you just playing word games?

Leviticus is in the Old Testament (think Old Contract) and is not in force regarding Christians. It is kept in the Bible for historic and reference purposes.

The Old Testament is very tough, very harsh. It shows the judgment of God is harsh. The whole point of the death and resurrection of Jesus was to permanently satisfy this law.

Matthew 5:17 -- "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

#47 | Posted by vernon

You hit the nail on the head vernon! But she will still obfuscate for fear of sounding judgmental.

I, on the other hand, have no problem with it!

Got to go with Nog.

#44 | POSTED BY DANFORTH
"Well, according to Leviticus, being gay is about as bad as eating scallops.
"
Genius, Danforth. Pure genius.
I'm stealing that one and spreading it.

#27 | POSTED BY THEONEBS
"I puke at your chickified Christianity."

For the record, the line's a lot funnier if you do it with a bad French accent.

Seriously. Try it.

While I may fervently disagree with Lisa's beliefs, ..........

.........The reason women have long been kept out of any role in the Christian clergy other than nuns--who are basically slaves--it is just the long standing Christian effort to keep women in their place.

#41 | Posted by missesmerelda at 2009-08-23 12:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

No, Esmerelda, you do not know what you are talking about. Scriture is clear that men and women have different strengths and different assignments.

They are equally important but different.

"Leviticus is in the Old Testament (think Old Contract) and is not in force regarding Christians."

I hope you remind folks the next time they cite Leviticus as justification. Without that, all that's left is a loon who only "saw" Christ in a hallucination.

Vernon,

You have openly admitted you are a sinner. Does that make you less qualified to preach???

I read nothing about these homosexuals using the pulpit to "celebrate".

They want to preach God's word. Just like every other sinner who does!

#31 | POSTED BY LISA
"You display hatred, resort to insulting a fellow "sister" in Christ.
We are instructed to pray for one another, not insult. We are to pray for those we consider our enemy, also."

Lisa, Lisa, Lisa......I applaud your intentions and your heart, but never ever argue with a drunk or a fool.

"Leviticus is in the Old Testament (think Old Contract) and is not in force regarding Christians."

Huh? Isn't that the same half that contains the Ten Commandments?

Vernon,

We agree that God has seperate roles for men and women.

Now...give me a hug so I can go to bed!!

Name one "special consideration" gays want that my wife and I didn't get the moment we said "I do".

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-08-23 12:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm assuming that you are a man and your wife is a woman.

That means two guys is NOT the same thing.

Sorry!

PS: A rooster and a hen is not the same as two hens, either. Nor is a bull and a cow the same as two bulls.

See a pattern?

God doesn't 'do' anything, if you start saying god does good things, then god is responsible for all bad things.

Therefore god would cease to be good and become evil.

Now...give me a hug so I can go to bed!!

#61 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-08-23 12:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Good night Lisa!

My wife and I have to go shopping now for the new baby -- he's three weeks out.

It's 12:30 pm Sunday afternoon in Taiwan

I read nothing about these homosexuals using the pulpit to "celebrate".

They want to preach God's word. Just like every other sinner who does!

#58 | Posted by Lisa

The church states that, "As long as they are in committed relationships...."

So, homosexuality is not a sin....as long as they are in committed relationships.

What part of "sin no longer regognized as sin" do you not understand Lisa?

Vernon:

I'm so excited for you!

How is she feeling?

"That means two guys is NOT the same thing. Sorry!"

What a ludicrous reason, the equivalent of "because I said so". Marriage is, at its root, a legal contract conferring superseding rights. Why is one group, over here, allowed to enter into those super-protective agreements, and another group, over there prohibited from doing the same?

"PS: A rooster and a hen is not the same as two hens, either. Nor is a bull and a cow the same as two bulls. See a pattern?"

Hundreds of species have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior. You'll lose that argument every time.

Earlier you posted "I believe all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law." Obviously, you only want some citizens to have equal protection.

That hardly proves it's not considered a sin, Theone.

I'm in a committed, loving relationship. Does that mean I'm not a sinner?

Isn't that the same half that contains the Ten Commandments?

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-08-23 12:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, Grasshopper, the Ten Commandments is in the Old Testament.

The Ten Commandments is a highly condensed version of the Mosaic law of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers

But it is still the Old Testament.

Christians are not bound by the Mosaic Law. The Law is still divine and authored by God, so a practicing Christian also will not knowingly violate the Law.

The difference is that Christians have complete forgiveness. They sin and you do not cut off their hand (or whatever)

There is a big difference between religion and spirituality.

Oraganized religion is set up as a control mechanism, spirituality is belief in a power higher then self without preconditons.

How is she feeling?

#66 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-08-23 12:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

She's a very calm person. Very even keel. Just the opposite of me.

But she's excited. Not any anxiety that I can discern. Her biggest concern now is spending three days in a Taiwan hospital, eating Taiwan food.

Trust me, Chinese food is much better in the U.S. than it is in China

"The Ten Commandments is a highly condensed version of the Mosaic law of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers. But it is still the Old Testament."

So they are "not in force regarding Christians", or do you get to pick and choose depending on the point you're trying to make?

And I'm still waiting for a list of rights gays want that my wife and I don't already have.

"Trust me, Chinese food is much better in the U.S. than it is in China"

Well, at least you can eat outside and dogs won't come up and bother you.

That's great Vernon!

Let her know she's in my prayers!

"The difference is that Christians have complete forgiveness. "

And what of those who died B.C?

#69 | Posted by Lisa

The point is that they are making exceptions for a behavior.

If the church stated that alcoholic ministers could drink themselves into a stupor, as long as they committed to turning in their car keys before doing so, would this be appropriate?

I guess so, cuz alcoholism is no different than any other sin. So let's make room for it, and offer contexts where the sin can be performed. Just as long as we acknowledge that it's sin, we can go ahead and do this.

PUKE

Christians beleive that if you don't see Jesus Christ as your one true savior, you are going to hell.

Even if you have never heard of Jesus Christ.

Doesn't sound very forgiving to me.

Oraganized religion is set up as a control mechanism, spirituality is belief in a power higher then self without preconditons.

#72 | Posted by r_zeitgeist at 2009-08-23 12:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is, of course, something you overheard 20 years ago. You thought it sounded insightful so you have uncritically repeated it every since.

In fact, any time you have more than one person in the room, it requires 'organization' and this includes religion. Think of it as division of labor.

In Acts 5 the apostles were doing everything, and finally sat down in Acts 6 and ironed out a plan:

Acts 6:2 -- So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables.

Zombie's latent desires are obviously getting the better of him. All these animal pictures have no doubt gotten him hot and bothered. Maybe he should go back to kissing his mirror while watching Indian condom adds, and chimpanzee sex?

Theone:

Do they not make exceptions for liars? Adulterers? Coveters? How about murderes? You do realize that according to Scripture if you hate someone you are considered a murderer, don't you??

If "exceptions" as you call them weren't made for sins....noone would be preaching because we are all sinners!!!!!
All these exceptions are made for every other sin....but your fight is against gays.

Why not just admit you hate gays and call it a night?!

Christians beleive that if you don't see Jesus Christ as your one true savior, you are going to hell.

Even if you have never heard of Jesus Christ.

#80 | Posted by r_zeitgeist at 2009-08-23 12:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Wrong-O

Romans 7 teaches that ignorance of the Law is considered as innocence. Some kid in Tibet who never heard the Gospel and then died will not go to hell.

You, on the other hand, have heard it and will be judged accordingly.

#79

HA!

One of the priests at the catholic church I went to as a kid was an alcoholic.

He's a sinner.

Next.

"It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables."

And that's why folks formerly in the food service industry are forbidden to preach.

If "exceptions" as you call them weren't made for sins....noone would be preaching because we are all sinners!!!!!
#83 | Posted by Lisa

Lisa, then what exceptions should the church make for candidates to ministry who are alcoholic?

Should the church provide them locked rooms where they can practice their behavior? As long as they commit themselves to these rooms, they can go ahead and drink?

Come on now, answer the question.

Vernon, help me out, what the fuck are you talking about?

Did I know you '20 years ago'?

I've studied comparative religion since I was a child, I know the genesis of every oragnized religion since before recorded history.

I know the interconnectivity, when they were written, and how each has impacted the other.

I know what religions are in every area on earth, how long they have existed, and how they are worshiped.

I have ten boxes of books on religion and philosophy, all of which I have read twice.

If you would like a class someday, ask me nicely and I might oblige.

We go strictly from the Bible, with Scripture interpreting Scripture so there is no false interpretation

False is a subjective term. Your interpretation is YOUR interpretation.

That's the problem with so many "Christians"- they swear they've got it right while everyone is wrong.

Indeed they lead the church further into darkness

I'm pretty sure they're already there without anyone's help.

"Should the church provide them locked rooms where they can practice their behavior?"

They do for Onanists.

As long as they commit themselves to these rooms, they can go ahead and drink?

How about as long as their drinking doesn't interfere with their work, no one should fucking care whether they do it or not.

Why do I get the feeling that theonebs is also for government staying out of our lives?

False is a subjective term. Your interpretation is YOUR interpretation.

That's the problem with so many "Christians"- they swear they've got it right while everyone is wrong.

#89 | Posted by jpw

You think this is true only with Christians?

STOOGE

And what of those who died B.C?

#78 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-08-23 12:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Salvation through Christ as not available until the Day of Pentecost, so anyone who died before that is judged by the Law.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

We pass new laws all the time that supercede old laws. This is the same thing.

If you are trying to reconcile the Old Testament with the New Testament, this is the only way you can. All of these contradictions you perceive are because you don't understand the context.

And I will anticipate your next question: Without the Gospel, God looks at the heart of the individual. That applied to people before Jesus, and it applies to people today who never hear the Gospel.

WOW Theone, that is quite the stretch you have in that post!!

Nowhere does it state they would get a room to have sex with their partners in church.

Your fear and hatred of gays is astounding!!

Why aren't you admitting you hate them so much?? You aren't afraid to "offend" them, are you??

This why I don't like talking religion, (as opposed to spirituality) there is always some smartass quoting scripture and thinking they know 'what god meant'.

What a bunch of arrogant horseshit.

Vernon,

I'm still waiting for your answers to #75.

You think this is true only with Christians?

STOOGE

No, but since that's the topic of this thread...

JPW:

When you use your Bible correctly, it interprets itself. No doubt about it!

No man made interpretations!

Just God's word!

Maybe he should go back to kissing his mirror while watching Indian condom adds, and chimpanzee sex?

Whatever gets your member standing at attention, sweetheart...

When you use your Bible correctly, it interprets itself. No doubt about it!

No man made interpretations!

Everything has man made conclusions.

I guarantee you there are other Christians somewhere, "using their Bible correctly," who have completely different views and conclusions than you do.

There's nothing wrong with this is the slightest and I mean no offense to you, it's dipshits like theone who derive their righteousness from THEIR interpretation while simultaneously demeaning others' that piss me off.

Nowhere does it state they would get a room to have sex with their partners in church.

Your fear and hatred of gays is astounding!!

Why aren't you admitting you hate them so much?? You aren't afraid to "offend" them, are you??

#94 | Posted by Lisa

You're dodging the question Lisa...and doing so like a typical Lib who uses the "racist" charge. Don't deal with the question, just label your opponent.

The ELCA allows for homosexual clergy...and allows them to practice what you, in a previous post, recognized as sin. The ELCA states that as long as homosexuals are in a committed relationship they can go on practicing their behavior.

If this isn't the church making exception for sinful behavior then what is?

You also mentioned alcoholism as being sinful. Does the church make exception for this sin too...by making special provision for the person to engage in his/her alcoholic behavior in certain contexts?

I think you see the problems, but you don't want to acknowledge them. So just tell theo he hates gays....maybe that will extricate you from your airheadedness?br />

OK...I REALLY am heading to bed now!

Sleep well eveyone!

Ciao!

Here's a band you should check out theone.

I've studied comparative religion since I was a child, I know the genesis of every oragnized religion since before recorded history.

I know the interconnectivity, when they were written, and how each has impacted the other.

I know what religions are in every area on earth, how long they have existed, and how they are worshiped.

I have ten boxes of books on religion and philosophy, all of which I have read twice.

If you would like a class someday, ask me nicely and I might oblige.

#88 | Posted by r_zeitgeist at 2009-08-23 01:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hmmm..... I've studied, I know, I know, I have ....

I read a book TWO times!

Blah, blah, blah. So you have a lot of knowledge but not a lick of wisdom. Who cares?

It's easy to sit in your wingback and stroke your puffed up ego about how you know a lot of stuff. Stroke, stroke, stroke. And feel smug and superior to all those 'stupid' Christians.

BTW, it doesn't change the fact that you heard (or read) that line and have been repeating it ever since to make yourself sound 'deep.'

In fact, you've posted it so many times that it's no different from Danni automatically blaming Reagan. All noise.

1 Corinthians 13:4 -- Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

When you use your Bible correctly, it interprets itself. No doubt about it!

How so? How does a believer handle open ended/contradictory instructions (meant to be taken literally) and anecdote/imagery (meant to be taken metaphorically)?

Is there a methodical, objective process to it, or is it more subjective and intuitive.

"If this isn't the church making exception for sinful behavior then what is? "

What exception? Yes, or no, does the church allow Onanists to preach?

Vernon,

Are you purposely avoiding answering #75, or do you have no answer?

Aw man, lisa heads to bed right when I wanted to ask her a question... o well, maybe later. Goodnight.

I'm still waiting for your answers to #75.

#96 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-08-23 01:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

I already answered you in 62.

A man and a woman can get married. A man and a man cannot, unless they are expecting special treatment

OMGosh....it is YOU who is avoiding the questions!!!

As far as labling, let's see.....you have called me an airhead, a chicken Christian and now a typical lib!

I called you on your true feelings, your real reason for objecting which is plain to see by all.

I have quoted Scripture which you ignore, I have stated why I left the ELC which you ignore because that gives you permission to call me a lib, you have not answered one single question I have asked of you...you dance around every one of them, tring to put me in the hot seat.

You resort to the name calling because you have nothing.

You need to examine yourself, Theone because if you think you speak of Christianity, you are not looking in the right mirror!

Christianity teachings have been lost on you.

You are in my prayers.

Goodnight!

And feel smug and superior to all those 'stupid' Christians.

As opposed to you who acts smug and superior to 'stupid' everyone?

"A man and a man cannot, unless they are expecting special treatment"

WTF? They're asking for the same "treatment" my wife and I get. Nothing "special" about it. You lose, again.

And the other part: are the Ten Commandments still in effect? If so, why do you get to pick and choose which parts of the OT are in effect and which aren't?

#108

Go ahead Zomie

What exception? Yes, or no, does the church allow Onanists to preach?

#106 | Posted by Danforth

Given that preachers do not commit to keeping Levirate oaths to their dead brother's wives, I don't think the church really chimes in on this one.

But you really didn't understand the story of Onan anyway, so your idiotic question shows you to be the fool that you are!

Don't deal with the question, just label your opponent.

Your "questions," BS, are irrational and not worth addressing. Engaging you is about as productive as trying to convince a schizophrenic that his friends really haven't been replaced with imposters. Pose an intelligent question from a rational viewpoint and you will be met with a similar response. Pose a question based on nothing more than your particularly vile brand of superstition, and expect to be ridiculed.

You are labeled as a hater of homosexuals because... big surprise here... you hate them. If you don't want to carry that label, perhaps you shouldn't profess your hatred at every opportunity.

Lisa, I did in the post before I said goodnight. It's cool, it would probably turn into a long conversation and is best saved for another time. I'm about to crash too.

Is there a methodical, objective process to it, or is it more subjective and intuitive.

#105 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-08-23 01:19 AM | Reply |

Yes, it is very methodical. One reason Bible study is to be done in groups is as a check-and-balance, to prevent people from going off into private interpretation

"Given that preachers do not commit to keeping Levirate oaths to their dead brother's wives, I don't think the church really chimes in on this one."

Too funny. The dumbshit doesn't even know what an Onanist is.

#110 | Posted by Lisa

And now the histrionics! Yep, it's a woman!

Too funny. The dumbshit doesn't even know what an Onanist is.

#118 | Posted by Danforth

au contraire, it is you that does not know the real meaning. You think it's about jacking off...cuz that's your specialty. But you really don't know what Onan's sin was, do you?

Zombie...you're right. I just saw that post. Can I answer it tomorrow since it will be lenghty? I'm fighting to keep awake, have to be up in 5 hours and the rythemic snoring from my hubby is inviting!!

Lol

I probably won't be back till tomorrow evening...church till noon, family bike ride, youth group for the little guy....but I promise I have an answer for you, OK?

WTF? They're asking for the same "treatment" my wife and I get. Nothing "special" about it. You lose, again.

And the other part: are the Ten Commandments still in effect? If so, why do you get to pick and choose which parts of the OT are in effect and which aren't?

#112 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-08-23 01:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

They are asking for 'the same treatment" but for a different configuration. You lose.

Now, I'm not going to entertain this same, old, tired gay marriage game any more. A man cannot marry another man. What part of that do you not understand?

They can buy a house together, they can bung and blow to their hearts content, they can even disagree on the drapes. But, they cannot marry.

I already addressed your confusion about the Ten Commandments. Just because you don't like the answer does not mean you can demand a Choice B.

The Old Testament is not in effect for Christians. The Mosaic Law is still divine, but its main purpose today is to understand that God's standards are absolute.

Yes, it is very methodical. One reason Bible study is to be done in groups is as a check-and-balance, to prevent people from going off into private interpretation

I can see how that would work in some cases, but in the end I don't see how consensus defines the most accurate interpretation. Until the 50's there was a consensus that humans had 48 chromosomes. I think I could find various bible study groups that would interpret certain passages very differently.

It just seems to me that you're trying to interpret something that is inherently subjective, and no matter how deliberately methodical you are, there's no way to test the accuracy of your interpretation. It's like trying to interpret finnegan's wake. I don't think you'll find two people that will have the same interpretation (finding people who have slogged through that... thing is hard enough).

The dumbshit doesn't even know what an Onanist is.

I imagine he is going to go "read" some onanist scripture before bed nevertheless.

Zombie...you're right. I just saw that post. Can I answer it tomorrow since it will be lenghty? I'm fighting to keep awake, have to be up in 5 hours and the rythemic snoring from my hubby is inviting!!

Lol

I probably won't be back till tomorrow evening...church till noon, family bike ride, youth group for the little guy....but I promise I have an answer for you, OK?

I probably won't be back till tomorrow evening...church till noon, family bike ride, youth group for the little guy....but I promise I have an answer for you, OK?

Cool. Take care.

"They are asking for 'the same treatment" but for a different configuration."

They're asking for the same legal protection as the majority gets, the exact same configuration. You still haven't come up with one right they want that my wife and I don't already get.

"A man cannot marry another man."

You're full of shit. It's already happening in several states, and will in several more by the year's end. Your proclamation is nothing but hot air.

But you really don't know what Onan's sin was, do you?

Not agreeing with the Exalted and Mighty Heirophant, TheOneBS!

"I imagine he is going to go "read" some onanist scripture before bed nevertheless."

Ooooh! My favorite is Bible hero Lot getting drunk and incestuously impregnating his two daughters!

Lisa is an evangelical nutbag now.

I imagine he is going to go "read" some onanist scripture before bed nevertheless.

#124 | Posted by ZombieHunter

And I'm sure you and Dannyboy will read Onan bedtime stories to each other. You both enjoy playing straight on the DR board, but your youtube entertainment and militant defense of the subject matter shows you both to be gayer than a handbag full of rainbows.

"and militant defense of the subject matter"

Too funny. The idiot never saw a white guy in a civil rights march, either.

You never answered, Nebs: Do churches allow Onanists to preach? Do they "provide them locked rooms where they can practice their behavior?"

Danforth, does your wife (if you really have one) know of your latent homosexual tendencies, and the vigor you use to defend homosexuality on this board?

You still haven't come up with one right they want that my wife and I don't already get.

You and your wife have a marriage.

You enjoy the civil privileges that come with such an arrangement.

Pretending some odd, sexual perversion entitles you to the same aforementioned privileges is absurd.

Danforth, does your wife (if you really have one) know of your latent homosexual tendencies, and the vigor you use to defend homosexuality on this board?

*Bingo*

"Pretending some odd, sexual perversion entitles you to the same aforementioned privileges is absurd. "

What's absurd is murderers, thieves, and adulterers get full rights, but one subset of America is denied the same legal protections and superseding rights everyone else can access because of self-loathing closet cases.

"*Bingo*"

Too funny, when a guy who fucks his cows has to pretend there is no other possible reason someone would believe in equality.

I'll lay it out for you Vernon,

You aren't talking the language of spirituality, you aren't even talking religion, you have reduced faith to reading the stats on the back of a baseball card.

Firing off one liners from the bible and acting like you know what 'god meant' isn't religion, it's not spirituality, it's not faith, it's hubris, it's arrogance.

You see, I have actually considered god and what god means, I have looked at the history of religion and understand the evolution from animism to polytheism, to monotheism, to deist.

For me it is a life long journey of understanding, not some rigid lockstep of regurgitated talking points.

You see, the difference you between you and I is I was the kid in Sunday school challenging, questioning, learning, and you were the kid nodding his head.

Wisdom isn't reciting bible verses, that's arrogance, wisdom is continuing to evolve spiritually without dogma .

Think about it.

Too funny, when a guy who fucks his cows has to pretend there is no other possible reason someone would believe in equality.

#137 | Posted by Danforth

Settle down Danny. You've been outed. No need to accuse others of deviancy just cuz you're up to your neck in it.

Danforth, does your wife (if you really have one) know of your latent homosexual tendencies, and the vigor you use to defend homosexuality on this board?

Nothing shows the hollowness of your position than a retort that basically says 'Oh yeah, well you're gay!'

What's absurd is murderers, thieves, and adulterers get full rights

Not really.

but one subset of America is denied the same legal protections and superseding rights

A.) What "legal protections" and "superseding rights" would those be?

B.) What "subset" is being denied them?

wisdom is continuing to evolve spiritually without dogma .

Think about it.

#138 | Posted by r_zeitgeist

Where's my barf bag? Did you get that off your Deepak Chopra cereal box?

Fuck, I agree with Rex about something.

Shit, say something crazy I can disagree with.

"What "legal protections" and "superseding rights" would those be?"

Study the legal aspects of the marriage contract and get back to us. I have neither the time or the inclination to educate you about subjects like tort benefits, inheritance, unlimited marital gifts, spousal privilege, or pension rights, to name a few.

or = nor

when a guy who fucks his cows

There ya go, Copernicus...

Now, let's do a critical thinking exercise.

Given my particular affinity for fucking livestock, what "legal protections" and "superseding rights" are being denied to me as we speak?

500 words or less.

Typed and double spaced.

Go....

Study the legal aspects of the marriage contract and get back to us

Evidently, this is and extremely important and personal thing for you.

That's why I asked you.

Marriage contract has to do with the institution of marriage. The institution of marriage has to do with a man and a woman uniting in the marital bond. It has been this way for thousands of years.

Legal matters that stem from the marriage contract..such things as inheritance, pension rights for the spouse...etc., are determined within the bounds of that contract.

A man marrying another man is NOT a marriage. You may not like the definition of marriage, but that's too bad! Go build your own city in another land, call it Sodom, and have at it there. But shut the hell up and keep your trash out of our yard if you're gonna live in our neighborhood.

"Given my particular affinity for fucking livestock..."

Did you catch that, Nebs?

"Evidently, this is and extremely important and personal thing for you."

Evidently, it's a subject on which you're profoundly ignorant. Educate yourself, and let me know when you're conversant on those five topics, for a start. Until then, you're not worth the bandwidth.

Evidently, it's a subject on which you're profoundly ignorant

Oh, I'm quite well versed on what is and isn't a marriage.

"The institution of marriage has to do with a man and a woman uniting in the marital bond."

Hot air. By year's end, 7 states will recognize gay marriage.

"A man marrying another man is NOT a marriage."

Keep saying it, and by year's end, 7 states will recognize gay marriage.

"But shut the hell up and keep your trash out of our yard if you're gonna live in our neighborhood."

You're a hoot. And a desperate one at that.

"Certainly, its not a "marriage""

Another idiot who never heard of Massachusetts, Iowa, or Connecticut.

Happy extinction, dinosaur.

BTW, my beliefs are panthistic and follow no structured rule system outside of the laws of thermodynmamics.

But shut the hell up and keep your trash out of our yard if you're gonna live in our neighborhood.

Problem is it's not YOUR neighborhood, dipshit.

Danforth, does your wife (if you really have one) know of your latent homosexual tendencies, and the vigor you use to defend homosexuality on this board?

Come on, Danielle...

Tax time...

Kinda late at the office....

That cute little Colorado boy that scored a gig in the local Rent production and moved to the big city.....

"What can I write off, Dan?---rent in this town is killing me!"

Another idiot who never heard of Massachusetts, Iowa, or Connecticut.

Judicial fiat doen't count.

The rest are rotting fucking blue states clinging to the coasts and scartching their heads wondering why the Great Unwashed between them can't just be more like Europe.

doesn't

scratching

"I'm quite well versed on what is and isn't a marriage."

But obviously ignorant of the legal value of superseding rights, especially if you believe they're "thin gruel". Sorry to waste both our time.

#156

I guess, using that "logic", you're a torturer.

"Judicial fiat doen't count."

Of course not. Only your proclamations count.

Bwahahahahaha!

'Nite, idiot.

Ever notice the same people who scream loudest when homo clergy abuse young boys also want gay clergy ordained?
Makes you wonder about their agenda, doesn't it?

Personally I think they should just 'close down'. Religion is either about tradition or it serves no purpose.

This why I don't like talking religion, (as opposed to spirituality) there is always some smartass quoting scripture and thinking they know 'what god meant'.

What a bunch of arrogant horseshit.

#95 | Posted by r_zeitgeist

Ain't it the truth. Someone tells me they are "christian", and I usually find some way to leave the scene, like having garbage to take out, ect...

Let's hope they also admonished god for counseling the murder of homosexuals.

"Ever notice the same people who scream loudest when homo clergy abuse young boys also want gay clergy ordained?
Makes you wonder about their agenda, doesn't it?"

All I can say is what an idiot you are.

"Religion is either about tradition or it serves no purpose."

Apparently it does for those who practice it. It's not for me but I don't judge, I also don't like to be judged.

""Ever notice the same people who scream loudest when homo clergy abuse young boys also want gay clergy ordained?"

How do you know this? Or is it just more hot air extracted from your ass?

"there is always some smartass quoting scripture and thinking they know 'what god meant'."

You have to admit, exhortations to "kill homosexuals" and "non virginal brides" are rather unambiguous.

#137 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-08-23 02:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'll lay it out for you Vernon,

You aren't talking the language of spirituality, you aren't even talking religion, you have reduced faith to reading the stats on the back of a baseball card.

Firing off one liners from the bible and acting like you know what 'god meant' isn't religion, it's not spirituality, it's not faith, it's hubris, it's arrogance.

You see, I have actually considered god and what god means, I have looked at the history of religion and understand the evolution from animism to polytheism, to monotheism, to deist.

For me it is a life long journey of understanding, not some rigid lockstep of regurgitated talking points.

You see, the difference you between you and I is I was the kid in Sunday school challenging, questioning, learning, and you were the kid nodding his head.

Wisdom isn't reciting bible verses, that's arrogance, wisdom is continuing to evolve spiritually without dogma .

Think about it.

#138 | Posted by r_zeitgeist at 2009-08-23 02:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Silly rabbit, kicks are for Trids.

You continue to masturbate your ego about how you are above it all, and enlightened, and oh so very perceptive. You sit in your chair and look down at all the quivering masses of humanity, pronouncing them unworthy of you.

Of course, anybody who is clear in what they believe, and has a basis for it, must be some silly twit who sat in Sunday School and nodded.

None of that for the Great and Powerful Oz!

.... Errr.... The Great Ego ZIT

What a fucking jerk.

I hate to spoil your jerk-off, but many, many others have also worked at understanding faith.Most of the people I know who are solid in their faith have struggled mightily to get there.

They have studied many philosophies and challenged them in a quest for truth.

Your ignorance of the faithful says much about you already. You are just a sniveling, self-righteous little slime. But hey, you DID read a book TWO WHOLE TIMES!!!!!

Shazzzaaaaammmmm!

Yes, I quote Scripture. Makes you squirm, I know. Your angst is not with me. It is with God. And the Scripture I post is God's Word.

It makes you squirm because deep in your egotistical, puffed up heart, there still beats -- ever so faintly -- a desire to surrender all the phoney bullshit.

A desire to embrace real truth, instead of egotistical nonsense.

My favorite line:

"You aren't talking the language of spirituality, "

To you the 'language of spirituality' is an endless spiral of intellectual beating-off. You are terrified that there may be a conclusion, a logical terminus to all your intellectual games.

If that were true then what shall you do?

You can't possibly accept a universal truth. It would be so, oh, bourgious, and unsophisticated.

Even worse, it would require you to make a choice. Make a decision. And your entire identity is invested (not in a quest for truth but) in maintaining an intellectual aura.

You are a phoney.

America: where churches advertise.

Come join our church and we'll wave the admittence fee for the first 30 new converts.

"there is always some smartass quoting scripture and thinking they know 'what god meant'"

Job 32:13 -- Do not say, 'We have found wisdom;
let God refute him, not man.'

Yes, because it is impossible to understand what God means ..... unless we all crawl to the feet of Prof. Zit and beg for enlightenment

"Firing off one liners from the bible and acting like you know what 'god meant' isn't religion, it's not spirituality, it's not faith, it's hubris, it's arrogance."

Claiming that 'Kill X" doesn't mean "kill X" takes a rationalization and apologetics to entirely unheard of levels.

"Wisdom isn't reciting bible verses, that's arrogance, wisdom is continuing to evolve spiritually without dogma ."

I guess that's why a poll published in Nature in the 90's found that only SEVEN percent of leading scientists believed in a personal god...

It is often claimed that because so many humans believe in god, that gives the concept some credibility. In fact since no two people can agree on the meaning of the word, it could be argued that the opposite is true.

So God is OK with eating ass? That is a miracle!

I'm not homophobic, in fact, I think its a good thing that sexually active gays be preaching in pulpit rather than in airport restrooms spreading disease :)

"You need to digest that reality before you're able to contribute to any meaningful discussion on the topic."

Too funny, coming from the guy whose debating style always boils down to a requirement the world change their definitions to meet his cockamamie claims.

Yes, it is very methodical. One reason Bible study is to be done in groups is as a check-and-balance, to prevent people from going off into private interpretation
#117 | POSTED BY VERNON

Because we all know how dangerous it is to form one's own conclusions...you are such a sheep, vernon

A tribute to leftie thought process. I wrote:
"Ever notice the same people who scream loudest when homo clergy abuse young boys also want gay clergy ordained? Makes you wonder about their agenda../"

Now read these astonishing replies, obviously from steel trap minds:

"How do you know this? Or is it just more hot air extracted from your ass?"
Tom W

"All I can say is what an idiot you are."
Danni

I hate to spoil your jerk-off
#172 | Posted by vernon at 2009-08-23 09:24 AM |

"but you haffa move on!" Vermin heard someone saying, a sharp but distant voice as if from the beyond, from somewhere deep in the welcoming tits of the cosmos, perhaps even from the labial netherworld, that exotic far off place in the Andromeda Galaxy he often speculated for he was, indeed, full of it, full of speculation might not just represent but actually be the legendary axis mundi, the very center of it all, the cosmic axis, the all-worlds pillar, the long sought and always elusive sky pillar (or, as the bulbous expat fondly referred to it, the columna cereilium [though, if truth be told which it wasn't often the case in the expat's world] he should have said columna cerului, but his ignorance was his shield, just as when, for example, the kind, blind old monk (who only smiled and shook his head sadly as his fingers continued working the beads of the Rosary after Vermin chortled, "Monk? Monk? Hey, Monkey!"), an ancient friar to be sure who guided him through the Catacombs of San Pancrazio so long ago as Vermin, after determining the monk was really blind by flipping him the bird and waving his genitalia at him in a less than complimentary manner, searched in vain for the Holy Grail or any other loot worth looting.

He had found nothing, of course; had, in fact, found nothing of any or even no value since turning up that filthy dupondius at the bottom of one of the ancient privies behind the Lupanar Brothel -- Pompeii's finest, just two blocks east of the forum at the intersection of Vico del Lupanare and Vico del Balcone Pensile after three days' digging through coprolites encased in volcanic ash; yes, the very same dupondius with the profile of Emperor Vespasian on the obverse and Gawd only knows who or what heathenish (but not at all bad looking, now that he thought about it) critter on the reverse, for which he'd been able to obtain sufficient recompense from the Shylock who operated in the little shop above which were suspended the three balls imagine that! which to Vermin throughout the course of his life so often spelled the difference between survival and a close call; the tiny shop, you know the one, in the rat-infested alley just off Rome's Via della Conciliazione, where that miserable Shylock took the dupondius and, in exchange, tossed the exact amount of lira required to by a three-day-old canoli that tasted of...of...

@ #7:

Johnson is sad about mutilated mormality of chubby uglies in church.

i'm sure this is tragic. don't worry Johnson. you'll get it in the end.

JAK cries out that SEX is not the same "perversion" when hetero as to homo and declares that that difference is separated by one act of civility: MARRIAGE.

way to go JAKstrap. i'm with you, marriage for ALL.

It's ok Vernon, I understand, you only feel comfortable reciting what you were taught to believe.

It's far easier to memorize then to consider, and because of this, I forgive you.

After all, it's the christian thing to do.

Now read these astonishing replies, obviously from steel trap minds:

"How do you know this? Or is it just more hot air extracted from your ass?"
Tom W

Since this bimbo refuses to identify the source of his 'knowledge', the ass theory remains the best bet.

Oohrah:

I can not tell you how disappointed I am that you believe Theone is right.

He displays hatred, is insulting, acts quite different from the true meaning of Christianity.

I refered back to the Beatitudes...the characteristics of one who is saved.

You need me to clairify that repentence is a major part of forgiveness?

Repentence means turning from sin and changing the sinful behavior.

How can one repent if they intentionally, knowingly and willingly live their life committing that sin on a daily basis.

It's impossible.

My point however is to those who are hypocritical to speak against the ELC for this decision, basing their opposition on homosexuality being a sin but won't admit that no one is sinless and they have no idea if straight ministers are actually repentive of their sins which they also MAY be continuing on a daily basis.

A sin is a sin is a sin in the eyes of God, but one. And it's not homosexuality.

Theone makes no valid point but his fear and hatred of gays speaks loud and clear.

Since this bimbo refuses to identify the source of his 'knowledge', the ass theory remains the best bet.

Does this apply to everyone, or just a select few. The reason I ask is because I would prefer that people cite their sources. When they don't, may I quote you?

#105

Zombie:

It is methodical.

Next to most verses in my Bible are references to other Scripture to back up the Scripture I just read or to further explain what the verse means.

If you continue following those references, Scripture becomes self explanitory so there is no need for anyone elses interpretation. It's all right there.

My Bible also has translations into English from the original language it was written.

The anger of man does not work the righteousness of God.

James 1.20

God will not be mocked for much longer:

"The reason I ask is because I would prefer that people cite their sources. "

Then stop stalling and cite yours bimbo. If not that would make two empty claims in two posts.

"God will not be mocked for much longer:

news.yahoo.com

bread and circuses."

Which god would that be? I suspect Hanuman, the monkey god, since you bible thumpers think he made you in his image.

Then stop stalling and cite yours bimbo. If not that would make two empty claims in two posts.

???

What are you talking about? The only post I have on this thread is #191.

My point however is to those who are hypocritical to speak against the ELC for this decision, basing their opposition on homosexuality being a sin but won't admit that no one is sinless and they have no idea if straight ministers are actually repentive of their sins which they also MAY be continuing on a daily basis.

A sin is a sin is a sin in the eyes of God, but one. And it's not homosexuality.

Theone makes no valid point but his fear and hatred of gays speaks loud and clear.

#190 | Posted by Lisa

Your point completely misses the point...indeed intentionally obfuscates. You continue to try and make this about gradations of sin, instead of about what the ELCA is doing by making allowances for sin. When this is pointed out to you, you then say the church always makes allowances for sin.

NO, the church does not! The church is called to dispense forgiveness, but it is not called to wink at sin just because no one sin is worse than another.

When the ELCA makes allowances for sinful behavior, by allowing it....ie., as long as homosexual engage in their homosexual sin within the confines of a committed homosexual relationship, we the ELCA are ok with that. This is nonsense, and it remains nonsense whether I am repulsed by homosexuals or not. So cut the dumbass deflections of homophobia you stupid shill!

Making allowances like this for sin IS NOT what it means to follow Christ. Neither does your claim that we're to be forgiving then sanction the sin making it ok to engage in it.

You madam, are a fool!

#198

I use Scripture to validate my point of view.

Theones only "point" was that he hates gays. Period.

If you find that a valid point, while claiming "I" am misguided...this discussion is over.

Have a great night!

Scripture = toilet paper.

A tribute to leftie thought process. I wrote:
"Ever notice the same people who scream loudest when homo clergy abuse young boys also want gay clergy ordained? Makes you wonder about their agenda../"

Now read these astonishing replies, obviously from steel trap minds:

"How do you know this? Or is it just more hot air extracted from your ass?"
Tom W

"All I can say is what an idiot you are."
Danni

Add another Tom W 'don't reply, just be snide' quote:
"Since this bimbo refuses to identify the source of his 'knowledge', the ass theory remains the best bet."

Astonishing 'intellect!'

I'm praying for you Theone.

Well while you're at it Lisa, pray that God would keep you from winking at sin. This is what happens to those who have homophilic tendencies.

I love how you twist around things that I have said or completely ignore it.

You and Theone are cracking me up. Frankly, it's sad you need to do that to try and win a point but...have at it.

I'm tired of repeating myself over and over. If you didn't get it by now, you never will.

Believe what you want.

#206 | Posted by Lisa....said the condescending shill, puffed up in her sin-embracing foolishness!

It's pointless talking to you Theone...you misrepresent what I say, ignore reasoning as well.

Let me know when you want to stop being intellectually dishonest.

Perhaps we can try this again.

So....ever notice the same people who scream loudest when homo clergy abuse young boys also want gay clergy ordained? Makes you wonder about their agenda....

LISA-
Question: Take the homosexual issue out of it. Let's say, for instance, you had a publicly known adulterer on your hands. Makes no effort to disguise it... in fact asks that you understand his desire as reasonable.

Would you be fine with him as your pastor, Scripturally speaking? Why or why not?

#209 | Posted by OohRah

I can answer that in the manner of Lisa:

OohRah, adultery is a sin like all other sins. No one sin is worse than another. All are equally sinfulf in the sight of God. It is not for us to judge. That's for God to decide. We are called to love and forgive. Do you think adultery is worse than any other sin that people commit? There are plenty of pastors out there who covet, or are drinkers. If we're going to condemn the adulterer then should we not also condemn the coveting pastor, or the drinking pastor?

We are called to love and not judge. Adultery is no worse than any other sin. OohRah, I sense you are an aduterphobe? Why do you hate adulterers so much? You really have issues you need to deal with!

I will pray for you Oorah, that God will help you let go of your bigotted hatred.

Lisa

#211

Are you refering to me, Diablo?

I will pray for you Oorah, that God will help you let go of your bigotted hatred.

C'mon, Lisa -- you are entering the realm of the melodramatic. That's not like you.

You're not paying attention Goat. That was me writing as Lisa.

Good grief Goatman!!! I did NOT say that!

That was Theone spreading his hatred again, making more crap up!

or maybe you're just playing along?

That was Theone spreading his hatred again, making more crap up!

#216 | Posted by Lisa

Making it up? Good grief, it's the same crap you doled out when the subject was homosexuality.

oops, my bad. I didn't think it sounded like Lisa. It does sound like theonebs, though.

My eyes are moving too quickly across the page. Apologies to all.

"Good grief, it's the same crap you doled out ..."

That's right, Lisa. He paraphrased your comments. Suck it up, hon ...

It's ok Goatman.

Theone has been dhishonest assigning me to positions I don't hold, resorted to name calling and insults...I expect nothing less from him. It's sad to watch.

Way back in post #5 I said I was playing the devils advocate offering a defense for this decision.

In my post #10, because I was playing the devils advocate I stated I wasn't saying if I agreed or disagreed with this decision. However, I gave a clue to my stance on the subject by saying in that same post that I left the ECL because it was "waaaay too liberal for me".

However, Theone began attacking personally. At that point I started sharing my beliefs.

I do not judge what's in peoples hearts. That is for God to do. But "we shall know them by their fruit" gives one an indication.

I posed the question of how does anyone know what a minister does behind closed doors and isn't it possible that some ministers sin repeatedly the same sin but no one knows it...and theone wouldn't answer.

A sin is a sin is a sin...etc.

Later, I spoke about repentence saying that if one admittedly, knowingly and willingly commits the same sin they did not repent and that is not a sign of being saved.

The reason I do NOT support this decision is not because of the nature of the sin....it's because they have not repented, obviously.

Yet, Theone assigned me to the position of "winking at sin".

I stated long ago that Theone needed a brick wall to fall on him before he understood something.

He proved my point.

I posed the question of how does anyone know what a minister does behind closed doors and isn't it possible that some ministers sin repeatedly the same sin but no one knows it...and theone wouldn't answer.

#221 | Posted by Lisa

Because the question is irrelevant to the question of whether the ELCA should make allowances for homosexual behavior. The ministers in question are not doing this behind closed doors, but are openly acting out. The church is saying that's now ok for them to engage in a behavior which has always been regarded as sinful. It's ok for you to sin, in other words....just as long as you do it in a committed way.

It is you who are lying and obfuscating Lisa. You don't want to call the behavior sin either. Or, if you do, you, like the ELCA, want to make special provisions for the sinful behavior, and then cover your tracks with, "We are not to judge. We are to forgive."

Again I say, PUKE!

I have met atheists who display more Christianlike behavior than you do Theone.

Your dishonest, hypcritical behavior is part of why nonbelievers shy away from Christianity.

Again...if you decide to hold an honest conversation, let me know.

Until then, my gut feeling is telling me you are exactly the type of "Christian" you quoted long ago to stay away from.

I'm following that instinct.

You can have the final word. Not that there'll be any truth to it!

Your dishonest, hypcritical behavior is part of why nonbelievers shy away from Christianity.

#223 | Posted by Lisa

And your schmoozing with the world...and in particular sin...is what Christ condemned when he used the analogy of dogs returning to their own vomit!

Why should a man be denied access to forgiveness simply because his sinful nature includes something that straight people don't have to deal with? Straight sinners sins don't happen to include being sexually attracted to the same sex.

All men have sinful natures and the Bible says that anyone who says they don't sin is a liar.

You know...I deal with this issue everyday of my life. I hurts so badly at times because I long for the physical and emotional aspect of the homosexual lifestyle.

While I am married to a woman, I am not straight. I haven't touched other men in a long time.

As a Christian, I must say I find the topic perplexing. Why is this sin elevated as if you can't be a real Christian and continue sinning, yet straight men do it all the time. Straight men can be considered "saved" all the while they are divorced, cheating on their wives, cheating on the taxes, stealing, lying or whatever.

Most people would not deny their salvation and most churches would not reject them.

Let's get real. Gay men and woman are just as eligible to have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ as any other sinner.

And the idea that someone will cease to sin is absurd and a lie besides. Apostle Paul wrote he would know something was a sin, yet do it anyway. Did he lose his salvation? (Romans 7:18-19). I'm not justifying sin. I'm just making a point.

On a more practical level, someone who is gay and becomes a Christian will most likely not cease to have relations with the same sex. Should they claim they abstain, but have a secret lover? Or should they be honest and open instead? Personally, I have come to the conclusion that I believe the biggest problem I see with the gay lifestyle is not the sex act itself. It is the carefree way gay men have sex with each other.

Straight Christians don't understand, but it is a long miserable life without the affection of someone you desire.

Believe me, I know.

I made my bed.

what Christ condemned when he used the analogy of dogs returning to their own vomit!

BS and his ilk simply lap up the puddle of vomit so that they can spew it forth again. You can see the chunks fly whenever the DR's band of sanctimonious shitbags leap into action.

Only a fanatic would attempt to legitimize boundless hatred with cherry-picked scripture passages (from a religion supposedly based on love). Society does not benefit from the existence of radicals like these... they are simply "Taliban" of a different name.

BTW, like I stated, my spiritual beliefs are Cosmologic Pantheism, I made that choice a long, long time ago, perhaps as early as 2nd grade when I was introduced to the idea of the mobius strip, the Big Bang, and infinity.

The understanding emerged full blown and I had no idea what where it came from or that the philosophic concept already existed.

"Pantheism signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it."

"Pantheism signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it."

That is one splinter of Pantheism.

But they assign physical form to god(s).

'Dogma'

No doubt the people who wrote the Vedas were pretty damn smart, they understood macro causality at the base molecular level.

If one AIDS sufferer gets medication more expensive than that which might cure an old person, but isn't provided the oldster due to 'costs,' then you leftists had better have bought a gun, because you'll be in a huge revolution ...

"no one sin is worse than another."

Yet churches allow Onanists to preach, and even "provide them locked rooms where they can practice their behavior".

You claim "no sin is worse than another", and then proceed to contradict yourself, exposing your bigotry. Nice work.

"If one AIDS sufferer gets medication more expensive than that which might cure an old person, but isn't provided the oldster due to 'costs,' then you leftists had better have bought a gun, because you'll be in a huge revolution ..."

How much more in taxes would you be willing to pay to ensure that? Since we're going from a 6-to-1 payer-to-user ration to closer to a 3-1 ratio, individual taxes covering Medicare will have to, at a minimum, double, just to get the same coverage, and that (falsely) assumes medical inflation won't outstrip real inflation.

fetish for homo-monkey sex videos from YouTube. #233 | Posted by TheOneBS

Please, keep it to yourself.

BILL:

Nicely stated!

Repentence is obviously part of your daily life. I pray for you that you continue to win over your battle of temptation. God Bless you, Bill.

My point throughout this entire thread is that no sin is greater than another except one. And it isn't homosexuality.

Some here feel it is.

"The works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornification, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, HATRED, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God"

Gal 5:9-21

No, you're right, BS, I don't spend my time dwelling on day-old posts. So I'll leave the obsession with a "fetish for homo-monkey sex videos" to a pig-squealng connoisseur like yourself.

dogs returning to their own vomit!
#224 | Posted by TheOneBS

Do I get me some giblet gravy with that?
~ElUnoPS

My point throughout this entire thread is that no sin is greater than another except one.

#235 | Posted by Lisa

Well Lisa, then let's see if you're consistent. Homosexuality is no worse than any other sin. Therefore pastors who engage in the behavior are not to be condemned/judged....cuz we're all sinners. And because homosexual pastors, like all other sinful pastors, wish to preach the word of God they should be able to do so.

Alrighty then. Suppose it was learned that your pastor was exposing himself to the young boys of your congregation, and being overly friendly with them....acting toward the boys much the same way the animals in Zombie's beloved monkey videos demonstrate. Since we are not condemn/judge the sinner....cuz we all sin, then I suppose you believe such pastors who desire to preach should be able to do so? Afterall, if we're to make allowances for sin rather than call it out, I'm sure you'd have to agree that pedophile pastors, like all sinful pastors, should be able to preach God's word if they so desire?

"Homosexuality is no worse than any other sin."

How do you know it's a "sin"? I mean, moreso than being a thief, drunkard, slanderer, swindler, or Republican? ("Republican" is implied, rather than specified, in Corintians 6:9-10 .)

Make that "Corinthians"

beloved monkey videos
#239 | Posted by TheOneBS

Jeebus, you're really into this stuff -- "forbidden fruit" and whatnot -- aren't you? Better get yersef a bed, book, and candle and see if you can werk it out. LOL.

#239

Back in WI about 6 years ago or so, there is was a priest who was caught in the park system there having sex with other men.

This priest addressed his congregation about his sin. The church did not kick him out. They prayed for him, asking God to protect him from this tempatation. They rallied around him, helped him, encouraged him, most importantly they prayed for him.

This congregation displayed kindness, patience, compassion, love for another of God's children...showing the true characteristics of Christianity.

Sure beats the hateful and self righteous behavior that you display.

#239

And as usual, you'd rather bleet on without admitting that LOOONG ago on this thread I had said the difference is REPENTENCE!!!!!

You would rather sit on your throne of judgement and be hateful and dishonest than to admit you were wrong, and realize that I have stated there is a difference between willfully sinning and a sinner who repents!

CockStarved
#244 | Posted by TheOneBS | Flag: FEED ME!

#243 | Posted by Lisa

I see you didn't address the example I gave.

Once again: If pedophiles were to "act up" in the same way as homosexuals have been "acting up" for years now, demanding acceptance by the society, and the ELCA ruled on the matter and decided to allow special provision for pedophila pastors to preach and teach in their congregations, would you be ok with this? Afterall, we're all sinners!

Good grief you truly have no capability of reading between the lines, much less comprehending what is written, do you. It's sad you don't take Scripture as literally as you expect others to be!! It's evident you pick and choose Scripture that you believe gives you permission to carry on your hateful, judgemental behaviors....you do the same here, constantly ignoring what posters have said all in an effort to continue your hate.

Look...how many times do I need to tell you....if one repents and changes the behavior????

In addition, you are comparing apples to oranges. Sex with children is not only immoral it's against the law!

Homosexuality isn't against the law.

It is mind boggling on how you feel ministers are suppose to be sinless, flawless and your belief that one sin is any worse than another, as well as your reluctance to understand we are to forgive when one repents.

Really, Theone...I sincerely feel you have no clue.

Do you pray??

I'll further my statements Theone and say this:

If I had a choice of either having you or Bill Johnson as my minister...I would pick Bill Johnson, a man who admits he struggles with temptation of homosexuality, a man of repentence, a man who by that one post alone exemplifies his understanding of God, the Bible and what Jesus's life and death has done for us.

Truly, you would not be the preacher I would want. To stand there at a pulpit with a hate filled, unforgiving, hardened heart and questionable understanding of Scripture much less the way you are witnessing your "Christianity"...is not what people admire. It's not what people respect. It certainly is not what is showing others about true Christianity or Gods love and the atonement for our sins. And it most definately isn't going to draw others to want to learn and have faith in God!!

I suggest you examine yourself before you cast judgement on another of Gods children!!

Look...how many times do I need to tell you....if one repents and changes the behavior????

In addition, you are comparing apples to oranges. Sex with children is not only immoral it's against the law!

Homosexuality isn't against the law.

#248 | Posted by Lisa

Well it once was against the law. That was at at time when Christianity held more influence in our society. But we've become so much more enlightened now.

Regardless though. In your post #10 you would not commit to saying whether you agreed with the action of the ELCA to allow homosexual clergy. In further posts you come to the defense of homosexual pastors stating that no sin should be singled out over another....that all sins are the same. Hence, any provision forbidding homosexuals to become pastors is to make homosexuality a worse sin than others. Doing so, the church would be guilty of targeting certain people...which is hateful.

Ok then, if this means the church should not "single out" any sin, and thus forbid certain sinners from becoming pastors...cuz all sins are alike...then why not so for the pedophile inclined? You say it's apples and organges because of the law? Well the books once said homosexuality was against the law...and this conclusion was drawn from scripture. But even still, are you saying pedophilia is a worse sin than homosexuality, adultery, alcoholism, covetousness..etc., and should be treated differently? If and when NMBLA gets its way, and "certain forms" of pedophilia become acceptable (just as homosexuality has become acceptable), would it be ok for the ELCA to make special provisions for these "acceptable forms" of pedophilia from their pastors. I mean, we wouldn't want to single out any one sin as worse than other sins. Such would be hateful!

You speak often of repentance, but you just won't come out and answer the question: Do you agree with the ELCA in its decision to allow for practicing homosexuals to become ministers, as long as they practice their homosexuality in a committed way?

No more obfuscation Lisa. Are you in favor of this or not?

Ezekiel 3:18-22.

You are your brothers keeper. Sin must be confronted otherwise you are guilty of the offense of your brother.

It is the same thing as if you had the ability to save someone life, yet refused to do so even though it was in your power and ability with no harm to yourself. You would be reaponsible.

Lisa, I do now know why you are unable to simply say to Theo and Oohrah that:

1. If sin is repented of, it is forgiven.
2. If the minister was not repentent, he has no reason to be a minister
3. If someone is continuing to practice a sin openly and proudly, they are not repentent, atleast will not be viewed as repentant by the public and should not serve (appearance of evil).

That is all he wants. He wants you to state that you will stand up for the qualifications of a minister in the scripture. It may be hard, you might get some guff for it, but it is the authority of how you live your life (atleast it is supposed to be if you have true redemption and salvation).

All they want you to do is simply state that:
If a minister was unrepentant for any sin, and openly practicing said sin, without trying to correct it or cease practicing it, he would not be suitable for ministry in accordance with the Scripture.

It is ture that we all sin, however it is not true that we are all unrepentant and openly practicing of our sin. If you are in a homosexual marriage, monogomous or not, that does not appear to be very repentant and correcting of your sin. You cannot acknowledge scripture as the whole truth and then say that homosexual marriage is acceptable for any individual, especially a teacher/preacher who is held more accountable for his actions.

Anybody in this Luteran sect ever read 1 Timothy 3:2? I guess maybe in their Bible it says that the elder must be the "husband of one husband". Now that makes perfect sense, especially when coupled (no pun intended) with their version of Romans 1:26-27, Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto loving affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is seemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their love."
Anybody wonder if two men & a woman will soon be joined in matrimony in this sect? Trust me, marriage meaning everything is not far off for them, you can bet on it.

EXPS:

Good morning!

I thought I had expressed that to them. Although your wording seems better.

They decided way up the thread that I was misguided, and felt name calling should replace civil discussion.

Anyway, I firmly stand by what I have said.

Thanks for your input.

"no one sin is worse than another."
~Nebs

And then you proceed to contradict yourself.

And you never answered, Nebs: Do churches allow Onanists to preach? Do they "provide them locked rooms where they can practice their behavior?"

Anyway, I firmly stand by what I have said.

Thanks for your input.

#253 | Posted by Lisa

And what exactly is it you stand by as it pertains to the question of allowing practicing homosexuals to become minsters as the ELCA has?

You may stand firm, but you really haven't said what you stand firm on regarding the question.

I think EXPS has it right. You don't want to take any guff from those who openly embrace the behavior. That's why you won't commit to speaking the truth. Cuz Jesus' message was primarily about being liked.

Blessed are those who seek to be liked. They are the ones who stand for nothing!

Blessed are those who seek to be liked. They are the ones who stand for nothing!
#255 | Posted by TheOneBS

Morons 6: 7-8

No one born of God practices sin. I John 3:9.
And I would add nor do they teach sin is acceptable.
Do you even know what sin is in the New Covenant Lisa?

#225

LOL

You're a hoot!

I am well LOVED in life...I don't need to try and be liked here on this website. I think what irks you is that I am fair minded, I practice true Christianity and I am respected by most here even with differing opinions because I don't need to resort to the name calling and insults that you do.

You don't refute what I say, just throw out insults because that is all you have! You have nothing else.
Again....if you are jealous or envious....examine yourself!!

My conversation with you is over. You have nothing to offer towards a civil discussion.

#258

OMGosh!! LOL

Do you realize that one can loving one another, praying for one another and encouraging one another to help fight against our sinful nature does not mean we ACCEPT sin???

Good grief!

You don't refute what I say, just throw out insults because that is all you have! You have nothing else.Again....if you are jealous or envious....examine yourself!!

My conversation with you is over. You have nothing to offer towards a civil discussion.

#261 | Posted by Lisa

Yep, when you're put on the spot and can't/won't answer the question, accuse your opponent of being irrational, mean, judgmental while focussing on how wonderfully fairminded you are.

Again, you didn't answer the question Lisa. Neither did you answer EXPS's question. If you won't answer me, then answer EXPS or Oohrah. True to form you remain nebulous, cuz you don't want to stand on that truth you proclaim to adhere to.

"Blessed are they who seek to be liked! They are the ones who stand for nothing!"...and cover up such cowardice with their warped and convoluted words on forgiveness.

Do Lutherans allow monogamous unmarried straight people to be Clergy, or are they changing the rules? Why not just marry the gay and then there is no double standard?

You are beyond the point of ridiculous. I have answered the questions. You just don't like my answers.

You are so focused on your hatred you can't see past that.

I pity you.

Try and have a good day!

#266 | Posted by Lisa

You haven't answered the question Lisa. Saying that you stand by the answer you have given may sound noble, but lacks substance. What is your answer Lisa? What is it you stand firm on?

Again, the question: Do you support that "way too liberal" ELCA church when it makes provision for openly gay people to become ministers, who can continue in their homosexual sinful behavior, just as long as it is committed and monogomous sin?

You haven't answered the question Lisa. And we both know why. It's more important to you to be liked by debauched ones rather than call them out on their debauchery.

Blessed are they who seek to be liked! They are the ones who stand for nothing!

Theone....go back and reread my posts. The answer is in them.

Your pathetic attmepts at trying to rile me up are not working, nor am I interested in discussing anything further with YOU.

Sad that you would be so disrespectul, knowing what you post are not truths.

Examine yourself and repent!

#268 | Posted by Lisa

Another dodge Lisa? Come on, it's as simple as typing "yes" or "no". Instead you spend a paragraph telling me how rotten I am.

Three letters or two...it's easy! "Yes" or "no" on the provisions the ELCA has made on homosexual clergy? YES you agree, or NO you disagree with what they did?

I will ask you again Lisa, stop ignoring me will you please?

No one born of God practices sin. I John 3:9.
And I would add nor do they teach sin is acceptable.
Do you even know what sin is in the New Covenant Lisa?

#258 | Posted by Hlloona at 2009-08-24 11:05 AM | Reply |

#270

Of course I do. Silly question.

Now...stop ignoring my question please.

Hlloona, she is not going to commit to answering the question. And isn't it obvious? Though she comes right out and makes no commitment to an answer (see her post #10 where she states, "I am not saying I agree or disagree with the Lutheran decision."), she tries to maintain through her other posts her clear answer to the question. Indeed, she does support what the ELCA has done. And she tries to support such a position through obfuscation....by talking of all sin being equal, none being worse than another....by noting that all pastors sin, who are we to judge...by talking of forgiveness, and doing so in a way that suggests we just wink at homosexuality rather than call it for what it is, demanding that clergy renoune it.

No, Lisa is clearly supporting the idea of homosexual clergy, and her attempt to keep distance from ELCA for being "too liberal" (that's why she left that church...yeah, uhuh) is just an attempt to keep folks off her trail.

She won't commit to giving an answer but her posts make it quite clear what her position is. Press her, and she'll continue to be nebulous. Such is one definition for cowardice!

I see the Pharisees are alive and well in Lutheranville. And we all know what JC said about them....

"will ask you again Lisa, stop ignoring me will you please?

No one born of God practices sin. I John 3:9.
And I would add nor do they teach sin is acceptable.
Do you even know what sin is in the New Covenant Lisa?"

What's this? A little catfight between Christians?

LOL

Nine minutes after I respond to the question asked, Theone posts his nonsnese again, saying I won't respond.

This is exactly why I find it a waste of time to converse with you!

Null:

No fight..it takes two for a fight. I'm not playing his ridiculous game.

It's painfully obvious that if you can't put it in words the reality is that you don't understand.
As to your sin question: (Some will be upset with this decision.
Tell me of one minister who is sinless.
We all sin.)

I did answer it Lisa with the truth being expressed in the I John 3:9 passage, paraphrasing, "NO ONE born of God practices sin"
Now, for one last time, what is the unpardonable sin according to the New Covenant?

#276

You asked me if I knew it, not what it was. I told you I knew what it was.

It's blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Do you want me to elaborate on that? I will if you want me to?

LOL

I most certainly can put it into words and understand it.

LOL

You are cracking me up!

Are you saying that if we are born of God we will no longer sin again?

If so, then please explain to me why Jesus had to suffer and die to atone for our sins if we were capable of never sinning.

Or is your key word "practice" sin, which I will assume you mean to willingly sin, inwhich case I covered that when I spoke about repentence.

You asked me if I knew it, not what it was. I told you I knew what it was.

It's blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

#277 | Posted by Lisa///

I knew you didn't know the answer,the Matt 12 passage was true in the Old Covenant, under the New Covenant The worlds sin is UNBELIEF in HIM. John 16:8-9.
All sins, past,present & future, (plural) were reconciled through his death & eternal life was activated through his resurrection. The unpardonable sin (singular) that remains cannot be forgiven by God as our free will to choose must remain open, therefore we are free to partake of eternal through belief in HIM or instead to not believe resulting in eternal separation from God.In closing may God open the mind, heart & spirit of all who read this in order that they might choose eternal life. Amen

This is just one gigantic symantics game I see.

Lisa, you should probably stop addressing TheoNebs as a hatemonger (paraphrase) since you are the one saying that you do not judge anyone on anything. He never stated that he hated Homosexuals, it is clear that his problem is with the action being unscriptural. He is angry about seeing sin propagated.

TheoNebs, You should probably just let Lisa go with her explanation. If she does not wish to clarify further, she is not going to clarify further. Whether she is playing it safe or not ( Lisa, I do feel like you are playing it a little safe personally) why should that impact the view you take on it?

If everyone participating in this game wants to asnwer questions, simply answer these questions:

Is openly practicing a homosexual relationship unscriptural?

Would this disqualify you from Ministy?

Has the ELC allowed for individuals (Leaders) to openly practice homosexual relationships without church discipline consequences?

#280 | Posted by Hlloona

Hlloona or hlltoona?

Hard to say.

Lisa's answer is, of course, the more traditional one, though what that blasphemy is is not defined.

Hlloona apparently pulled an answer out of his/her ass..... likely a real life miracle considering the tightness thereof.

EXPS:

I have previously stated that I do not judge what is in someones heart. That, is between that person and God!

But not be watchful??

"Ye shall know them by their fruit". How else are we to discern the "wolves in sheeps clothing" and true Christians?

#11 | POSTED BY THEONEBS, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
"yadda yadda yadda..."

Blessed are the profane, for they truly speak for me.
Blessed are the arrogant, for they shine with the Light of the Lord.
Blessed are the false accusers, for theirs is the Truth of Heaven.

Funny, but the version I have mentions the meek, the peacemakers, and the poor in spirit.

Being watchful is great, however are you attempting to make a judgement call that Theonebs is not a true Christian?

That is what the verse "judge not lest you be judged" is speaking about. We surely must judge sin, and we must keep fellow brothers and sisters accountable, however we have no right to judge someone's eternal status. You must take someone by their confession.

I was simply reminding you that you stated you were not one to judge someone else, then I see you talking to Theo, and others about Theo about his hate and arrogance.

Are you 100% sure that he hates homosexuals, or is he aggrivated that some will not simply come out and say it is wrong to allow?

Since you spoke about fruit and being watchful, would you be willing to say that you would give these homosexual ministers a reminder that they may not be living up to scripture?

#281

Is openly practicing a homosexual relationship unscriptual?

Yes.

This is why I stated long ago that we are to repent and if one is continuing, willingly knowing it's a sin and NOT turning away from that sin... then that is the issue, not that homosexuality is a sin.

A sin is a sin...etc.

EXPS...I played the devils advocate in what I knew would be a hot topic. I debate from the side of how does one know that the minister they have isn't continuing the same sin, not repenting. No one knows, do they?

Theone would never admit to that, that is why I believe he just hates gays.

In addition, rather than answering anything I have asked or commented further on they way I perceived his comments, he resorted to name calling and insults and lying....prior to my opinion being formed regarding his hatred of gays. Now....I believe he is just a hateful person.

I have no problem with claifying my stance on any issue when one is respectful.

I can understand that Lisa. I know you are trying to present yourself worthy of the call you received from Christ through His death and resurrection and your faith therein.

I simply want to caution you. As you stated, sometimes all individuals have their moments. Maybe Theo is dealing with something else that already had him frustrated. Maybe someone close has held a position similar to your but in the positive toward openly practicing sin, and this greatly distressed Theo. Simply be mindful not to address Theo as hateful or arrogant, especially to others, when it is not verified to be intrinsicly true.

To play the higher ground in an arguement is a noble cause, however it is a difficult task. This is why teachers are held more accountable.
Remember, each one of us must be able to recognize that our foot is on the verge of slipping, to refer to psalms. God and His unmerited grace are the only thing that keep us from being or doing that which we do not want to be or do.

This is an issue where my libertarian and Christian views collide.

Even though I don't agree with their life style I fully support homosexuals in their fight to be recognized by the government as equal individuals. I support their right to be married civilly and to adopt children. I think they should get the same tax breaks as straight couples. They should have all the civil rights that straight couples have. The government should not be involved in these moral questions.

The Church on the other hand has a responsibility to be involved in these moral issues. As a member of the ELCA I find this very troubling. The Church should not condone sin, which is exactly what our leaders have decided to do. Every baptized and confirmed member of the ELCA has had to stand in front of his or her congregation and profess their faith in Christ and the teachings of the Lutheran church, which has always called this behavior sin. This is going to cause a major schism in the Church. I personally know people from my own congregation that will be leaving over this. I will not be leaving over this but will stay to try to change this foolish decision.

Our denomination is shedding members and this decision will only hasten that process.

"Government insurance is nearly bankrupt at its present levels"

You're confusing funding with efficiency. Part of the problem is, as medical costs spiraled upward over the last 20 years, the rate has barely changed, and no change at all in the last decade. Poor planning at its worst.

I would take a similar viewpoint TX.

It is not up to the government to legislate morality in regard to issues such as this. However, it is up to the church to hold to the scriptures.

Since the church is a private institution, it cannot be punished for not accepted the behavior at hand, nor should it be.

I think many Christians today are looking for the government to fight their battles and spread the gospel rather than getting out there and letting people know the truth themselves.

#288

EXPS:

I agree with what you say.

I hadn't retaliated when he called me an airhead, a chicken Christian, a fool or repeatedly said "puke" after my posts. In fact I made light of it.

He had plenty of opportunity to refute my opinion of what I saw he was portraying, but chose not to. If he didn't hold that position, he would have stated so.

That said, I do agree with you that I should have kept it to myself. Thank you for pointing out my sin.

I take my spirituality very seriously, it means so much more to me than earthly things. Most people here have no idea what I have or haven't done because of God's commnds. It's not the easy road to choose but it most definately is the more Blessed one!

Yes, I would heartily agree that Scripture makes it very clear who is and is not in proper context to serve as Leadership.

Those who deny those passages, must ask themselves why they deny it so much?

If it is the truth, there is no getting around it. Sure you can disagree with it, however if it is the ultimate truth, what is the point of disagreement towards it?

Baffling.

"Scripture lays out for us the requirements for church leadership."

Scripture also lays out the requirements for hair and clothing.

Ever wear a poly-cotton shirt? If so, why doesn't Scripture have to be adhered to in that case, but it does in the case of 'church leadership'?

"Scripture lays out for us the requirements for church leadership."

I would say it is more accurate to say "the Church leadership lays out for us the requirements for the Scripture"

From my standpoint, that is what the seperation between visitor and Member are for. Surely I would let the person continue to attend if they were involved in something of that nature (using homosexuality since that is this thread) however, I would not allow them to join membership until they were repentant and working on changing their situatuation.

From my point of view, until they are redeemed, they will not know that it is not the proper behavior, and they are stuck in their sin. Once redeemed, the light should show them that their position is not Biblical in nature and goes against what they are preparing to embrace as God's truth.

So from my standpoint, it is sinful, and it would have to be confronted as sin, atleast informing them that they are in sin. If they wished to be members, I would not be able to authorize openly sinful people as members of the church, however they would be allowed to continue to attend as visitors.

One must make sure that the position of the church is clear though, that such behavior is not scriptural and is being confronted, Biblically, and lovingly.

We must all remember that God is loving, however God is also equally just. Perfect justice must take action against injustice. It is not unloving, but in fact the most loving. If someone is doing something detrimental to themselves, it only makes sense to take action. Discipline is not a bad thing, it springs from a true understanding of love.

Love means to do what is best for a person regardless of whether it is good or bad for that person in their current perspective and understanding.

You must bear with them while they are in their sin, you simply cannot put them in leadership, membership or service capacities, otherwise you will be condoning such behavior.

The Church is the representative of Christ, we must represent Him well. That means having discipline and self control in the same manner as Christ. If you are in Him, you will walk after his pattern, striving for light and righteousness rather than remaining in the sins from which you have been taken.

I would only ask someone to leave the church if they were causing unbiblical division in the church, such as undermining the leadership falsely, not taking the scriptures as the authority of an individual (since any decision by leadership or congregation can then be questioned and there is no more standard) or simply causing intentional problems that are detrimental to the spiritual growth of other individuals

Scripture lays out for us the requirements for church leadership."

Scripture also lays out the requirements for hair and clothing.

Ever wear a poly-cotton shirt? If so, why doesn't Scripture have to be adhered to in that case, but it does in the case of 'church leadership'?

#296 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-08-24 03:23 PM

Danforth I understand where you are coming from, however you do not seem to understand where we are coming from.
You are speaking of the Levitical Priest regulations, and not the New Testament regulations. The Levitical Priesthood has ceased, and a new Priesthood has begun, with The Christ as the High Priest. From this point forward, all those in The Christ Jesus are a royal priesthood. The levitical law has served its purpose and has ceased by The Christ's coming "in the fulness of time."

You are speaking of the Levitical Priest regulations, and not the New Testament regulations. The Levitical Priesthood has ceased, and a new Priesthood has begun, with The Christ as the High Priest.

Then why do Christians, even Christian leaders who should know better, constantly point to Leviticus as proof "G-d hates fags?"

Of all the books in the Bible, it seems Leviticus is the buffet book for all.

Kanrei, people bring up Leviticus when dealing with the sin of Homosexuality because it addresses the subject. It is only brought up in terms of continuing because the subject was also addressed in Romans. It is the clear continuation of the standard that allows one to go back and see what is continued and what is not. The Levitical priesthood was different than the law for all individuals.

The law in itself has not been done away with but rather fulfilled. All those things still remaining are discussed in the new testament. all those things that are not observed because their purpose had been fulfilled are also discussed in the new testament.

I do not call upon Leviticus for the truth that homosexuality is a sin. It is clearly stated in the new testament.

I would think this would be clear to you.

What is not clear to me is why a "New Testament" was even needed if G-d and His word are eternal. What is true for G-d yesterday is true today and will be true tomorrow, so why the edit? Why are only 9 of the Catholic commandments actually found in the OT. What became of "thou shall not worship engraven images?"

lover for monkey sex videos and circle jerks... and CockStarved.

#302 | Posted by TheOneBS | Flag: Sounds Hungry

Why the G-d affectation, Kanrei? Are you a believer in the Old Testament as His eternal word?

If not, then what in the world are you going on about?

If so, then what is the punishment for a man laying with another man? Is that word 'eternal,' too?

Seeing as I am not Catholic, I cannot explain that to you. That is like me asking why the Pharisees did what they did.

The Pharisees were not representative of true Israel, just as Catholics are not representative of True followers of Christ.

Christ is the standard, not the Catholics, it would do you well to understand that.

Also, it has been referenced as the "New Testament" because it is new, however it is simply a continuation. God does not change, this is true.
One issue that I have however is, If God's plan was to carry out history in this manner - since he did promise a redeemer in Genesis 1, would it not be unchanging?

Just because you do not know his whole plan, then think you understand his whole plan, and then think that when he reveals more of the plan that he changed his plan, does not make you correct.

God can choose to reveal things when he wishes. He does not work on our timing. If God had intended history to carry on this way, it is not contridictory, nor changing of his plan.

I think you are forgetting this. God is outside of our understanding in that he is timeless, eternal, and not held to the laws and standards of our dimensional, physical and mental limits.

You think just because a group of people understood a limited view of God's plan as the full plan, that when God reveals the rest, he must have changed, or people must have made it up.

You are overlooking God's power.

Think about the properties and qualities of God before you speak blindly about them.

What is not clear to me is why a "New Testament" was even needed if G-d and His word are eternal. What is true for G-d yesterday is true today and will be true tomorrow, so why the edit? Why are only 9 of the Catholic commandments actually found in the OT. What became of "thou shall not worship engraven images?"

#304 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-08-24 03:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

The New Testament records the fulfillment of the promises and prophecies of the Old Testament and adds further revelation. For instance, the animal sacrifices of the Old symbolized and typified the sacrifice of Christ in the New.

The "New Testament" is the EDITED word of God, if there is one.

"The Pharisees were not representative of true Israel, just as Catholics are not representative of True followers of Christ. Christ is the standard, not the Catholics, it would do you well to understand that."

Makes no sense. JC is no longer around. Just various religions which all claim to be JC's "true believers". All of whom interpret JC's message (or the Gospels) as they deem to be correct. So who _is_ correct? The CC does have the best claim since it has, by far, the most adherents.

#310

The "religion" with the most members doesn't mean they follow Scripture the best or interpret it correctly.

I was raised Catholic (like all Italians) and I can tell you first hand some of their teachings go against Scripture.

The problem with "religions"...man made laws and traditions.

"The "religion" with the most members doesn't mean they follow Scripture the best or interpret it correctly." - Lisa

Correct, it doesn't. Also doesn't mean that the opposite is true. Still, it does mean that the CC has very many theologians who devote their lives to studying the Bible and the collateral issues. Who have gone through a very extensive educational process to reach a point of expertise. And the question then becomes, would an outsider more be convinced by specialists or by average people.

Lisa, I'm sure that there are things which the CC believes which are wrong. I definitely believe that. That isn't the same as the CC "being wrong" and ernest interpreters being correct.

Anyhow, the point I was trying to make was in regards to Exprs' statement that Catholics aren't representative of Christians. I'd say that if a particular denomination is by far a majority of Christians, it does have the best claim to be "representative".

So....ever notice the same people who scream loudest when homo clergy abuse young boys also want gay clergy ordained? Makes you wonder about their agenda....

#211 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-08-23 08:13 PM | Reply | Flag: STILL does not know the difference between Homosexuality and Pedophilia.

Indeed, the Christian example of the Old Testament does not include numerous Books where the 'eternal word of G-d' was edited out of it ...

So, Tadpole, are you actually admitting that the Word of God has been "tampered" with?

"So....ever notice the same people who scream loudest when homo clergy abuse young boys also want gay clergy ordained? Makes you wonder about their agenda...."

"#211 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-08-23 08:13 PM | Reply | Flag: STILL does not know the difference between Homosexuality and Pedophilia."

Maybe you don't know the difference, donnerboy. The vast majority of clergy abuse cases were not "pedophiles" as the press put it. They were adolescent vistims and usually boys. A pedophile goes after pre-pubescents.
So we are dealing with male homosexual clergy, not pedophiles, in most abuse cases. Get YOUR definitions straight (pun intended).

Lisa,

Please understand, I am not as repentant as you might think.

In fact, I am appalled by the prejudice and lack of insight I have seen from my fellow Christians, regarding the subject.

Whenever someone pats me on the back, "oh...what a good thing you have done...you rejected that evil lifestyle", I lose respect for them.

Bill:

By no means was I trying to insult you. If it came across that way, or if I said something insensitive, I am so very sorry.

If you don't mind though, can I ask why you lose respect for those who say that?

You don't have to answer if you don't want to.

ITT: one variety of rats accuses another of scumfuckery.

"God said this"

"NO, God said THAT"

"Let's roll the 12-sided dice and give Him some more powers..!"

I love it when the idiots cannibalize their own!

...show me Scripture that says being gay is worse than lying, stealing, adultery!

Being gay is not a sin.

Thinking that being gay is a sin may well be a sin, however.

On Topic?

Grats to the Lutherans fer making this move.

Huzzah for moral evolution.

Be Well.

ITT: one variety of rats accuses another of scumfuckery.

"God said this"

"NO, God said THAT"

"Let's roll the 12-sided dice and give Him some more powers..!"

I love it when the idiots cannibalize their own!

#306 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2009-08-25 01:54 AM
Flag: Lack of intellectual integrity in argument and understanding.

AILTD, I think you are missing the point. It is not the Catholic church which is the standard for the way we are to behave, it is the life of Christ. You can follow the representations in the Greek scripture of how The Christ lived out earthly life. We are not all called "Cathlions", but everyone calls themselves a "Christian", when in actuality they should be called, follers of Christ or followers of the Way as it was in the first century. It was the unbelievers that called them Christians first.

The standards are not set by the Catholic church with their Latin Vulgate, but rather the gathered and compared earlier documents in the Greek and Hebrew original languages.

"The standards are not set by the Catholic church with their Latin Vulgate, but rather the gathered and compared earlier documents in the Greek and Hebrew original languages."

Which one set the standard to lie about the efficacy of condoms in the most AIDS-ravaged part of the world?

"The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk. The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV."

I do not see your point here Danforth? It is scriptural that the Christ is the standard, not the Catholic church. This is a discrepancy between true belief and rote religious tradition that has formed.

I would look to Christ before the Catholic Church.

Lisa,

You didn't insult me. In fact, when I made my comment I wasn't even directing it at you.

I was thinking about the people I've known who were well meaning and trying to make me feel better, but really they didn't understand how much their condescending views only makes matters worse.

My point was you gave me credit for something I didn't deserve.

I am not repentant. I am rebellious.