JG-TC.com > Opinion > LETTER: Using Bible to denounce homosexuality is wrong

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

Shop Smart, Shop Local

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Sunday, April 26, 2009 9:07 PM CDT
LETTER: Using Bible to denounce homosexuality is wrong

By SUSAN HUMPHREYS, Oakland

There are several reasons why it’s morally wrong to use the Bible as justification for the persecution of homosexuals and to deny them the right to marry.

1. God, the Bible and the majority also sanctioned slavery (and polygamy, and stoning to death adulterers). A minority of compassionate, courageous and wise people realized that slavery of any kind was immoral, as they have realized that homosexuality (caused by a combination of biologic, environmental and cognitive factors) is natural for some and is not immoral, showing that God, the majority and the Bible can be wrong.

2. References to “homosexual” behavior appears in five places in the Bible. Leviticus is about do’s and do nots: restrictions on foods to eat, rules regarding the treatment of slaves, circumcision of male children, lying, cheating, stealing... it is pure hypocrisy to insist that the two passages that refer to homosexual behavior are the infallible words of God and justifies the persecution of homosexuals and that the rest we can “do away” with because they are a nuisance, or as one man said “Christians have a new covenant with God and the Old Testament doesn’t apply to us”. It is disingenuous to insist on the literal, absolute, infallibility of God’s word in Genesis and then ignore Leviticus (or parts thereof).

3. The New Testament has three references to what many claim is homosexual behavior. Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 use the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. In Christ’s time the word in common usage for “homosexuality” was homophilia which is never used in the Bible. Jesus used malakos three times and it meant soft. Different versions of the Bible translate arsenokoitai as: sodomites, catamites, pederasts... all quite different in meaning and none meaning homosexuality. But don’t take my word for it, Google the words “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai” and find out for yourself what they really mean.

4. Romans 1:26-27 is a passage about the consequences of idolatry not about homosexuality and tells us what Paul considered unnatural sexual behavior. He also thought celibacy was best.

5. Then there is the myth of marriage only between one man and one woman for the purpose of sexual procreation. The Bible never says that.

In summary, God and the Bible do not condemn homosexuality as a sin and there is no Biblical justification for the persecution of homosexuals including denying them the right to marry.

Add your comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Not already registered?
Then click Here.

Comment policy:

JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.

In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.

We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.

No comment may contain:

* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.

If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.

just wondering wrote on Apr 26, 2009 9:52 PM:

" Gee, I didn't know Susan had her own version of the Bible. And you claim Fox News slants things. Pot meet kettle. Kettle meet pot. "

Tom Andres wrote on Apr 26, 2009 11:38 PM:

" Poor Susan, you keep beating your drum, but no one listens.

You confuse "homosexuality" (which does exist) with "homosexual" (which does not exist. By the way, sorry to burst your balloon once again, Susan, a "sexual preference" is not a gender. It's a conscious choice to engage in homosexual behavior. Are you beginning to get the picture now? LOL "

medic57 wrote on Apr 27, 2009 8:09 AM:

" Using Bible to DENOUNCE homosexuality is wrong.

There are several reasons why its morally wrong to use the Bible as justification for the PERSECUTION of homosexuals.

Which is it Susan? Denounce or Persecution, there is a monster difference.

God and the Bible do not condemn homosexuality as a sin and there is no Biblical justification for the persecution of homosexuals including denying them the right to marry.

Susan, you forgot one passage.

1 Corinthians 6:9 (New International Version)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.

Strange Susan, I read 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the 15 known English translation of the bible, and each one of them spoke about homosexuals not inheriting much of anything. Not sure what version you read, 1 Corinthians 6:9 - 10 does not include the words malakoi and arsenokoitai, nor are they in 1 Timothy 1:8-11. "

Collatine wrote on Apr 27, 2009 8:40 AM:

" When Jesus was asked about the doctrine of marriage, he based his response on the Genesis account of creation (one man and one woman). Since our society has long rejected this notion of origins, there is no basis to accept this definition of marriage, so the state can define marriage however it wants.

Interestingly, the historical accounts the Bible records show many patriarchs and families that rejected the Genesis definition and the other definitions in the Mosaic law (usually to tragic consequences). Of course the Bible doesn't sanction slavery, but recognized these things happen in a fallen, sin-cursed world, and provided guidance on how to handle them (even a legal provision to free all slaves every 49 or 50 years in the OT, and recommendations to free them in the NT).

Susan's proofs are mostly wrong - she doesn't accept the authority of the Bible anyway so it's bemusing to read.

BUT, her premise is absolutely correct: a society that has rejected the authority of scripture very well can't be expected to accept scripture-based arguments for law. "

father bob wrote on Apr 27, 2009 9:09 AM:

" i see the rightwing nutbags are yammering....guess you must have struck the proper nerve susan.

if all they comment about is word definition, they obviously don't have a viable argument. "

father bob wrote on Apr 27, 2009 9:56 AM:

" 1 Corinthians 6:9 (New International Version)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.""""

(New International Version) no doubt translated by a conservative.

here's the KJV:

~Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.~

so...if you've had premarital sex or masturbated in your lifetime, you're doomed to hell. "

medic57 wrote on Apr 27, 2009 10:45 AM:

" Father Bob

The same can be said for the Left Wing Nutbags, although I notice there are far fewer of them than the Right Wingers.

As far as word definition goes, the same can be said for both sides, although when the Bible says Homosexual, I can only assume that it means Homosexual. Not much room for interpretation there. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 27, 2009 11:22 AM:

" First of all Medic I didn't use the word denounce, I used the word persecute because there is a world of difference between the two. Second Mr. Andres you not only listened you read so I am getting through. It pays to keep beating ones drum. Actually Collatine my proofs are right on target, and I suggested where you can look to verify their veracity. Denouncing something without putting forth a better argument to prove that what I wrote is wrong doesn't work for any of you! "

Harry Potter wrote on Apr 27, 2009 11:44 AM:

" Tom Andres wrote on Apr 26, 2009 11:38 PM:

" Poor Susan, you keep beating your drum, but no one listens.

Oh really? You must be listening Tommy, or else you wouldn't have responded.

Keep an eye on this thread and I think you'll see that a lot of folks are listening.

With your limited sources of information, I guess you're not aware that most of the experts agree that's it's not a choice. That's merely a convenient answer put out by the thumpers and the right wing moralists like yourself who show their ignorance everytime they make that uninformed remarks about homosexuals. I think Susan gets the picture, it's you and your ilk that don't get it. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 27, 2009 11:57 AM:

" Collatine, even those who accept the "authority" of the Bible find themselves in a difficult position, which translation is TRUE, the right, authentic, the REAL "word of God". Look at just the two words malakoi and arsenokoitai: King James: effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind New King James: homosexuals nor sodomites Jerusalem: sodomites or catamites Revised Standard: homosexuals for both words New International: male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders Contemporary english: behaves like a homosexual Inclusive New Testament: hustlers and pederasts Oxford Annotated: male prostitutes and sodomites. All carry very different meanings, so which version is authentic/right/truth? OR you just have to accept that the Bible you read is mans interpretation of "Gods" word, and men as we know are quite fallible. "

The Question wrote on Apr 27, 2009 1:25 PM:

" Where Susan is concerned, when the right-wing know-nothings are slapped, they'll just have to take it and like it. "

medic57 wrote on Apr 27, 2009 1:51 PM:

" LETTER: Using Bible to denounce homosexuality is wrong

I'm sorry Susan, I thought that was the word denounce. "

Rotty wrote on Apr 27, 2009 2:12 PM:

" Just needed a nice afternoon nap, & this liberal sleeping aid ought to help.

Thanks.

zzzzzzzzzzzzz "

Kamfong wrote on Apr 27, 2009 2:13 PM:

" YOU GO GIRL !! "

jenn77 wrote on Apr 27, 2009 2:43 PM:

" Thank you, Susan. Huh, to think all these years I believed that Christ was trying to teach us tolerance and love for all - including those different from us. How crazy and misled I must have been! I guess I should have only listened to the small minds who believe He was teaching us to only judge and condemn each other. Guess I'll have to take another look at my Bible so I can learn how to hate like all these other posters. For all those who believe that the Lord wrote the Bible through His servants and they had absolutely no input, I put this to you - David Koresh and Jim Jones also thought the Lord was acting through them and made them kill hundreds of innocents. They didn't have any say in the matter either, did they? "

Tom Andres wrote on Apr 27, 2009 4:01 PM:

" fb says: so...you're doomed to hell."

Well, not exactly, bob. Once you are better informed, you're sure to discover the part about the blood of Christ and the forgiveness thing and all of that. Ask Susan for some help understanding how this works. (She's the one in the bunny costume, beating the big drum.) LOL "

Rohn Gordon wrote on Apr 27, 2009 4:18 PM:

" I am now officially lost. Not long ago I made a statement of the Bible being edited. About everyone said I was wrong. I used the excuse of the different words and statements said from different books. I said I had seen some thing on the History channel that said things, I was told ok the History channel was started yada yada and how would they know, or some crap like that. Now here we are and most of you all are talking about the different words and meanings. How was I wrong then, but yet everyone is showing exactly what I said?? There is no doubt in my mind the Bible has been edited to say and mean different things. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 27, 2009 4:18 PM:

" Oh and Medic you need to recheck your references and mine and as I suggested Google the words Malakoi and Arsenokoitai, the experts don't lie, laymen might and do.You might just learn something. "

medic57 wrote on Apr 27, 2009 4:27 PM:

" Simple fact is Susan, the words Malakoi and Arsenokoitai don't exist in the verses you gave in any english translation of the Bible. "

Just watching wrote on Apr 27, 2009 4:34 PM:

" Everybody is borned with a God like concious,and God like intuitive thoughts.To say one is borned homosexual or gay is like saying child molelesters,theives,addicts ect,are borned that way.Homosexuality is a desire or a learned behavior.You can argue until your blue in the face,but I guess we'll all never know until judgement day huh? "

lefty wrote on Apr 27, 2009 5:00 PM:

" I agree with TOM ANDRES, the Bible should be used the way it's written. I say we persecute Jews, black people, and people who eat shell fish.

You with me TOM?! Now dont be a hypocrite! "

father bob wrote on Apr 27, 2009 5:01 PM:

" Tom Andres wrote on Apr 27, 2009 4:01 PM:
" fb says: so...you're doomed to hell."

Well, not exactly, bob. Once you are better informed, you're sure to discover the part about the blood of Christ and the forgiveness thing and all of that""""

i've read all that tommie, and i'll have to put the Bible and the Globe in the same category. "

father bob wrote on Apr 27, 2009 5:15 PM:

" tommie....i'll leave it to you to smite your neighbors for mowing their yard on the sabbath. and while you're at it, see how far you get trying to buy one of your neighbors daughters....i'll watch for headlines! "

Harry Potter wrote on Apr 27, 2009 5:29 PM:

" Tom Andres wrote on Apr 26, 2009 11:38 PM:

" Poor Susan, you keep beating your drum, but no one listens.

Still think no one is listening, Einstein? LOL! "

1cav wrote on Apr 27, 2009 5:47 PM:

" Yep Father Bob and Susan are in agreement. So what else are little boys good for ! All the animals do it,why shouldn't they ?
So carry on Bob and Susan,your right. Just ask your man in Congress Barney Frank. "

Rotty wrote on Apr 27, 2009 6:11 PM:

" Tom Andres wrote on Apr 27, 2009 4:01 PM:

"She's the one in the bunny costume"

.......

Probably graced the centerfolds of Pee-Yew Heffer's magazine quite a bit, too.

ROTFLMAO! "

The Question wrote on Apr 27, 2009 6:27 PM:

" You know, you're right. Gay people are not "borned" that way. They are, however, born that way.
As to what a "concious" might be, though, I don't have a clue. "

Harry Potter wrote on Apr 27, 2009 6:30 PM:

" So carry on Bob and Susan,your right. Just ask your man in Congress Barney Frank. "

And if Barney doesn't know you could always try one those Republican icons Larry Craig or perhaps Mark Foley. lol! "

gringa wrote on Apr 27, 2009 6:34 PM:

" I really, really, really get a kick out of reading spiritual interpretations of Susan and lefty and fatherlessbob and Harry Potter and The Question, etc. I'll betcha they all teach some dandy stuff to the youngins in Sunday School. "

just watching wrote on Apr 27, 2009 6:43 PM:

" TQ Go0d oNe gOlDenRoD. "

Harry Potter wrote on Apr 27, 2009 7:21 PM:

" gringa wrote on Apr 27, 2009 6:34 PM:

" I really, really, really get a kick out of reading spiritual interpretations of Susan and lefty and fatherlessbob and Harry Potter and The Question, etc.

As usual, you got it all wrong, gringa. I don't do that. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me about when I did that. If you're talking about what I have to say about homosexuality, my view is similar to what those who have researched the topic. I consider that the "experts" know a lot more than the folks who post on this site, especially the self appointed no it alls like Tommy Andres and yourself. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 27, 2009 8:21 PM:

" Duh they are the original Greek words Medic, the language those passages were written in. The Bible wasn't written in English, or did you not realize that. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 27, 2009 8:27 PM:

" You are absolutely right Mr. Gordon,the Bible was put together by men who selected what would and would not be included, and there was a great deal of disagreement over the centuries. There is a great wealth of fragments and whole texts of pieces that were left out showing that in the beginning the beliefs and thinking and recollections of the people were quite different. Then to top it all off the Bible has been translated from original Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew texts into every language in the world and as they say alot gets lost in translation. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 27, 2009 8:31 PM:

" Is that Playboy Bunny, Easter Bunny or Bugs Bunny costume Mr. Andres. You should really learn to speak more precisely. I don't think that folks like Father Bob (or anyone else for that matter) need to be forgiven for their "sinful natures" (because that isn't their nature).AND I know for a fact that no one can "take away" your sinful (less than nice) actions, once done they are done. You can however apologize for your behavior. And that is what cleanses your soul. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 27, 2009 8:36 PM:

" Jenn77 you are right, people "get" what they want from the Bible,and far too many have learned to "hate" and be "fearful" of all those that are different. The tragedy is it doesn't need to be that way, Christianity like Islam and Buddhism and Hinduism all carry the same message, if you look for it, "the way to a goodly life is to be a goodly person." "

HerChild wrote on Apr 27, 2009 8:51 PM:

" OMG! Lord, please forgive her for she knows not what she is doing. "

Mike P wrote on Apr 27, 2009 8:58 PM:

" The bible does donounce homosexuality. Its the extent many go to it does not support.

It denounces many behaviors, tattoos, worshiping money, drinking to excess, the ten commandments, but some feel more threatened by some than others, and many feel it is ok to pick and choose.

People who are biased against something using a biblical basis, tend to be some of the biggest hypocrites. They are simultaneously ignoring the golden rule, judge not lest ye be judged, and he without sin should cast the first stone. Your either hot or cold, not luke warm about following the bible. I don't remember any passage that says its ok to choose which parts you follow, which people its ok to discriminate against, and which sins are not as serious transgressions as others, in the eyes of God.

I have known many few hours on sunday only christians. Often with a holier than thou demeaner, they pick and choose their way through following parts and ignoring others when not holding down a pew.

I have been to many churches where people were looked down on, whispered about, and fake smiled at, resulting in turning them away from hearing gods word in his house. So some christians weren't even very christian on a few hours on sundays.

Do this unto the least of these, you do it also to me, is a constant two way street.

Wasn't there a proverb about christ appearing as three different people? If he were to ever do it again, I sure hope one isn't percieved as homosexual, in appearance.

Many different groups have been persecuted in the name of religion throught history, often with the church gathering wood and getting together a pot luck dinner for the burning at the stake. "

gringa wrote on Apr 27, 2009 10:39 PM:

" Mike P, "Many different groups have been persecuted in the name of religion throughout history..."

________

Yeah, Id say, Mike. Kind of like the Pakistani man and woman I saw gunned down (O'Reilly) in cold blood tonight. Seems they were accused by the Taliban (hmmm, Muslims, arent they?) of having an affair. No trial mind you, but hey, who needs the formality of a trial when you subscribe to Susans favorite religion of the day? That kind of persecution, Mike? "

Tom Andres wrote on Apr 27, 2009 10:49 PM:

" Whoa, Harry! You don't think my expert, God!, knows the difference between the sin and the sinner? Perhaps you could reconsider that last post? LOL "

Tom Andres wrote on Apr 27, 2009 11:04 PM:

" susan, I've always thought speaking imprecisely in your midst would accrue to your benefit, allowing you some much needed practice interpreting meaningful diaglogue.

There is this one thing though (Hey, by the way, ever catch Glenn Beck on FNC?), this one thing where I always agree with you. It's when you begin a sentence with the expression, "I don't think ..."

LOL, susan, what a mouthful!! That absolutely says it all about you. And you claim to be an author? "

Rotty wrote on Apr 27, 2009 11:06 PM:

" It's Suzie!

http://tinyurl.com/shumphreys

You old softy you!

Flip-Flop "

jrhendren wrote on Apr 27, 2009 11:35 PM:

" Susan once again refers to the New Susan Translation of the Bible in her rants about a subject she knows nothing about. Take some Bible classes, I would recommend Greek, and Old Testament History. I have blew away all of your pitiful rants before, and yet you come back with the same rants. Get some new lines. "

lefty wrote on Apr 28, 2009 12:12 AM:

" Oh GRINGA, I alway love when you write here! You are quick to act like the voice of reason.

I remember this time last year you got so angry you literally said "screw you guys, this blog is for losers, Im offa here!"

But you're here! Like the adult you proclaim to be. Yay!

xoxo Gringa.

p.s. TOM ANDRES, like the Bible I am also pro slavery and pro "slaughter your first born." I sincerely hope you agree with the Biblical teachings... don't be a hypocrite, now! "

Collatine wrote on Apr 28, 2009 12:39 AM:

" S.H.: about your first couple of replies to me, good point, I didn't really look at what you were saying, and haven't parsed it yet. But my ultimate point agrees with you, doesn't it? A secular society can define marriage however it wants. I can't think of any secular reason not to.

Just one thought on how the books that make up the Bible were selected. In truth, historians agree that within a century of the resurrection, various churches across the empire had already basically determined which books they were using as scripture, and these selections basically harmonized, with the possible exception of Hebrews and Revelations. (Parts of the Syrian church still do not recognize Revelations). There wasn't a secret meeting to say, "we are picking these and excluding others." The cream rose to the top. The meeting came and picked what everyone was using.

It's like saying in classical music, "A secret committee has pronounced the Works of Bach and Beethovan are wonderful," when in fact, everyone already knew that.

The gospel of mary and others were written centuries after Christ lived, and while they may carry some spiritual truth, they don't measure up to the gospels written by those who were either disciples or historians and scribes living with the disciples.

I mean, my goodness, the first written Christian creed appears within 3 years of the Resurrection, and it appears the book of Mark was written within 2 decades of it. What are they going to pick? Something written 20 years, or 200?

When you compare that the first biography of Buddha came 700 years after Buddha lived, and the first of Muhammad came over a century after Muhammad lived, this is pretty incredible. Even the earliest bio of Alexander the Great came 400 years after he lived. yeah, I'm off topic. Sorry, but the point is, the documents everyone used as scripture selected themselves, and the ones everyone tended to reject rejected themselves. Look up Oxford and Cambridge historian Bruce Metzger's works on it for a better, more detailed explanation. "

AnnaNiemaus wrote on Apr 28, 2009 6:04 AM:

" wild applause for Mike P's comment

I can't add to that - except maybe a little punctuation ;) (just kidding, Mike) "

Harry Potter wrote on Apr 28, 2009 7:00 AM:

" People who are biased against something using a biblical basis, tend to be some of the biggest hypocrites.

Good point, Mike. We see it everyday right here on the very site. "

P. Dan Tick wrote on Apr 28, 2009 7:52 AM:

" Thanks, Susan. Wouldn't it be nice if all Christians could follow the message in Leviticus 19: 17-19? "

dan lewis wrote on Apr 28, 2009 8:39 AM:

" Dear Susan. I mean this in the kindest way. But you don't have a clue. Try reading Gods word from your heart, not your mind. Billy Graham has said many times in his crusades that most people will miss heaven by only 18" (the distance between your mind and your heart). So open your heart to Gods Word. "

The Question wrote on Apr 28, 2009 8:54 AM:

" Saints need sinners. "

father bob wrote on Apr 28, 2009 9:09 AM:

" 1cav wrote on Apr 27, 2009 5:47 PM:
So carry on Bob and Susan,your right. Just ask your man in Congress Barney Frank. """""

a little homophobic cav? "

father bob wrote on Apr 28, 2009 9:12 AM:

" jrhendren wrote on Apr 27, 2009 11:35 PM:
" I have blew away all of your pitiful rants before, and yet you come back with the same rants. Get some new lines. """"

ROFLMAO!!....now that's comedy at it's finest. i don't think you've ever bested anyone on these threads. got another one-liner? "

unknownjoe wrote on Apr 28, 2009 10:56 AM:

" Wow Susan! We do know how fallible most human interpretations are, so I will add your interpretation to that list as well. Since this is the day and age of in your face politics; why is it that you continue to beat your drum when in the day to day of it; no one really cares about your issues in the first place. If you truly believe that what you do is correct, why must you say anything about it at all? Continue on living your life as you see fit and all else be damned. It seems that those who continually seek justification for why they do things don't believe what they do is correct in the first place. Could it be that this is possibly a form of therapy for you to deal with issues of unacceptance by your family of origin,or at school. Possibly your incessant whining is a way to affect some sort of revenge on those that you see as the perpetrators of your persecution! Instead of crying out for acceptance of who you are from those who don't believe as you; why not try finding acceptance of yourself first. In doing so, you may find that what anyone else has to think or say doesnt matter in the least. "

Hahvahd wrote on Apr 28, 2009 11:03 AM:

" People find homosexuality an easy target because it's one of the sins mentioned in the Bible that the majority does not practice. It's easy to pick and choose to include that one, while excluding the parts denouncing wealth and greed -- heck, greedily amassing wealth is the American way, what many who don't have it dream of attaining. It's funny, too, to see them exclude other parts of Leviticus (tattoos, shell fish, etc.), dismissing it as old Testament law, but still clinging to the parts about homosexuality.

How about living by this message from Jesus -- don't worry about the mote in your brother's eye when you have a beam stuck in your own (loosely paraphrased, I know, but the message still holds true to the original), or Mike P's comments about the Golden Rule, letting those who are without sin cast the first stone, and reserving judgments as God's job alone. "

Hahvahd wrote on Apr 28, 2009 11:05 AM:

" Rotty, you're level-headed on so many other issues. Why do you hate Susan so much? It seems that if she posted that it's day, you'd get right back on to swear it's night, even if you had to squint through the sunlight to do so. What gives? "

Danny Boy wrote on Apr 28, 2009 12:10 PM:

" Who Cares? If I can't see it from my front porch, I don't Give a Dang!! "

medic57 wrote on Apr 28, 2009 12:31 PM:

" The Question wrote on Apr 27, 2009 6:27 PM:

" You know, you're right. Gay people are not "borned" that way. They are, however, born that way.

I'd love to see your scientific proof of that.

shumphreys wrote on Apr 27, 2009 8:21 PM:

" Duh they are the original Greek words Medic, the language those passages were written in. The Bible wasn't written in English, or did you not realize that.

However, in every known tramslation, those two verses say homosexuality is wrong.

Now, let's leave religion completely out of the picture for a moment. What part of 2 men or 2 women getting it on doesn't scream abnormal to 99% of the human race? If it wasn't for NORMAL people, you and I would not be here Susan. "

medic57 wrote on Apr 28, 2009 12:42 PM:

" Expert

Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study.

If expert don't always agree, how can they be experts?

Hahvahd wrote on Apr 28, 2009 11:03 AM:

" People find homosexuality an easy target because it's one of the sins mentioned in the Bible that the majority does not practice.

Nope, people find homosexuality an easy target because it totally repulsing for most people to think about.

Buy the way, show me in the bible where it's a sin to be wealthy. "

Mike P wrote on Apr 28, 2009 1:23 PM:

" The crusades weren't a bunch of missionaries handing out bibles and building churches. If not for seeking religious freedom, the pilgrims, quakers, and many others would have stayed home. Quite a few examples of persecution in bible stories and other historical records. My religion is right, yours is wrong, has fueld wars, countles ethnic clensings, and many an imprisonment.

Kings, monarchs, emperors, pharohs and popes have directed their subjects to submit and comply or face various consequences, through out history. Natives of conquered lands were seen as heathens and were killed, enslaved, or forced out. Much of known recorded history is scattered with genocides, ethnic clensings, and persecution for being different. Hate has often ridden the back of religions, since organized religions were formed in early societies.

Anyone taken any sociology to know what it suggests the role of religion in society is?

We know more about the worlds history at one time, than most of our ancestors. Now so much knowledge can be expanded with the click of the mouse, quite often. We should be less likely to repeat their mistakes, than we often are.

We have our own extremists, and have had many religious fanatics using ideology for a social control mechanism. Economic decline finds many loose hope, and become easy prey for smooth tongued, charismatic psycopaths. Desperate people can often be manipulated to expanding extremist interpretations of a religion.

The illiterate aren't as likely to read the base text derived from and see through the provided religious based messages. One of the best tools, for fighting extremism through out the world, is building schools and providing a safe education and most importantly the ability to read.

There are extremist views that play on more than illiteracy, germany and south africa were fairly well educated, and used the threat to our way of life, and a superiority vanity, to sell some of their philosophies. As we have sometimes done for various things, since we settled the americas. There are many ways to try to manipulate hearts and minds for good or evil goals. "

The Truth wrote on Apr 28, 2009 2:03 PM:

" Now our apostate friend is an expert in Greek!

The reason humphreys keeps writing these pitiful letters is in an attempt to bring attention to herself. And she must be terribly lonely.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 very clearly says "MEN WHO LIE WITH MEN". That would be a homosexual, plain and simple.

Poor, pitiful humphreys. The Bible DOES condemn homosexual behavior, and the Greek words you pointed out have absolutely nothing to do with what the Bible is teaching.

People, just ignore this woman who is so preoccupied with trying to save mankind she is going to lose out on her own everlasting life. The very scripture she is trying to twist is pointing to her own eternal destruction. "

father bob wrote on Apr 28, 2009 2:19 PM:

" Hahvahd wrote on Apr 28, 2009 11:05 AM:
" Rotty, you're level-headed on so many other issues. Why do you hate Susan so much? It seems that if she posted that it's day, you'd get right back on to swear it's night, even if you had to squint through the sunlight to do so. What gives? """"

1)insecure men hate intelligent, educated, strong willed women.

2)sexually insecure men tend to be homophobic when in fact they're somewhat curious.

3) these honyocks tend to mimic anything tommie andres (see #1 & #2) says. "

name_hidden_to_protect_the_innocent wrote on Apr 28, 2009 2:37 PM:

" Wow, I never realized we had so many homosexual posters on this site! With Susan's defense to homoesexuals and so many defending her for defending homosexuals, seems like you all are engaged in some homosexual circle or something.

With humpty dumpty shumphrey's, you're in with her if you are a homosexual. I can understand why she is so passionate about abortion and killing unborn babies now! "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 28, 2009 3:02 PM:

" As I have pointed out Medic the majority got it wrong about slavery just as they have gotten it wrong about homosexuality. Also as I have pointed out different translations do NOT agree. If you don't understand that I suggest you look up pederast, sodomite, catamite for starters.Try making a responsible argument. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 28, 2009 3:09 PM:

" To The Truth, the Greek words are what IT is all about. Your version of the Bible is just one among many, and no more correct, accurate, right, truthful, than the others. Oh and I think Jesus would be pleased that someone cares enough to try to save the world, he wasn't very fond of those who looked after only their own skin! Or haven't you read your Bible? "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 28, 2009 3:10 PM:

" To Name Hidden I can see why you hide your name, I would be ashamed to say the things you say as well. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 28, 2009 3:14 PM:

" Only sick people like you Medic are repulsed by what other people do in their own bedrooms. Perhaps you concentrate too much on peoples differences rather on their day to day actions towards towards their fellow man (oops I should say humans)! "

Just an opinion wrote on Apr 28, 2009 3:14 PM:

" Because someone doesn't care what two consenting adults do makes them homosexual? Dang, I never realized I must be gay. Don't tell my husband! God forbid people state their honest opinion. "

HerChild wrote on Apr 28, 2009 3:18 PM:

" LOL- Kamfong, another of shumphreys personalities surfaces! "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 28, 2009 3:19 PM:

" Unknown Joe you jump to conclusions, it is because I have NOT been persecuted, because I have been blessed by good fortune (brought by luck of the draw, good parents, who knows), that I speak up for those who can't or won't speak for themselves. Something by the way that Jesus would approve of, and God, and Buddha, and Lao Tzu, to name a few. "

Tom Andres wrote on Apr 28, 2009 3:32 PM:

" Hahvahd, as the anointed curator of Biblical interpretations, please answer this one on your topic of the day: American wealth and greed.

Let's say you're a farmer or another type of business owner. Lets say you have $1-million in gross revenue. So, do you tithe $100,000 to the Humphrey Church of Hypocrisy or do you tithe 10% of what the IRS says your net profit is?

Susan wants to know how you plan to handle this hypothethical because she's looking for some front money for her next published work (her definition of Letters to the Editor and posting her barbs on here). LOL "

unknownjoe wrote on Apr 28, 2009 3:34 PM:

" Wow! Susan how self-appointed and self-important you must feel. "

jenn77 wrote on Apr 28, 2009 3:41 PM:

" My last thought on the subject: God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. He knows what we will be and do before we do. If He does not want us to be a certain way, He will not create us that way. He plans every moment of our lives before we are even born. Also, Christ died so that WE ALL may be forgiven. So, if homosexuality really is a sin, it seems to me that it will be ultimately forgiven. Besides, it is not our place to judge anyone - Our Lord reserves that right for Himself. "Let those who are without sin throw the first stone...." I love all my neighbors regardless what they do, even those of you who hate others. "

name_hidden_to_protect_the_innocent wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:04 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Apr 28, 2009 3:10 PM:

" To Name Hidden I can see why you hide your name, I would be ashamed to say the things you say as well. "

Sorry to say, I am not ashamed to state the obvious.

shumphreys wrote on Apr 28, 2009 3:14 PM:

" Only sick people like you Medic are repulsed by what other people do in their own bedrooms. Perhaps you concentrate too much on peoples differences rather on their day to day actions towards towards their fellow man (oops I should say humans)! "

Seems like humpty dumpty shumphrey's gets a stuttering problem when she gets all worked up!

What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

There are those who like to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Various verses are cited (out of context) and the verses that people use to show that homosexuality is wrong are explained away. The world wants to change God's words and meanings into something more suitable to its sinful desires. Nevertheless, the truth stands: The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God. He created Adam and then made a woman. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:18ff). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.

What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?

Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again.
As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual (and Shumphrey's) the same you would any other person in sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God -- even though he is in grave sin. Therefore, you should show him same dignity as anyone else you come in contact with. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of their sin. Don't compromise your witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of godliness.

At 1Cornithians 6:9-10

[9] What! do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit the Kingdom? Do not be misled, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for un-natural purposes, nor men who lie with men. [10] Nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom." "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:10 PM:

" Oh and Mr. Truth, reread points number 2 and 4. If you don't abide by ALL the laws in Leviticus,if you select the line about man lying with man as the one that HAS to be obeyed, saying that it is a greater abomination than any of the rest, AND if you are a Christian that claims that you don't have to abide by the law because you have a new covenant with Jesus who did away with the law than you are a hypocrite, either he did away with the law, all of it, or he didn't. You can't pick and choose the parts you want to follow and pretend the rest don't exist. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:15 PM:

" Honestly Mr. Andres, I am not a conman, like the Christian preachers you hear begging for your money. I don't demand payment for sins or support for my "charity" (read my extravagant life style). I do expect honest and fair debate. Address the issues and quit attacking the person. Honestly how many times do we have to go over this, attacking a person is the only way you have of avoiding addressing the issues. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:17 PM:

" Your loving words Unknown Joe make me feel special, can't help it if I have been fortunate, caring for others isn't being self-appointed, that is what Jesus, and Buddha, and being human calls for us to do.Try it some time, it just might help you become a better person. "

middle of road wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:19 PM:

" Nice copy and paste job there, name hidden. http://tinyurl.com/cnptek

(yawn)

Don't consider thinking for yourself or anything. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:23 PM:

" Name Hidden nothing you wrote disproves my letter. As I said in number 1 wise, intelligent, compassionate people decided that slavery of any kind, that stoning to death adulterers, taking an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,(Jesus by the way was one of those wise folk) is wrong and they have come to the same conclusion about homosexuality. The Bible passages do NOT address homosexual relationships between consenting adults. The passages are about sexual exploitation, abuse, and subjugation. Reread my letter. "

name_hidden_to_protect_the_innocent wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:29 PM:

" middle of road wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:19 PM:

" Nice copy and paste job there, name hidden. http://tinyurl.com/cnptek

And tell me middle of the road, where did I claim to have written that myself. I would probably stop assuming if I were you!!! "

name_hidden_to_protect_the_innocent wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:31 PM:

" Shumphrey's, no need to reread your letter...it was boring and made absolutely no sense the first time around. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:32 PM:

" The argument Name Hidden, that he created Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve doesn't cut it. The passage doesn't say that is the ONLY plan he had in mind. Also the Biblical account is rather incomplete since he never mentions where the wives for Adam and Eves sons came from. If the Bible left out that little detail it could have and must have left out another little detail, that of the creation of homosexuals. Either God created us all, or none.Then there is the problem that if you reject Leviticus as not being the word of God how can you insist that Genesis is, either it all is or it isn't. Complications, complications. "

middle of road wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:38 PM:

" No, name hidden, I didn't assume that you wrote that nonsense, nor did anyone else. I simply made crystal clear your inability to make your own argument. Closed minds like yours clearly do not have the capacity to manufacture original thoughts. Humphreys and others might beat dead horses, but they at least use their own sticks, rather than borrowing the same old baseball bat used by bigots for years. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:40 PM:

" Oh and Name Hidden do you not know about Matthew 25:31....? Mankind will be judged by their actions towards others not by their beliefs, their religious denomination or lack thereof. "

father bob wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:44 PM:

" God Hates Shrimp

Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord, just as gays are an abomination. Why stop at protesting gay marriage? Bring all of God's law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver's and Red Lobster. Yea, even Popeye's shall be cleansed. The name of Bubba shall be anathema. We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants.

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you. "

name_hidden_to_protect_the_innocent wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:44 PM:

" Singing "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Red and yellow black and white, they are precious in his sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world".

Middle of road, I didn't make that song up either just for the record. "

name_hidden_to_protect_the_innocent wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:48 PM:

" One day we will all be judged, so Shumphrey's and everyone else that thinks homosexuality is alright, I would love to hear that argument at the pearly gates.

Catholics must have the same beliefs as shumphrey's since they believe homosexuality is okay. "

The Question wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:59 PM:

" If you were to retroactively withdraw the accomplishments of gay people from history, you'd find yourself somewhere back in the Dark Ages, at least.
Subtract the achievements of these: Alexander the Great, Socrates, Hadrian, Richard the Lionhearted, Edward II, Saladin, Francis Bacon, Frederick the Great, Byron, Walt Whitman, Oscar Wilde, Willa Cather, E.M. Forster, Tchaikovsky, Marcel Proust, Cole Porter, Leonard Bernstein, Julius Caesar, Pope Julius III, Pope Benedict IX, Pope John XII, James I, Lawrence of Arabia, Horatio Alger, Herman Melville, Charles Laughton, Bessie Smith, Tennessee Williams, James Baldwin, Peter the Great, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Hans Christian Andersen, Dag Hammerskjold, Andy Warhol, Noel Coward, James Dean, Montgomery Clift, Rock Hudson, Elton John, Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci.
So next time you see a gay person, be sure and thank them for your culture and the civilization you enjoy. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 28, 2009 5:05 PM:

" To Middle of the Road, thanks for your kind words, it is nice to be recognized for my independant thinking! BUT as to beating a dead horse. If it wasnt for the tenacity of the few: women and blacks would never have gotten the right to vote, slavery would never have been abolished and this country of ours never would have been born. What one might call beating a dead horse, Id call having a dream, seeing something that never was and thinking why not? and being persistant enough to pursue it! "

Hahvahd wrote on Apr 28, 2009 5:09 PM:

" Medic 57 question whether the Bible calls greed/wealth a sin. Well, meds, does this sound familiar to you: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Kinda sounds like God frowns on amassing wealth, if he's excluding so many of the rich from heaven.

Tom Andres, where did I ever claim to be the "anointed curator of Biblical interpretations"? Get some help, brother, seriously. And why is everything about taxes with you. Tithe 10% of your net or 10% of your gross income, whichever your church recommends. The point is, most people here in the richest nation on earth aren't titheing 10% of either figure. "

father bob wrote on Apr 28, 2009 5:10 PM:

" name_hidden_to_protect_the_innocent wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:48 PM:
"Catholics must have the same beliefs as shumphrey's since they believe homosexuality is okay. """""

apparently you're just not a a very "newsy" person......but that's ok, we need a laugh! "

father bob wrote on Apr 28, 2009 5:15 PM:

" The Question wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:59 PM:
" If you were to retroactively withdraw the accomplishments of gay people from history, you'd find yourself somewhere back in the Dark Ages, at least.""""

and you forgot Abraham Lincoln and his 4 year affair and love of Joshua Speed. "

medic57 wrote on Apr 28, 2009 5:16 PM:

" The simple fact is this Susan:

Homosexuality is condemmed throughout the Bible. Of that, there is NO question. "

Rotty wrote on Apr 28, 2009 5:17 PM:

" Where O Where To Begin....
LOL!
.......

Hey Tom, we may or may not listen to ole shemp, but it sure doesn't take the majority long to figure that "bunny" out.

LOL!
.......

Hahvahd, I used to be ten-times worse, when this comment venue first started.
This is mild compared to the way things used to be around here, in the beginning.

Hahvahd, I really don't hate susan. I just enjoy heckling, stirring the pot, taunting, poking fun, & breaking up the same-o-same-o/monotony on forums, every once in awhile.

And you have to admit, these threads do get to be the same people saying the same things, over & over, & over again - my "stirring" as well, probably.

For those reasons, this online venue has probably gained & lost plenty of readership.

As far as my hate for ole suzie q, I don't, & I was only going to answer your "What gives?" with a simple statement, other than this long-winded deal.

"When the two equal sides of two magnets are brought together, what happens?"

LOL!

Actually, with just a few minor exceptions, my "beliefs" are pretty much what susan "believes".

Now, please don't let the cat out of the bag, or tell anyone, OK?

LOL!

(BACK TO THE DRAWING TABLE, FB, MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED!)

ROTFLMAO!!!!
.......

Now, our dear lying little friend, father bob, now thinks he knows exactly what kind of a person I am, & several of us are, around here.

How quaint.

This coming from a person who leads us all to believe for the longest time, (atleast with his continuous racists comments & his own hypocrisies), or possibly has said so in the past, that he is black.

I give you this little gem.
(From a former article thread.)

father bob wrote on Apr 2, 2009 11:53 AM:
" joe hardy wrote on Apr 1, 2009 10:35 PM:
" Please, at least attempt some mature discourse. """""

sorry joe it's rovian strategy we've had to endure the last 8 years that's got us in the "paybacks are he11" mode.

with the shoe on the other foot, those whining and crying republicans need to act like the patriotic citizens they've pretended to be.

and joe, maybe i'm not really black....just egging on the bigots who expose themselves so willingly. "

(maybe i'm not really black?)

May I say, Sir, as if it hasn't already been, your credibility has now been shot to hell!

Now, how about a fist-bump for the crowd?

Who's the honyock now, dumbarse?

ROTFLMAO!!!!
.......

medic57 wrote on Apr 28, 2009 12:31 PM:
"If it wasn't for NORMAL people, you and I would not be here Susan."

Excellant, medic!
LOL!
.......

Have a great evening, folks, I know I will, especially after this!

LOL! "

Rotty wrote on Apr 28, 2009 5:22 PM:

" By the way....
(when this "letter" first came out.)

I wondered who would be the first moron to bring up "lobster & shrimp"?

WE NOW HAVE A WINNER!

ROTFLMAO!!!! "

father bob wrote on Apr 28, 2009 5:31 PM:

" wooohoooo! Rotty's callin' people out!!.....you can't pay for this much entertainment!!

go rotty go! go rotty go! "

Hahvahd wrote on Apr 28, 2009 5:37 PM:

" Rotty, thanks for replying, but I still don't quite get it -- if your beliefs are largely the same, why do you take such pleasure in hassling Susan? In case you haven't noticed, I'm a "pot-stirrer" too, but it's usually the ideas I'm trying to stir up, not just automatically going after particular posters.

And with all due respect, why is it idiotic to make the points about shellfish? If we hold onto the Levitican laws, then we'd be condemning those who eat shrimp and lobster, or fried rabbit, or who have tattoes. Why have we abandoned calling those things abominable and held onto the homosexuality attacks? Because lobster bisque tastes good? Help me out here. . . . I'm seriously trying to understand. "

father bob wrote on Apr 28, 2009 5:40 PM:

" Rotty wrote on Apr 28, 2009 5:22 PM:
" By the way....
(when this "letter" first came out.)

I wondered who would be the first moron to bring up "lobster & shrimp"?""""

oh but Rotty, you need to petition the NFL to cease operation....since the bible says not to touch the skin of a swine.

you guys want it both ways. "

The Question wrote on Apr 28, 2009 5:44 PM:

" And I wondered, Rotty, who'd be the first Bible thumper to provide a credible justification for the anti-shellfish nonsense in the Bible.
And I'm still wondering, because none of them ever have. "

Rotty wrote on Apr 28, 2009 5:49 PM:

" Thanks, fb, ditto on the entertainment.
LOL! "

Tom Andres wrote on Apr 28, 2009 6:18 PM:

" jenn77, I'm guessing from the "77" in your screen name that you are thirty-something. Long past the stage where you can get away claiming navet. Have you asked God to forgive your naive state at an age where you should be more familiar with the realities of life?

You say it is not our place to judge anyone, that God reserves that right for Himself. So, we should do away with the Judicial Branch of government and live in total anarchy until the Rapture?

You say He knows what we will be and do before we do. I think I know what you're trying to express, but did you ever hear of Free Will? Ive heard that right after we were given Free Will, God gave us knee caps because He knew they would come in handy several times a day, every day of our lives. (Actually, I didn't hear that; I made it up just now. Pretty good one, huh, Harry?)

And finally, you love your neighbors regardless of what they do. I'm assuming you don't have children and that you don't live next door to a convicted pedophile who didn't take the cure in prison.

Kumbayah, a tiara, world peace, and a dozen long stems to you every day for the rest of your life, or until you can find a strong man to protect and care for you.

(Oh boy, here we go! Incoming!) "

unknownjoe wrote on Apr 28, 2009 6:18 PM:

" Once again, how arrogant of you Susan to assume that I do not give of my time, effort or money to charitable pursuits. I have learned much from my participation in these pursuits. But, thank you for your patronizing dribble. "

name_hidden_to_protect_the_innocent wrote on Apr 28, 2009 6:28 PM:

" If Adam Lambert is gay, he should not win American Idol. I'm sorry, but a gay man is NOT an idol.

LOL @ Abraham Lincoln being gay...I had never heard of this one so I done some research and there is no evidence to say he was gay.

The Question: If you were to retroactively withdraw the accomplishments of gay people from history, you'd find yourself somewhere back in the Dark Ages, at least.
Subtract the achievements of these....I'm confident we would not be in the dark ages if it wasn't for the accomplishments of these men. There are far more leaders that are not gay than are gay.

I also see three Popes top your list...LMAO!!! "

Tom Andres wrote on Apr 28, 2009 6:51 PM:

" Hahvahd, thanks for admitting that I get under your skin. That makes my day. LOL.

Your Bible quote: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." is the (excuse me) genesis for the saying "You can't take it with you." That's all. LOL, try thinking out of the box for once, Hahvahd. God didn't say the rich can't ascend to Heaven. He was just telling them to leave their riches at the door, er, gate. Read. Think.

You didn't claim to be the anointed curator, H. Did you think you were losing your mind? Sorry, I was just teasing you.

Everything isn't about taxes with me, Hahvahd!! I also enjoy discussing religion and politics - especially when I'm with the white whine and croissant crowd, or when I'm at a family reunion with some crusty old Democrats aboard. "

Harry Potter wrote on Apr 28, 2009 6:55 PM:

" Hey Tom, still think no one is listening to Susan? LOL! "

Kamfong wrote on Apr 28, 2009 6:59 PM:

" Well be that as it may,thanks to gay rights,we now have to wait another 20min for the moonlite skate.Now after the caller calls ALL skate, we have to wait for the men with men skate session.Man what'll they think of next? "

Hahvahd wrote on Apr 28, 2009 8:14 PM:

" Tom, if you weren't so pathetic, you'd be hilarious. You certainly need some work on your interpretive skills. How on EARTH do you get the camel/needle passage as meaning "you can't take it with you"? The passage doesn't say "it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a man's riches to enter the kingdom of heaven" or ". . . for a man to enter the kingdom of heaven with his riches"; it says "rich man." As in, a man who is rich. What's so hard to comprehend there? It's not the possessions being chastized; it's the man who amasses the wealth -- in the same spirit as "seek not your treasures on earth, where thieves steal and rust corrupts, but seek your treasures in heaven," i.e., take stock in the spiritual wealth, not the worldly kind. And as for the "whine" crowd, I've seen you whine on here more than any other poster. "Waaah! Mean old Democrats want to tax me! Boo-hoo -- other races and women want rights! Iwantmymommy-- the world has changed from the 1950's!"

And, dear, it's not that you get under my skin -- don't flatter yourself. It's just that I have a revulsion to narrow-minded, stupid people who think they know it all, like, well, you! "

medic57 wrote on Apr 28, 2009 8:28 PM:

" Hahvahd wrote on Apr 28, 2009 5:09 PM:

" Medic 57 question whether the Bible calls greed/wealth a sin. Well, meds, does this sound familiar to you: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Kinda sounds like God frowns on amassing wealth, if he's excluding so many of the rich from heaven.

Sorry Hahvahd, God does NOT exclude anyone from heaven, people exclude theirselves.

J.C. Penney gave 90% to his church and was never open on Sundays, Patricia Heaton gives 80% to her church and says she lives just fine.

Hahvahd wrote: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Easier, but not impossible.

shumphreys wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:40 PM:

" Oh and Name Hidden do you not know about Matthew 25:31....? Mankind will be judged by their actions towards others not by their beliefs.

Judged and Saved are 2 different things Susan. There will be levels of Heaven, while I'm pretty sure I won't be on the top level, I'll probably be higher up than you. "

Hahvahd wrote on Apr 28, 2009 9:09 PM:

" Medic, people who are giving away 80 - 90 % of their wealth aren't the rich people I'm talking about -- or that I believe the Bible is referring to. It's the ones who put their wealth above their common man, who only care about amassing more and more wealth without giving any of it to their churches or to charities or anything for the benefit of their common man or the common good. There's a big difference.

Good point about people excluding themselves from heaven through their behavior rather than God excluding anyone. It IS a personal choice.

And I never said it was impossible for the rich to enter heaven, did I?

The Bible does, however, make more references to the evils of wealth and the need to help the poor and the "least of our brethren" than it does to condemning homosexuality. If both are sins, then there are certainly far more of us committing the sins of greed and money idolotry than there are engaging in homosexuality. But where's the outcry from the religious right? Oh, yeah, a number of them are guilty of the greed/money worshipping stuff, so they don't bring up those parts of the Bible.

Anyway, I'm not acting the way I intended, and for that I apologize. I've always been one to believe that if people would just live and let live and worry about addressing their own flaws and shortcomings rather than passing judgments on others, the world would be a better place. So I need to practice my own advice. My apologies to those to whom I've judged or directed judgmental statements. Sincerely. Gotta work on the beam in my eye before trying to pluck out your motes. "

Hahvahd wrote on Apr 28, 2009 9:19 PM:

" Medic, I don't think rich folks who are giving away 80 or 90% of their wealth are the ones I was referring to, but those who care only about amassing more and more wealth without giving any to their churches, charities, fellow man or the common good.

And I never claimed that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the wealthy to enter heaven.

But the Bible DOES make far more references to the evils of wealth and money idolatry than it does to homosexuality -- doesn't that mean something? Where is the religious right's outcry about creed and money worshipping? Oh, yeah, they'd be criticizing many of their own kind, so instead they celebrate capitalism in all it's glory. . . .

Good point about people excluding themselves from heaven through their actions rather than God excluding them.

And my apologies for being judgmental. I believe the world is a better place when we live and let live rather than judge others, and I've violated my own principle -- I've been pulling out the motes in my brother's eye rather than looking at the beam in my own. Sincere apologies for that. "

Hahvahd wrote on Apr 28, 2009 9:20 PM:

" Oops -- I meant greed, not creed. "

Tom Andres wrote on Apr 28, 2009 9:21 PM:

" Good Lord,Hahvahd, are you a female? Huh? You sound like a female. LOL. Go on now. Play. "

Hahvahd wrote on Apr 28, 2009 9:29 PM:

" Good Lord, Tommy, what do you mean by "you sound like a female"? Yes, I am, if that matters to you.

I think I'll just refer back to Father Bob's statement about your reaction to strong-willed, intelligent women and call it a night. "

Rotty wrote on Apr 28, 2009 10:33 PM:

" (why do you take such pleasure in hassling Susan?)

It's fun & something to do.

(I'm a "pot-stirrer" too, but it's usually the ideas I'm trying to stir up, not just automatically going after particular posters.)

Understandable, I hear ya.

(why is it idiotic to make the points about shellfish?)

It's not.

(Why have we abandoned calling those things abominable and held onto the homosexuality attacks?)

Because we have one messed up human race.

Thanks for your reply back, Hahvahd.
.......

(you guys want it both ways.)

Personally, I want it only one way.
heeheehee

Thanks for your reply back, FB.
.......

(And I wondered, Rotty, who'd be the first Bible thumper to provide a credible justification for the anti-shellfish nonsense in the Bible.)

Why don't you talk to one personally, up close, or come right out just nicely ask one of them, (who you believe to be one), that posts on here?

(And I'm still wondering, because none of them ever have.)

Maybe it's your debating tactics, or you're not a very personable person?

Thanks for your reply back, TQ.
.......

Have a great night everyone - you too Susan!
;-)
LOL! "

Mike P wrote on Apr 28, 2009 10:47 PM:

" The love of money is what the bible frowns upon, not wealth in general. People don't have to be poor to be a "good christian". Wealth alone does not define the person. Though many often forget that, and and try to define themselves or others by their wealth or other personal assets, or lack of them.

Stealing a parking spot, could be as big a deal as madoff, when St Peter greets us at the pearly gates.

I've known people who were dirt poor who were greedy, and people who did very well for themselves who weren't.

One of the fabled seven deadly sins, is greed. It doesn't have to be over money, the green-eyed monster can be conquered or submitted to. "

Tom Andres wrote on Apr 28, 2009 11:13 PM:

" Hahvahd, the reason it matters to me is that I may be inspired to place my cloak atop a puddle for you someday.

Oh, and by the way, did shump teach you how to write? I noticed that you wrote "refer back to" - which is redundant you know. You could have written "... refer to ..." and the meaning would have been clear. The "re" part is already the "back" part, so there's no need to say "refer back" now, is there?

H, you may be strong-willed. I have no way of knowing; but now I'm not so sure about the intelligent part. Nite. LOL.

(How am I doing Harry? Was that a rim shot I heard behind me? Do you suppose H thinks I'm funny yet?) "

jrhendren wrote on Apr 28, 2009 11:48 PM:

" father bob wrote on Apr 28, 2009 9:12 AM:
" jrhendren wrote on Apr 27, 2009 11:35 PM:
" I have blew away all of your pitiful rants before, and yet you come back with the same rants. Get some new lines. """"

ROFLMAO!!....now that's comedy at it's finest. i don't think you've ever bested anyone on these threads. got another one-liner? "

Except you my friend which is truly not that hard to do. You are always there to make your little posts about how all Christians are "evil, right wing lunatics, that are homophobic, nut balls, and need to learn tolerance." Funny how the one throwing insults is telling people to be tolerant. Then there is the fact that not only can you only insult people that you do not agree with, but that you never speak for yourself. You have no problem letting others speak for you. Wonder why that is? Maybe it's because you really have nothing to say, or at least nothing anyone with half a brain wants to hear. Which is it? "

jrhendren wrote on Apr 29, 2009 12:12 AM:

" Don't you just love people who use parts of the Scriptures, Scriptures they do not even believe in, to make their point. Lets take food restrictions. God did away with food restrictions in the book we call "The Acts of the Apostles", yet some will use that as an argument regarding homosexuality. What? How do you get that? The New Covenant, or Testament speaks of homosexuality as wrong. Some try and say the Greek word is speaking of feminine men, and not homosexuality. If that is the case then when a "Christian" says the act of homosexuality is wrong, note the act not the person, you are saying, "No anyone who acts feminine is wrong." Then you'll turn around and say, "Stop persecuting people." You are the one calling all men who are feminine as wrong, we are the ones saying, that the act of homosexuality is wrong. Us and act, you a person. Who is really persecuting? I am not saying a man who has feminine tendencies, what ever those maybe, is wrong you are. The Scriptures say, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Notice it reads, "homosexual offenders" not "homosexuals". You change it to say "....nor male prostitutes nor feminine men nor thieves...." Why do you denounce all men who who act feminine as offenders. That is not very tolerant. "

jrhendren wrote on Apr 29, 2009 12:34 AM:

" It is also funny how you make this into a political item. Its odd that the same people who tell us that everyone should be allowed to their own beliefs, are the ones yelling because we do not agree with them. If your beliefs go exist with their belief system you are good upstanding citizen. If you do not agree with their belief system you are, "racist, homophobic, a bigot, hypocrite, nut case", or any other of their little catch phrases. I do not believe as you, so what! You have the right to believe as you want, and lobby your government to vote how you want. If I believed smoking crack should be legal and you did not, you would lobby for it to continued to be outlawed and I would not. No I do not endorse the smoking of crack. That is one of the, if not the greatest thing about our country. We all have the right to our own opinion. Just because I do not believe in homosexual marriage, does not mean it is okay to "gay bash". On the contrary I condemn, as does the Scriptures, anyone who uses derogatory terms for the homosexual community. Just because someone is homosexual does not make them evil anymore then someone who is Democrat or Republican. We are all entitled to our own opinion. These people who call themselves "Christian" who are protesting at soldiers funerals, and yelling offensive remarks are not true Christ followers. They are a cult, and will one day stand before the Lord and answer to him for what they do. We all will. The Scriptures say, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." - Romans 3:23. This means I am no better then you, and you are no better then me. We are all sinners in God's eyes, but we find salvation through Christ Jesus. I have my own opinion and belief regarding homosexuality, and that is fine. You have your own belief that is fine. The only difference is, is that I follow the Word of God, and you do not believe in the Scriptures. That again is entirely your choice, because that is how God wants it to be. I pray that you will some day choose him, but till that day peace be to you and your family. Remember also, just because someone does not agree, does not make them an evil person. "

The Question wrote on Apr 29, 2009 5:04 AM:

" "Waaah! Mean old Democrats want to tax me! Boo-hoo -- other races and women want rights! Iwantmymommy-- the world has changed from the 1950's!"
---
As succinct a summary as I've ever read. "

CrowWoman wrote on Apr 29, 2009 7:29 AM:

" According to the Bible--Old Testament and New--any sexual relationship other than marriage between male and female is sinful and forbidden. Divorce is also sinful, and forbidden by Christ--except possibly when adultery is involved.

I don't feel that believing homosexuality is wrong, or even saying so, is persecution. I can see the difference between denouncing a behavior and attacking an individual. Having watched a relative who was a chronic smoker die from lung cancer, I can honestly say I am against smoking and believe it is wrong. I did not attack my relative, and I didn't condemn her for smoking, but I will speak out against it if the subject comes up. The same is true for drug abuse--you can hate the practice and believe it is immoral, but love the person caught up in it.

That being said, homosexual marriage does not threaten heterosexual marriage in any way that I can see. And to claim that society is harmed by it is a laugh--compared to the effects of divorce, which has devastated so many women and children, what harm has homosexuality caused? There is NO comparison, and the rabid reaction against homosexualtiy reveals human fear & prejudice more than it does God's will. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 29, 2009 7:32 AM:

" Name Hidden I doubt that you will make the cut and won't be there to witness my grand entrance. "

Hahvahd wrote on Apr 29, 2009 7:37 AM:

" Thanks for the compliment, Q. It means something when it comes from one of the posters I respect.

And no, Tommy, H doesn't find you funny yet, and likely never will. Keep amusing yourself, clown. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 29, 2009 7:38 AM:

" The simple fact Medic, Homosexuality is NOT condemned throughout the Bible. You need to offer support for your statement to disprove the statements in my letter. Adrress the issue. Even if it were, as I pointed out with slavery, stoning, etc. wise people realized that those practices were wrong just as they have realized that persecuting homosexuals is wrong. AND Jesus was one of those wise people. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 29, 2009 7:44 AM:

" Mr. Andres thou shalt not lie or bear false witness. Ever hear that one? Whats this garbage about living next to pedophiles (spelled it right this time)? Are you saying homosexuals are pedofiles? You also totally misunderstand the "judge not that ye be not judged" no wonder you are so confused about Christianity and the basic tenets of the faith. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 29, 2009 7:49 AM:

" Unknown Joe I haven't said anything or accused you about giving of your time to charity or worthy causes, the arrogance is all yours. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 29, 2009 7:51 AM:

" Don't count on it Medic, entering heaven or being higher than I. Once its over its over, and we are all the same to the worms. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 29, 2009 7:55 AM:

" Oh and Medic you might want to refresh your memory about the parts in the Bible about self-rightousness, God really frowns on that, it is another one of those traits he considers an abomination. Since I don't need to be saved from anything, I am not worried about that aspect AND as I said on other posts if there is any TRUTH to the concept of Gods Grace, it will be granted to everyone, even you. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 29, 2009 8:04 AM:

" Mr. Hendren by pointing out how two words Malakos and Arsenokoitai have been mistranslated is not saying that effeminate men should be persecuted. Go back and read my first point. People need to and must learn to read the Bible thoughtfully and make responsible compassionate decisions that are appropriate for our time and place. The Bible as I have said many times though not the absolute TRUTH is still full of great wisdom and has much to teach those that will read it thoughtfully. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 29, 2009 8:09 AM:

" Also Mr. Hendren to respect anothers beliefs doesn't mean you can't speak of your own, defend your own, or promote the beliefs of others. You forget that this forum is specifically for the FREE and OPEN exchange if ideas. If I walked into you church and started objecting you'd have the right to ask me to leave. BUT on this forum we all have the RIGHT to speak up and doing so is not disrespectful, or intolerant, it is the principle this country is founded on FREEDOM, of speech, of religion, to think, to learn, to educate ones self..... "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 29, 2009 8:11 AM:

" Also Mr. Hendren the society that ignores intolerance, allows intolerance in the name of tolerance will be destroyed by it. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 29, 2009 8:14 AM:

" One last thing Mr. Hendren you do not follow the word of God, you follow mans interpretation of what they claimed was the word of God. Somehow even you will have to figure out what really is and what really isn't Gods "word", God "inspired", and humans twisting and perverting of TRUTH for human purposes. (which by the way includes power and greed and fear) "

father bob wrote on Apr 29, 2009 9:00 AM:

" a political analyst projected the republican party only representing 10% of voters by 2012. "

father bob wrote on Apr 29, 2009 9:03 AM:

" homosexuality, abortion, guns.....

homosexuality, abortion, guns.....

homosexuality, abortion, guns.....

homosexuality, abortion, guns.....

yawn... "

gringa wrote on Apr 29, 2009 9:11 AM:

" The Question, I would agree with you if you had only substituted the word 'understood' for the word 'read'. LOL "

jayce wrote on Apr 29, 2009 9:20 AM:

" Thank you jhendren post Apr.29, 2009--
You speak very well for many of us who do not know how to arrange our thoughts on paper. I totaly agree with your post.
God Bless! "

father bob wrote on Apr 29, 2009 9:24 AM:

" Tom Andres wrote on Apr 28, 2009 9:21 PM:
" Good Lord,Hahvahd, are you a female? Huh? You sound like a female. LOL. Go on now. Play. """"

lets see tommie, democrats, blacks, hispanics, women.....

sorry, conservative white protestant males don't rule the world any more.

you need to just relax and watch ozzie and harriet reruns on the TV channel. better yet maybe you need to run down to the bank and help jack pierce count his pennies....you guys would have a great time together reliving the pre-civil rights era. "

medic57 wrote on Apr 29, 2009 11:07 AM:

" Stealing a parking spot, could be as big a deal as madoff, when St Peter greets us at the pearly gates.

Mike P

Unless you take it home, stealing a parking spot is very hard. It is not illegal to cut in front of someone on the road, unless you hit them. "

Equalizer wrote on Apr 29, 2009 11:58 AM:

" Just laughing reading through this thread. It's mostly shumphreys and her other names, with just a few people in between LOL! "

Hahvahd wrote on Apr 29, 2009 12:11 PM:

" Father Bob, I shouldn't read your posts with food or beverage in my mouth. I laughed so hard when I read your Ozzie and Harriet post that I nearly sprayed my lunch on my computer screen. I nominate it for post of the day. "

even steven wrote on Apr 29, 2009 1:53 PM:

" Interestingly enough, liberal democrats want to afford child molestors the same protections as gays. http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1604 "

medic57 wrote on Apr 29, 2009 2:24 PM:

" Of course, persecution works both ways, Miss California lost The Miss America Contest because she said she believes marriage should be between a woman and a man. Strange that they should pick Miss California only to post this question to, and this particular question came from a Homosexual Judge.

No persecution there. "

father bob wrote on Apr 29, 2009 3:18 PM:

" medic57 wrote on Apr 29, 2009 2:24 PM:
" Of course, persecution works both ways, Miss California lost The Miss America Contest because she said she believes marriage should be between a woman and a man. Strange that they should pick Miss California only to post this question to, and this particular question came from a Homosexual Judge.

No persecution there. """""

i suppose you have unwavering proof of the travesty. "

Rotty wrote on Apr 29, 2009 4:02 PM:

" father bob wrote on Apr 29, 2009 3:18 PM:

"i suppose you have unwavering proof of the travesty."

.......

I know the story was on MSN's homepage a couple of weeks ago, I believe. "

The Question wrote on Apr 29, 2009 4:41 PM:

" Oh, Stevey. You're trying to denounce people who coddle and protect child molesters and you cite a Catholic League site?
Some jokes are really too obvious to be funny. "

father bob wrote on Apr 29, 2009 4:43 PM:

" wonder where the thread about our smelly smokers went...?? "

father bob wrote on Apr 29, 2009 4:45 PM:

" Rotty wrote on Apr 29, 2009 4:02 PM:
" father bob wrote on Apr 29, 2009 3:18 PM:

"i suppose you have unwavering proof of the travesty."

.......

I know the story was on MSN's homepage a couple of weeks ago, I believe. """"

"i believe"??.....kind of like saying you believe obama's muslim...it's been in print too. now if you have access to the judge's voting records let's have 'em. "

Harry Potter wrote on Apr 29, 2009 5:01 PM:

" (How am I doing Harry? Was that a rim shot I heard behind me? Do you suppose H thinks I'm funny yet?) "

Sorry Tom, but humor just isn't your forte. Perhaps you need to stick to whining about taxes and playing the religious card. "

medic57 wrote on Apr 29, 2009 5:24 PM:

" I suppose you have unwavering proof of the travesty.

Miss USA 2009
Main article: Miss USA 2009
Perez Hilton served as a judge for the Miss USA 2009 pageant in Las Vegas, Nevada on April 19, 2009.

During the Q&A portion of the contest, Hilton's question came to the Miss California representative, Carrie Prejean. Hilton asked:

Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?

Prejean responded:

Well I think its great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But thats how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you.

Hilton called the answer the worst answer in pageant history", remarking to ABC News; "She lost it because of that question. She was definitely the front-runner before that."[50] He stated that "There are various other ways she could have answered that question and still stayed true to herself without alienating millions of people" and on his video blog remarked "She lost not because she doesnt believe in gay marriage, she lost because shes a dumb b_tch.

Doesn't get much more unwavering than that. "

medic57 wrote on Apr 29, 2009 6:29 PM:

" Perez Hilton called Miss California a dumb B_tch. Now there's a man that shows how to be a Miss America Judge. "

medic57 wrote on Apr 29, 2009 7:08 PM:

" Before anyone notices, excuse me, Miss USA. "

Rotty wrote on Apr 29, 2009 8:26 PM:

" [snickers]

Honyock!

ROTFLMAO! "

medic57 wrote on Apr 29, 2009 8:58 PM:

" Is that enough proof FB?

Here you have a radical left wing Homosexual as a judge, what did anyone think his question to Miss California was goig to be, why wasn't this question ask of anyone else.

The Gay folk are still really peaved that Californians voted down Gay marriage. Let's see, the Gays and Lesbians wanted a constitutional vote in California, now that it was voted down, they want the Supreme Court to overturn it. No sour grapes there. "

Interested Observer wrote on Apr 29, 2009 9:09 PM:

" What many seem to be missing is that what one chooses to believe about the Bible is a PERSONAL choice that need not be reflected legislatively. Church and state are-- and should remain-- separate. "

medic57 wrote on Apr 29, 2009 9:43 PM:

" Yet, if you go into The Supreme Court, the walls are covered with Bible Scripture, not verses from The Koran, nor sayings from Budda, or any other presumed religious leader throughout time. "

The Question wrote on Apr 29, 2009 10:50 PM:

" The walls of a building aren't the supreme law of the land and the charter of the U.S., Meds. That would be the Constitution, which contains no mention of God, and that omission is deliberate. It does, however, forbid the use of religion as a consideration for public office. "

jrhendren wrote on Apr 29, 2009 11:32 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Apr 29, 2009 8:09 AM:
" Also Mr. Hendren to respect anothers beliefs doesn't mean you can't speak of your own, defend your own, or promote the beliefs of others. You forget that this forum is specifically for the FREE and OPEN exchange if ideas. If I walked into you church and started objecting you'd have the right to ask me to leave. BUT on this forum we all have the RIGHT to speak up and doing so is not disrespectful, or intolerant, it is the principle this country is founded on FREEDOM, of speech, of religion, to think, to learn, to educate ones self..... "

That is exactly what I said. It's nice to see you agreeing with me. You and yours are the ones, saying how stupid we are and how wrong we are for not believing your way. I am the one who said, "I do not believe as you, so what! You have the right to believe as you want, and lobby your government to vote how you want." Just to show your agreement with me. Oh and you are the one saying to prosecute men who act feminine. Shame on you. Why would you condemn someone for who they are? I do have another question for you. You said, "Jesus used malakos three times and it meant soft." Where is it that Jesus used "malakos", since you did not cite the sources? I know and in what context, but do you? You say to "People need to and must learn to read the Bible thoughtfully and make responsible compassionate decisions that are appropriate for our time and place." I could not agree anymore, so please do so. As for your rants about the translations, you might want to do some research on why the different translations came about. Including the four different Gospels and there individual themes. I could let you read the lengthy paper I wrote in college regarding the subject. On second thought, you should do the research yourself, you learn more that way.

I would say to all who read this. Read the Scriptures for yourself. Study them, and pray about them and do not take my nor Ms/Mrs Humphreys word for it. God reveals the truth to those who truly seek him. As John 8:32 says, "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." "

medic57 wrote on Apr 30, 2009 6:48 AM:

" jrhendren is right about 1 thing, if you read the Bible but do not ask God for guidence beforehand, then you might as well read a blank piece of paper.

jrhendren wrote: As for your rants about the translations, you might want to do some research on why the different translations came about. Including the four different Gospels and there individual themes. I could let you read the lengthy paper I wrote in college regarding the subject. On second thought, you should do the research yourself, you learn more that way.

For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary. For those who dont, no explanation will suffice. "

CrowWoman wrote on Apr 30, 2009 6:51 AM:

" According to a Quinnipiac University poll, 'Among those with a gay friend or relative, half supported same-sex marriage, while those without a gay friend or relative were opposed by 70-25 percent.'"

Obviously, when you know and love someone who is gay, you do not see him or her as the scary, threatening Other who is out to destroy the traditional family.

Jrhendren, your claim to superior Bible scholarship has to be taken with a grain of salt. Scholars' interpretations of Old and New Testament texts vary greatly. There are conservative views and liberal views represented in current scolarship, and all can cite (and parse) Scripture text to support their views.

At any rate, I believe if Christians denounced out-of-wedlock hetero sex and divorce as vehemently as they do homosexuality, they might be taken more seriously. At least they wouldn't come across as quite so hypocritical. "

Harry Potter wrote on Apr 30, 2009 6:59 AM:

" Interested Observer wrote on Apr 29, 2009 9:09 PM:

" What many seem to be missing is that what one chooses to believe about the Bible is a PERSONAL choice that need not be reflected legislatively. Church and state are-- and should remain-- separate. "

Excellent observation. I have to wonder about the sincerity of those who wear their religion on their sleeve, and feel a need to push their beliefs onto others. You're right, one's religion is a personal thing. The fact that there are so many different denominations in Christianity supports the idea that the Bible is open to interpretation. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 30, 2009 7:39 AM:

" No Mr. Hendren we have not and are not saying how wrong you are,we are saying make responsible arguments, we are saying if you are going to use the Bible to prove your point we can use the Bible to prove the opposite point,if you want to simply say this is what "I" believe that is quite different from declaring this is the TRUTH. Do You get my point? "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 30, 2009 7:41 AM:

" Again Mr. Hendren you are WRONG, I have never said men should be persecuted for being effeminate, you are the ONE that makes that claim. I am simply pointing out what the Bible actually says. Reread my first point in this letter. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 30, 2009 7:49 AM:

" Mr. Hendren Jesus used the word when he spoke of John the Baptist in Matthew 11:8 Behold a man clothed in soft (malekos) raiment.... Luke 7:25 also gives a similar version of the same encounter. Now I have frequently referred people to look up check references and cite my references. How often do you suggest people check the sources? For the purposes here it isn't about WHY the different translations came about it is that there ARE different translations and which one of us is to decide/declare which translation is the one, the only, the absolute correct, inerrant, infallible,TRUTH, "Word of God"? "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 30, 2009 7:54 AM:

" If the words of Miss California reported here are verbatim I'd say she lost for being out of touch with current events in her own country and what is happening in the world. Too dumb, too naive, too uninterested in the world to represent it. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 30, 2009 8:03 AM:

" Oh and Mr. Hendren, I don't think you will find any place in the New Testament where Jesus advises folks to persecute those that are different whatever their differences: ethnicity, gender, sinful acts or natures, sexual preference, wealth, social status.... It seems that only fundamentalists seem to think that the Bible gives them a license to persecute those that are different. "

Why Not wrote on Apr 30, 2009 8:12 AM:

" No it isn't...Yes it is...No it isn't...Yes it is...anyway, I didn't waste my time reading this article OR any of the posts...I just figured the No it isn't...Yes it is arguement probably summed it up. "

P. Dan Tick wrote on Apr 30, 2009 8:17 AM:

" Why is everyone so afraid? Homosexuality isn't contagious like swine flu, is it? "

Hammbone wrote on Apr 30, 2009 11:17 AM:

" Just a story written by the Roman Empire. "The Greatest Story Ever Told" Ring any Bells? Duh. You don't want me to get started on the Roman Empire. Weak minded people I guess have to have something to believe in. "The sky is falling the sky is falling" . No just space junk and maybe a meteor. You want guidance get a compass,or a GPS unit. "

medic57 wrote on Apr 30, 2009 11:45 AM:

" Sorry Susan

She lost out because a blatantly homosexual judge ask her, and only her, about homosexual marriage. When she spoke her feelings (freedom of speech) he called her a dumb b_tch.

Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.

There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association ( NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is "SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE." This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States.

Leaving religion out of the whole mess, what part of this lifestyle doesn't csream Sick and Illegal. "

Obamama wrote on Apr 30, 2009 1:10 PM:

" Okay here is my concern or wonder about freedom in America.

We obviously are never going to agree on right and wrong. To one person two men together sticking you know what you know where is a tad unpleasent. But to two other people it might be exciting and desirable. So like forever....Marriage has been between 1 man and 1 woman. Somewhere along the line folks thought that was best. Now a large group a people are voicing their opinion that 2 adult males or 2 adults females should have the same right. But to me it is not the same. No matter how you look at it. Sure they may be in love, share many common things, but it is not the same and marriage between 1 man and 1 women.

I do not want anyone to feel left out or offended. That would not allow them to experience the freedom of the USA. So if we allow a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. Should we not let a cousin marry a cousin, or a brother to marry a sister. Sure it may be distasteful to lots....but to some it is not. They are adults who fell in love. Why can you only marry one person. Is that not discriminating from someone who wants to be married to several. or a group be married to a different group. They are adults who love each other. It is not their fault that they have these feelings and just because they are not the majority they should be able to live the life they want. They were born this way.

And then we can move on to age? Who set up the age limits anyway. Even though to me it is disgusting to think of a 54 year old man with a 13 year old girl. To some this is not. They were born that way.

Where do you draw the line with freedom? "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 30, 2009 2:58 PM:

" Medic NAMBLA sates on its own website, "We condemn sexual abuse and all forms of coercion." Or did you not bother to read about the group? What part of condemning abuse and coercion do you not understand? So now homosexuals are responsible for Aids, what about IV drug users, and bisexuals and heterosexuals, and blood transfusions. Blaming aids on homosexuals is like blaming typhoid on all the Marys of this world. If you are so afraid of Aids, don't have sex, don't use IV drugs and don't ever get a transfusion. In fact you might as well just crawl into a cave and hide, cause the homosexuals are out to get you. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 30, 2009 3:10 PM:

" Sorry Obamamama those arguments have been tried before and fall flat. There is such a concept of willing consent, between adults. Children are not in a position to provide willing consent. As to polygamy, one man many wives only if you allow one woman many husbands, fair is fair, and the many are freely consenting adults, not coerced or sold into marriage by domineering parents or guardians. The issue with first cousin and brother sister marriage is a health issue about birth defects, perhaps if both are voluntarily sterilized, so that an innocent third party isn't created. The problem of couples not closely related and knowingly having genetic defects that they pass to their offspring is another issue that this country and others will have to face eventually, probably not in our life times, but who knows. So when you think about it from genetic birth defect point of view, same sex unions are far more sensible than heterosexual unions, especially in this day and age with invitro fertilization and designer babies where birth defects can be screened out. No need for the old fashioned one man and one woman silliness at all! "

gringa wrote on Apr 30, 2009 3:20 PM:

" Obamama asks a good question: Where do you draw the line with freedom?

I know I'm just one voice of many on here, but here's my suggestion. Just to be on the safe side, let's draw a line all the way around Oakland. Everyone outside the circle has freedoms, OK? LOL "

Obamama wrote on Apr 30, 2009 3:57 PM:

" shumphreys... it is obamama.

And it sounds like you are being a little judgmental on family member love. And asking folks to get fixed to get married. Are you serious? Wow that is showing some love.

I never said anything about 1 man and many wives. I did say what if someone wants to be married to several people. Or one couple a male/male to another couple male/female. or female/female to male/male. or female to male/male to female/female to male/female to male. That one would be fun.

By the way I am all for Civil Unions or GAY marriage. But I am not for marriage as we know it being redefined.....because it is not the same. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 30, 2009 4:13 PM:

" Obamamama I read your post, and I pointed out that fair is fair if there are to be multiple unions of any kind they should go in all directions and be guided by the same rules as one on one unions, free consent between adults. I am also not advocating sterilization although it would be a good idea, I am pointing out the issues involved with genetic birth defects. You are the one who jumps to conclusions and is judgmental. There are many traditions in this nation that we decided needed to be changed, women not being allowed to work outside the home, children being forced to work outside the home, racial discrimination. The "tradition" argument doesn't cut it when we are talking about unequal treatment under the law. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 30, 2009 4:15 PM:

" That's fine with me Gringa, perhaps you should check the phone book, I don't live in Oakland! "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 30, 2009 4:16 PM:

" Perhaps Gringa there should be an IQ test for posters. Think you'd make the cut? "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 30, 2009 4:20 PM:

" For you posters that watch the Miss Universe or whatever it was pageant. Did that "homosexual" judge that Medic is all fired up about ask the same question to all the other contestants and singled out Miss California for the one "special" question or were many different questions asked to other contestants? What about the other judges did they ask the exact same question of ALL the contestants or did they also ask a variety of questions. "

Interested Observer wrote on Apr 30, 2009 4:25 PM:

" Harry Potter-- Thank you. I am a devout Catholic and, despite what many THINK my Church says about homosexuals and homosexuality, I am taught to love my gay brothers and sisters, as Christ would and does. While I may personally believe that same-sex acts are *sinful*, that does not mean that I also believe that those same acts should be punished criminally or civilly. Thank you for understanding the difference. "

Verita wrote on Apr 30, 2009 4:40 PM:

" Kudos to those of you who have stood up for denouncing homosexuality. It may be a choice some make but it doesn't make it right "

medic57 wrote on Apr 30, 2009 4:46 PM:

" Susan

One of the group's arguments is that age of consent laws unnecessarily criminalize sexual relationships between adults and minors (particularly boys).[8] In 1980 a NAMBLA general meeting passed a resolution, which said: "(1) The North American Man/Boy Love Association calls for the abolition of age-of-consent and all other laws which prevent men and boys from freely enjoying their bodies. (2) We call for the release of all men and boys imprisoned by such laws."[8] This policy was still in NAMBLA's "official position papers.

Is there ANY part of those sentences that don't sound totally disgusting?

Also Susan, Homosexuals are the number 1 reason aid's spreads, more than all of the other reasons combined. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 30, 2009 4:48 PM:

" Oh and Medic a woman wouldn't go through eight months of expectation, planning, expense, discomfort and threats to her health than suddenly wake up one morning and say "I've had enough of this sh--, or I'm tired of this game it isn't fun any more, lets cut this thing out of me." Only a person like you would think or imply that decisions made at this stage of a pregnancy are done for TRIVIAL reasons. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 30, 2009 4:51 PM:

" Oops I think I just posted on this thread something that should have gone on the Abortion one. It doesn't matter since the same "compaaionate" poster the post was written to is on both. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 30, 2009 4:58 PM:

" Medic there are folks and websites and groups out there still in support of white supremacy, and folks that want to carry concealed weapons, do we condemn all whites or all NRA members or all Christians for the extremeists in their midst? Or do we learn to tell the difference between extreme positions and standup for the rights of ALL, based on free, and non coerced, consent. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 30, 2009 5:05 PM:

" Oh and Medic using your logic we should BAN ALL Sexual activity. Ever hear of Gonorhea, Syphlis, Herpes? All spread by sexual contact, heterosexual or homosexual, doesn't matter. Actually Paul seemed to favor celibacy. Maybe he was on to something? "

Mike P wrote on Apr 30, 2009 5:13 PM:

" Hate the sin, not the sinner.

Bottom line is it is against the law to discriminate, based on actual or percieved sexual orientation. It should only be a matter of time, before the supreme court makes gay marriage bans a moot point. No civil unions, no partial rights, no second class certificates. Even with a conservative leaning court, mariage isn't in the constitution, discrimination and equal rights are. Denying same sex mariage is unconstitutional.

Persecuting individuals based on religion is what extremist groups often are built on. Its not very christian, but many an atrocity has been commited under the banner of the cross. The first crusade was in 1095. "

AnnaNiemaus wrote on Apr 30, 2009 9:14 PM:

" Well said, Mike P. Be careful, or you'll be accused of being one of susan's alter-egos too. "

HerChild wrote on Apr 30, 2009 10:14 PM:

" CHARLESTON SUCKS!
The recycling bins were gone at PM when we went there. Did they take them away this morning instead of waiting until midnight, or tomorrow morning? "

CHILL! wrote on Apr 30, 2009 10:43 PM:

" HerChild...what time PM?
They were gone at 6:15 PM when we went,
we thought they'd be there until midnight anyways, but nope, not our fine city. "

jrhendren wrote on Apr 30, 2009 11:38 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Apr 30, 2009 7:39 AM:
" No Mr. Hendren we have not and are not saying how wrong you are,we are saying make responsible arguments, we are saying if you are going to use the Bible to prove your point we can use the Bible to prove the opposite point"

Problem is you are twisting the Scriptures to say what you want them to say.

shumphreys wrote on Apr 30, 2009 7:41 AM:
" Again Mr. Hendren you are WRONG, I have never said men should be persecuted for being effeminate, you are the ONE that makes that claim. I am simply pointing out what the Bible actually says."

You are the very one saying that. If the Scriptures say, as you say, God is saying the feminine male will not inherit the kingdom of God. I have said that those who perform in the homosexual act are in danger of not inheriting. You are the one who says "homosexual" in the verse really means a "feminine man". Are you now saying that is not what the verse is saying. Make up our minds. Which is it, one who is gives into homosexual acts, or feminine men? Translating the Scriptures as you say they should be the passage should read, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor (feminine or soft men) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Are you now trying to say that is not what you said. Although on this and other posts you have repeatedly said that it should have been translated "soft" as in feminine. Which is it?

shumphreys wrote on Apr 30, 2009 7:49 AM:
For the purposes here it isn't about WHY the different translations came about it is that there ARE different translations and which one of us is to decide/declare which translation is the one, the only, the absolute correct, inerrant, infallible,TRUTH, "Word of God"? "

You realize your own statement here is a contradiction right? The reason their ARE different translation coincides entirely with WHY we have different translations. One great example is the King James Version. The KJ was written years before the Dead Sea Scrolls and older more reliable manuscripts were found. Not to mention the transformation from Old English to New English. The number of Scholars who looked into the manuscripts to get the most reliable translations. We now have translations who did take the new finds and English into consideration. I would say that "ARE" and "WHY" are joined. Oh and I believe I was the one who told others to look for themselves not you, but that's okay. "

jrhendren wrote on May 1, 2009 12:09 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Apr 30, 2009 8:03 AM:
" Oh and Mr. Hendren, I don't think you will find any place in the New Testament where Jesus advises folks to persecute those that are different whatever their differences: ethnicity, gender, sinful acts or natures, sexual preference, wealth, social status.... It seems that only fundamentalists seem to think that the Bible gives them a license to persecute those that are different. "

Persecution and disagreeing are far from the same wouldn't you say. Although how is it that if I say, someone is living wrong, I am persecuting, but if you say someone is wrong then its enlightenment? Last time I checked I never did, not encouraged, anyone to bomb, torture, abuse, or flog anyone for their beliefs. Unlike those who call themselves "Christian" get. Hmmmm, maybe you have redefined persecution. Jesus did however warn, as we do, that those who do not live right will not inherit the kingdom of God, and be in danger of the Lake of Fire. Here are some quotes for you:

"From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." - Matthew 4:17
To those who like to insult:
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. - Matthew 5:22
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" - Matthew 7:21
When Jesus sent out the twe3lve they were instructed, "If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." - Matthew 10:13-15
"Jesus asked them. "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.'" - Matthew 15:16-20
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to..." - Matthew 23:13 (all of 23)
"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?..." - Matthew 23:33
"The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." - Matthew 26:24

These are just a few passages from Matthew there are a lot more if you would like them. In ever case Jesus is, by your new definition, persecuting. I say he is teaching them and us. Telling someone they are living a sinful life is no more wrong then telling someone, "Hey don't go in their, it's being robbed." I guess by your definition we should let them walk into the robbery and get shot. "

medic57 wrote on May 1, 2009 10:41 AM:

" I don't understand why The Christian Religion only has 3 Holidays. "

shumphreys wrote on May 1, 2009 10:42 AM:

" Pay attention Mr. Hendren I am saying that the Bible does NOT support the persecution of ANY person for ANY reason: sexual orientation, gender, race, ethnicity, being effeminate rather than "manly". The passage we are referring to in this particular instance, saying such and such a person will not inherit the kingdom of God is NOT telling YOU to go out and persecute that person. I am also pointing out what the Greek words mean, I didn't write them, put them in there you have to blame others for that. If you are upset about not inheriting the kingdom of God because YOU are effeminate than you have a problem. "

shumphreys wrote on May 1, 2009 10:45 AM:

" Sorry Mr. Hendren I have been referring people to source materials since I started writing three years ago. There are many reasons WHY there are different translations, but as I said my purpose here is to get people to simply realize that there ARE many different translations, which many on these threads refuse to accept. "

shumphreys wrote on May 1, 2009 10:52 AM:

" NO Mr. Hendren Jesus is not telling you to deny those folks the same legal rights that other folks have. He is not telling you to throw stones at them, to call them names, to refuse to sell them a home, to deny them the right to vote--those actions are persecution Mr. Hendren. In fact Jesus goes so far as to tell you NOT to throw stones, NOT to worry about the mote in your brothers eye when you have a beam in your own. You don't seem to havee any comprehension of what persecution is. Perhaps you should look the word up in a regular dictionary. Now as far as inheriting the "kingdom of God" goes, shall we discuss/sort out exactly what Jesus really meant from what others have misinterpreted what he meant? Ah but that would take quite a bit of sorting and something I fear is beyond your current capability. "

theproletariat87 wrote on May 1, 2009 2:12 PM:

" Open her heart to what; chauvism, xenophobia, war, sexual repression, or how the tuetonic knights came in a slaughtered women, childern, and other innocences in Lithunia for being pagan? So tell me dan lewis what is there to open your heart too? Jesus was a good philospher that no one seems to follow. Do you think jesus literally wants people to rip out their eyes for looking at a woman lustfully? In fact I have a friend who is a lesbian and a christian so do you think Jesus wants her persecuted, or in hell? One more for good measure: Or how Moses was told to kill innocent women and children of the Philistines during the reconquest of Judah? By the way Buddha and Jesus had extremely similar teachings, so does that make Buddhist evil for being in a complete different part of the world? Its hard for me to want to be apart of a religion like Christianity when I am told to submit to authority and unblinding faith? Sound facist to me, so what should she and I open our hearts too? "

The Question wrote on May 1, 2009 2:14 PM:

" The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support torture, according to a survey.
Jesus must be so proud of his little sheep. "

nursymomy wrote on May 1, 2009 2:41 PM:

" 1. I find this thread and others thought provoking and being somewhat respectful I must say
a. Susan you sound a lot like my kids when they are losing an arguement and don't want to admit it so they come up with something that makes even less sense than what they began with.
b. I have taken sociology and religion does have a purpose in the shape of ALL societies. I'm just glad that ours is not like the Etoro of New Guinea.
c. I can't believe I read the whole thing!Boy can you guys argue
d. Just for the record, I am a Christian. I believe that the Bible says homosexual acts are wrong. I have done the research (psychology, physiology, anatomy & sociology) and yes a SMALL portion of the population are born with minds that develop like the opposite sex. Strangely enough a large number of these are the ones who don't want to have homosexual thoughts or feelings. And I do have homosexual aquaintances who are OPPOSED to the gay marriage issue. One of them is in respect to her parents feelings on the issue. Neither of the two feels that classifying it as marriage is necessary.
I'll jump off my soapbox and see what comes next. "

AllYouNeedIsLove wrote on May 1, 2009 4:40 PM:

" My problem with the gay marriage debate is the issue of Democracy. Many gay rights groups are pushing gay marriage through legislation and not through the voters. I think it is because, for example, in California's case, the people voted against gay marriage, so clearly the majority of people in that state did not want gay marriage. Our USA is based on Democracy, for the people, by the people. The majority of the USA clearly is against gay marriage. If the government is overriding what the people want, how is that Democracy? What is more important: so-called equal rights that go against some's religion or losing our Democracy? To me, I am more concerned about losing our Democracy. If they try to pass it in our state, we have to tell legislators, "Let us vote on it!" That is the only way to be fair in a Democracy... "

medic57 wrote on May 1, 2009 7:22 PM:

" Using Bible to denounce homosexuality is wrong.

Susan, you don't have to use the Bible to denounce Homosexuality, the Bible does that by itsself.

to deny them the right to vote

Susan

Where in the United States are Homosexuals denied the right to vote?

Susan

The ONLY way to inheirit the Kingdom of God is through Jesus Christ.

theproletariat87 wrote:
In fact I have a friend who is a lesbian and a christian.

Sorry, but, no you don't.

theproletariat87 wrote:

Its hard for me to want to be apart of a religion like Christianity when I am told to submit to authority and unblinding faith? Sound facist to me, so what should she and I open our hearts too?

You should open your hearts to Jesus.

Question

Of all the people I have ever known or met, I have yet to meet one that believes in torture. "

M wrote on May 1, 2009 8:52 PM:

" The Bible should not be picked apart by people whose intentions are selfish; although God understood that it would be. If it is to be picked apart it should be with the intent of earnestly desiring to be as Christ wants for us to be. Our world is made up of both Godly and un-Godly people, the latter will seek to pervert even the seemingly less significant portions of the word of God. The Bible is an available resource, inspired by God, for any of us who choose to use it. "

medic57 wrote on May 1, 2009 10:13 PM:

" You don't have to use only the Bible to denounce Homosexuality, It is denounced by EVERY major religion in the world, and, in a lot of countries, being homosexual gets you the death penalty. "

jrhendren wrote on May 1, 2009 11:31 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 1, 2009 10:42 AM:
" Pay attention Mr. Hendren I am saying that the Bible does NOT support the persecution of ANY person for ANY reason: sexual orientation, gender, race, ethnicity, being effeminate rather than "manly". The passage we are referring to in this particular instance, saying such and such a person will not inherit the kingdom of God is NOT telling YOU to go out and persecute that person. I am also pointing out what the Greek words mean, I didn't write them, put them in there you have to blame others for that. If you are upset about not inheriting the kingdom of God because YOU are effeminate than you have a problem. "

Wow! Someone seems angry. Someone does not like to have their own words used against them.

shumphreys wrote on May 1, 2009 10:52 AM:
" NO Mr. Hendren Jesus is not telling you to deny those folks the same legal rights that other folks have. He is not telling you to throw stones at them, to call them names, to refuse to sell them a home, to deny them the right to vote--those actions are persecution Mr. Hendren. In fact Jesus goes so far as to tell you NOT to throw stones, NOT to worry about the mote in your brothers eye when you have a beam in your own. You don't seem to havee any comprehension of what persecution is. Perhaps you should look the word up in a regular dictionary.

"Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group." There I looked it up for you. Problem is true Christians are not mistreating individuals or groups. In fact in most cases it is the other way around. It is the Christian, like for some many centuries, who is persecuted. Persecuted for have morals and ethics. We are voicing our opinions, just as you do. Funny once again, our opinions are persecution, yours our to be praised. We have insults hurled at us, and that is great. If we quote the Bible we are persecuting. Would you like to be the pot or the kettle? Remember whether you like it or not. It is you who is trying to persecute the person, with your "soft" comments, where I am condemning the sin, not the person. The truth is hard to swallow, but remember sets us free.

Now as far as inheriting the "kingdom of God" goes, shall we discuss/sort out exactly what Jesus really meant from what others have misinterpreted what he meant? Ah but that would take quite a bit of sorting and something I fear is beyond your current capability. "

I believe you meant to say that it is beyond your current capability. I have taken interpretation classes, Greek classes, Old and New Testament History classes, Ancient History classes, Biblical Principal classes, and many others. This is not say I am a master in the field, but do have some credentials in the field. You can't really call it interpretation if you are just making things say what you want them to say. As you try to do. "

jrhendren wrote on May 1, 2009 11:45 PM:

" The Question wrote on May 1, 2009 2:14 PM:
" The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support torture, according to a survey.
Jesus must be so proud of his little sheep. "

You really shouldn't quote a slanted report from the Huffington Post, or at least use more then one source. Heck I could survey the idiots in Kansas and then say, "Christians say, soldiers should all die." Problem is those fanatics are not true Christians, just using the name. The answer also has a lot to do with what your definition of "torture" is. If you define it as not letting someone out of a cell for days, then I would say it is okay. If you say it is pulling their nails out one by one, no it is not okay. Of course both CNN and the Huffington Post do not give such a definition. Wonder why? "

shumphreys wrote on May 2, 2009 7:19 AM:

" All You Need Is...our society is designed to protect the rights of the minority against the majority. Reread my first point above. The majority have committed immoral actions before, they sanctified slavery, child labor, stoning to death adulterers, supported the Salem witch hunts...... need I go on? Oh and more recently, support torture and the violation of International Conventions. "

shumphreys wrote on May 2, 2009 7:21 AM:

" To Nursy Mommy perhaps you should try listening to the arguments your children make, you have obviously not paid attention to the arguments made here. NO one has come forth with a sound argument to dispute the points in my letter. "

shumphreys wrote on May 2, 2009 7:25 AM:

" Medic I have pointed out the Bible can NOT be used to denounce homosexual behavior or homosexuals. What part of that statement do you not get? Just saying over and over that it does, doesn't cut it. Present your proof. I have presented my points, tear them apart if you can. If you can't then they stand as TRUTH. "

shumphreys wrote on May 2, 2009 7:27 AM:

" M. of course the Bible should be picked apart, that is the only way to plumb its depths and really come to understand what it has to say. Though not the word of God, only the word of men claiming to be inspired by God, it is still a good book and well worth reading. "

shumphreys wrote on May 2, 2009 10:10 AM:

" Honestly Medic Buddhists don't denounce homosexuality. Or do you not consider them a religion or not a major religion? "

deep thoughts 45 wrote on May 2, 2009 12:03 PM:

" We must be careful to not mix the Old with the New Covenants. The life that we live as Christians now is solely taken from the New Testament. The Old Testament is there to let us know what we have been set free from. Also, anyone who does not have the Spirit of God in their life cannot understand the things of God. Since Susan is not a born again Christian she cannot understand the things of God especially the Word of God. Once a person becomes a born again Christian your mind is open to the Spirit of God and you began to see things clearly in the scriptures. The debate ends when the person debating doesn't know the author of the book that are debating. "

jrhendren wrote on May 2, 2009 11:20 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 2, 2009 7:19 AM:
" All You Need Is...our society is designed to protect the rights of the minority against the majority. Reread my first point above. The majority have committed immoral actions before, they sanctified slavery, child labor, stoning to death adulterers, supported the Salem witch hunts...... need I go on? Oh and more recently, support torture and the violation of International Conventions."

So what the majority wants does not matter. I am sure Congress would like to argue that. Lets look at some of these tragedies. Ku Klux Klan no wait that was a minority. The Nazi party, nope another minority. The Black Panthers, nope actually a minority of the minority. Those wanting slavery their we, no wait there were less people in the South. Also large areas of the South did not have slaves. You mention the witch hunts, no wait that was once again foolishness from a minority of the people. The fanatics who protest soldiers funerals, nope again a minority who use the name "Christian", but do not live it. Well I guess we can always just believe you with out fact. It seems to work for you.

Medic sorry to insert my 2 cents but just had to.

"Buddhism teaches that sensual enjoyment and desire in general, and sexual pleasure in particular, are hindrances to enlightenment" - Buddist Views On Sexuality. The Dali Lama has denounced homosexual acts. Other then that nope "Buddhists don't denounce homosexuality". You really do make this up as you go along. "

jrhendren wrote on May 2, 2009 11:22 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 2, 2009 7:21 AM:
" To Nursy Mommy perhaps you should try listening to the arguments your children make, you have obviously not paid attention to the arguments made here. NO one has come forth with a sound argument to dispute the points in my letter. "

Except everyone who has come forth to dispute what you say, and twist. Other then us, nope no one has come forth. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 2, 2009 11:23 PM:

" Here is a note from my Catholic Study Bible--and we all know the Catholic position re. homosexuality.

I Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolators nor adulterers nor BOY PROSTITUTES nor SODOMITES nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

The study text that accompanies this reads, "The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, boys or young men who were kept for the purposes of prostitution....The term translated sodomites would then refer to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnation of such practices in Rom. 1:26-27 and I Timothy 1:10.

Funny, jrhendren, but this sounds a lot like what Susan said in her letter about those New Testament passages. You seem very quick to dismiss (even ridicule) this interpretation, but it is obviously a sound one. Is the problem that it disagrees with what you learned in your particular classes in Greek and biblical history?

Unlike Susan, I can't make the jump from there to say that the Bible claims homosexuality is okay. But I do wonder why Jesus never spoke against it--noticing that he did not hesitate to speak out on a subject he felt he needed to address. Incidentally, he usually spoke out against religous people.

And I notice that the Bible equates homosexuality, in various places, with lying, thievery, gossip, and other such sins. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 2, 2009 11:30 PM:

" Problem is true Christians are not mistreating individuals or groups. In fact in most cases it is the other way around."

Who's to say who the "true Christians" are? Are they the ones who believe like you do? Almost certainly the Christians you declare to be false believe they are the only "true" ones.

"I have taken interpretation classes, Greek classes, Old and New Testament History classes, Ancient History classes, Biblical Principal classes, and many others."

And isn't what you learned from all of this is simply to parrot the viewpoint of the seminary you attended? To reflect the conservative line taken--not to mention scholarship practiced--by your professors?

Even in Biblical translations, there are subtle differences that tend to reflect the biases of the scholars producing them. The passages dealing with homosexuality provide a good example of this. Others are those that discuss divorce, and a couple that refer to women's roles in the New Testament church.

The truth sometimes gets lost by the wayside--lost and buried among what people want to see.

"Now as far as inheriting the "kingdom of God" goes, shall we discuss/sort out exactly what Jesus really meant from what others have misinterpreted what he meant?"

Aren't we a little arrogant here, believing we know "exactly what Jesus really meant?" Honestly, that is quite a claim--sounds like you've got him sorted out and boxed up quite nicely.

From deep thoughts, "Once a person becomes a born again Christian your mind is open to the Spirit of God and you began to see things clearly in the scriptures."

Then why do so many Christians from Bible-believing denominations disagree on what the Scriptures are saying? "

CrowWoman wrote on May 3, 2009 6:16 AM:

" Some words written by Paul that are often ignored in Christian circles:

I Corinthians 7:10-11: "To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): A wife should not separate from her husband--and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband--and a husband should not divorce his wife."

Funny, but even conservative churches are populated (and led) by divorced and remarried Christians. Obviously, words in even the New Testament are accepted--or ignored--based on the personal prejudices of its readers. "Must either remain single or be reconciled"--what's not to understand about that?

I think it was medic who said that lesbians cannot be Christians. Would medic also say that about divorced/remarried people? Or about gossips, liars, and adulterers?

Ridiculous. "

shumphreys wrote on May 3, 2009 7:48 AM:

" Mr. Hendren note I said come forth with a sound argument. You came forth but your arguments don't hold water. "

shumphreys wrote on May 3, 2009 7:53 AM:

" Honestly Mr. Hendren you get far too much exercise jumping to conclusions. I said our system is set up to protect the RIGHTS of the minority from the majority. That is NOT saying the rights of the majority don't matter. It says that the rights of ALL matter and I might add conflicts arise when the rights of one interfere with the rights of another. When that happens intelligent, reponsible, sane, compassionate people have to step in and in this case stick up for the rights of the minority. "

shumphreys wrote on May 3, 2009 8:00 AM:

" CrowWoman why are there so many denominations in the first place? Why did Catholics separate from Protestants and before that why did Eastern Orthodox goes its separate way from the Romans? Rhetorical for you and I but questions posters like Medic and Mr. Hendren have possibly never considered. How much easier it would have been if men hadn't interfered with their struggles over power and wealth in a religion that was meant to help people not harm them. "

Rockin Rotty wrote on May 3, 2009 9:15 AM:

" The JG-TC Jitterbug lives on. "

jrhendren wrote on May 5, 2009 12:10 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 2, 2009 11:30 PM:
" Problem is true Christians are not mistreating individuals or groups. In fact in most cases it is the other way around."

Who's to say who the "true Christians" are? Are they the ones who believe like you do? Almost certainly the Christians you declare to be false believe they are the only "true" ones.

They are the ones following the Scriptures and not trying to twist them into saying what they do not. Like that of God not condemning the act of homosexuality.

"I have taken interpretation classes, Greek classes, Old and New Testament History classes, Ancient History classes, Biblical Principal classes, and many others."

And isn't what you learned from all of this is simply to parrot the viewpoint of the seminary you attended? To reflect the conservative line taken--not to mention scholarship practiced--by your professors?

On the contrary. No assignment was excepted with out citations and references, and they could not be from our professors. Looking into the most reliable manuscripts and see what was written in the original Aramaic/Hebrew and Greek languages can not just be parroting. It lets one see for themselves what the Scriptures say. I have done several years of study both in and out of a classroom environment.

Even in Biblical translations, there are subtle differences that tend to reflect the biases of the scholars producing them. The passages dealing with homosexuality provide a good example of this. Others are those that discuss divorce, and a couple that refer to women's roles in the New Testament church.

That is in part that over time we have found better manuscripts, however in all the translations, the main points are always in agreement with each other. Every, non paraphrased, translation is in agreement with the topic of homosexuality. That being the to hate the sin, but not the person. Those trying to translate it into a "soft man" are actually doing more harm then they realize. They are saying that we are to hate feminine men, and that is not what the Scriptures say at all.

"Now as far as inheriting the "kingdom of God" goes, shall we discuss/sort out exactly what Jesus really meant from what others have misinterpreted what he meant?"

Aren't we a little arrogant here, believing we know "exactly what Jesus really meant?" Honestly, that is quite a claim--sounds like you've got him sorted out and boxed up quite nicely.

Not at all. We have the entire Scriptures to let us know what Christ was saying. It is those that use only a verse here and a verse there that fit into their mold that are arrogant. Do not misinterpret arrogance with faithfulness. I am faithful to God, and will always speak his word, joyfully, faithfully, and with an openheart. See this topic hits close to me and my family. So I do not speak against the homosexual act in lightheartedness.

From deep thoughts, "Once a person becomes a born again Christian your mind is open to the Spirit of God and you began to see things clearly in the scriptures."

Then why do so many Christians from Bible-believing denominations disagree on what the Scriptures are saying? "

Because to many of the churches today have become all touchy feely. Lets all get little warm fuzzies. We can't tell anyone not to quit sinning because they will get offended then not come here and our attendance will drop. It's not that they do not believe, they just do not want to hurt anyone's fellings. I once heard of a churches leader saying, "We can not always do what the Bible says, we have to do what the people want us to do." That is not the Christian church, that is the Devil's church. Satan is in the church because those are the ones he does not have, he already has those in the world. "

jrhendren wrote on May 5, 2009 12:25 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 3, 2009 7:48 AM:
" Mr. Hendren note I said come forth with a sound argument. You came forth but your arguments don't hold water. "

So all arguments that prove you wrong time and time again, don't hold water and are not sound.

shumphreys wrote on May 3, 2009 7:53 AM:
" Honestly Mr. Hendren you get far too much exercise jumping to conclusions. I said our system is set up to protect the RIGHTS of the minority from the majority. That is NOT saying the rights of the majority don't matter. It says that the rights of ALL matter and I might add conflicts arise when the rights of one interfere with the rights of another. When that happens intelligent, reponsible, sane, compassionate people have to step in and in this case stick up for the rights of the minority. "

Problem is not rights are being violated. Opinions are being voiced, the people are saying what they want and it is being told to bad. No one has gone to a state where gay marriage is allowed and started shooting. Are their protests? Yes, which is allowed by the Constitution. Did the people of California make a choice? Yes, were they told to bad, you chose wrong? Yes, they were. The minority needs to be equal, but not greater. If that was the case we would still have slavery, women would not be allowed to own property or vote. Abraham Lincoln and John Lydgate said it best, "You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you cant please all of the people all of the time. Who gets decide who these "sain, rational, compassionate, responsible," people are? You, me, the man down the street? The answer is yes, all of us. That is why we elect officials by a majority vote. We want someone who will look out for most of the people, all the people, and some of the people. "

jrhendren wrote on May 5, 2009 12:34 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 3, 2009 8:00 AM:
" CrowWoman why are there so many denominations in the first place? Why did Catholics separate from Protestants and before that why did Eastern Orthodox goes its separate way from the Romans? Rhetorical for you and I but questions posters like Medic and Mr. Hendren have possibly never considered. How much easier it would have been if men hadn't interfered with their struggles over power and wealth in a religion that was meant to help people not harm them. "

You got that backwards, Protestants separated form the Catholic church. In fact, for the very reasons you argue about. The church had become to involved with state matters, and would not let the "peasants" or minorities read the Scriptures. You might want to read more history in that era. Items like that of Luther, and others involved in the restoration movement. Funny how bad Christians are, yet they been here ever since Antioch in Acts 11. Yet other religions, have not, I guess that would be "Rhetorical for (Medic) and I but question posters like (you)." "

shumphreys wrote on May 5, 2009 9:23 AM:

" Mr. Hendren you seem to live in your own little world and I do mean little. Your version of Christianity, your interpretation of the Bible isn't any more correct than any other, no matter what you claim, and the fact that there are so many interpretations, so many scholars in disagreement proves my case. Homosexuals are persecuted and often that persecution is based on misunderstandings (reading into the Bible what you want it to say) of Biblical passages. AND Mr. Herndon you haven't disproven anything I said in this letter. You state I don't speak the truth but you haven't proven that I don't. There is a big difference. You need some proof Mr. Herndon not declarations of virtue or expertise. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 5, 2009 2:46 PM:

" jrhendren, how many "peasants" do you think were literate?

I respectfully suggest that you read about the Protestant break from a Catholic point of view. Not that you have to agree with what's being said, but being exposed to a different viewpoint might provide you with more awareness (not to mention depth) re. other branches of christendom.

You arrogantly suggest that Bible-believing Christians who do not believe as you do are those who have become "touchy-feely." That is not what I was talking about. I believe you said you're part of a restoration movement church; I am familiar with those beliefs. Another evangelical group would be the Baptists, whose beliefs are quite different from your own--such as those pertaining to eternal security--yet are based on their interpretation of Scripture. Or, you have Reformed Christians w/ their theology of predestination, again strictly based on Scripture. Among denominations, you have varying views on end times theology, again all Bible-based.

So, who is right and who is wrong? When the Baptist claims that the Holy Spirit is guiding her, are you going to claim otherwise? "

CrowWoman wrote on May 5, 2009 2:51 PM:

" Actually, jrhendren, many Baptists (and similar non-denominational groups) would question your salvation. They would not see you as a "real Christian" at all! (That's assuming you embrace restoration movement doctrine with its views on baptism.) They would say that you're trying to get to heaven through "works of the flesh." "

shumphreys wrote on May 5, 2009 3:21 PM:

" Actually Mr. Hendren Christianity is a young religion. Hinduism is the oldest of the worlds religions with Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism not far behind. The oldest of the Hindu scriptures the Rig Veda was compiled around 1000 BCE. Lao Tzu was born around 604 BCE and died around 531 BCE and Confucius was born 551 and died 479. And the Buddha was born around 566 and died around 486 BCE. Great wisdom that has endured to this day. "

jrhendren wrote on May 5, 2009 11:23 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 5, 2009 9:23 AM:
" Mr. Hendren you seem to live in your own little world and I do mean little. Your version of Christianity, your interpretation of the Bible isn't any more correct than any other, no matter what you claim, and the fact that there are so many interpretations, so many scholars in disagreement proves my case.

First, are you actually saying that the writers of the Scriptures, whom were inspired by God, did not know what they were writing. Yet you do? I am just going by what the Scriptures say, at face value, cross referencing Scriptures together. You are the one who seems to be living in their own little world. Funny how I am associated with one of the largest religions in the world, yet you claim it to be small. Secondly, if you really knew anything about the different translations you would know that they, except paraphrased versions, are all in agreement with each other when it comes to points of matter. You would also know about the newer found manuscripts. Example being that the original King James Version was written before the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Homosexuals are persecuted and often that persecution is based on misunderstandings (reading into the Bible what you want it to say) of Biblical passages.

This statement is complete political spin. You are the one who reads into Scriptures what you want them to say. Just as you try and bring up the Law without knowing the reason the Law was given. Show me were a true Bible follower, not a far out cult using the name Christian to hide from the government, has persecuted homosexuals. While your doing that look throughout history and you will see Christian persecution. I guess that does not count though.

AND Mr. Herndon you haven't disproven anything I said in this letter. You state I don't speak the truth but you haven't proven that I don't. There is a big difference. You need some proof Mr. Herndon not declarations of virtue or expertise. "

I have proven over and over, and its Hendren not Herndon. My family unfortunately was not in law with Mr. Lincoln. I have proven with expertise you are wrong. The fact, that you do not want to listen does not make it wrong. Just as calling Cubic Zirconium a Diamond does not make it a Diamond. I have shown you Scripturally, and by the languages used. You are the one who twisted Scripture to alienate a group of people. You not me, and then say you are speaking for those who can't. "

jrhendren wrote on May 5, 2009 11:38 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 5, 2009 2:46 PM:
" jrhendren, how many "peasants" do you think were literate?

So it was okay to persecute them because they could not read? It was okay to use your power over someone less fortunate? I hope that is not what you are really saying here.

I respectfully suggest that you read about the Protestant break from a Catholic point of view. Not that you have to agree with what's being said, but being exposed to a different viewpoint might provide you with more awareness (not to mention depth) re. other branches of christendom.

I would rather not get into a discussion here regarding the Catholic Church. I have read the Catholic Churches views, and you are correct I do not agree with their views. Let's leave it at that.

You arrogantly suggest that Bible-believing Christians who do not believe as you do are those who have become "touchy-feely." That is not what I was talking about.

No I was merely pointing out that most of the Christian Churches today want the butts in the pew more then the Word being taught. Look at the Mega-Churches, that teach on how to make money, and God loves you know matter what. God does love all his children, but he is also a jealous God, and a God of wrath.

I believe you said you're part of a restoration movement church; I am familiar with those beliefs. Another evangelical group would be the Baptists, whose beliefs are quite different from your own--such as those pertaining to eternal security--yet are based on their interpretation of Scripture. Or, you have Reformed Christians w/ their theology of predestination, again strictly based on Scripture. Among denominations, you have varying views on end times theology, again all Bible-based.

Actually, I consider myself little of the Christian church as mentioned in Acts, and of the Baptist denomination. That is probably why I get tired of the "don't step on toes" sermons. I will say here that the church I attend was at one time getting that way, but now you can once again see God's work in the church. I myself was raised in both the Baptist, and Non-denominational Christian church. So I do have knowledge in both beliefs. You are confusing theology with doctrine. Doctrines have hurt more churches and the Christian faith then any persecution. (That of course is just my opinion.)

So, who is right and who is wrong? When the Baptist claims that the Holy Spirit is guiding her, are you going to claim otherwise? "

No! We are guided by the Holy Spirit. The problem is being that we have a sinful nature, we do not always listen to the Holy Spirit. Oh and in the Baptist denominations it would be the Holy Ghost. "

jrhendren wrote on May 5, 2009 11:44 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 5, 2009 2:51 PM:
" Actually, jrhendren, many Baptists (and similar non-denominational groups) would question your salvation. They would not see you as a "real Christian" at all! (That's assuming you embrace restoration movement doctrine with its views on baptism.) They would say that you're trying to get to heaven through "works of the flesh." "

On the contrary, most would believe I am 100% saved, which I know I am. That being because only each individual knows if they are saved. We are not to judge others salvation. I can say you are in danger of Hell, but I can not say you, or anyone else is saved or not. I would also have to say that since you do not truly know me, nor by beliefs you are unable to make your judgment of what others would say. I can say that I have family that is of the Baptist religion, who will proudly say they believe me to be saved. Believed because again they can not make that judgment. The Scriptures are not hard to understand unless one does not like what they say, and at times we all do not like what they say about us. I am not perfect, never have been, never will be. I try to do what the Bible says, and that is all I can do. "

jrhendren wrote on May 5, 2009 11:50 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 5, 2009 3:21 PM:
" Actually Mr. Hendren Christianity is a young religion. Hinduism is the oldest of the worlds religions with Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism not far behind. The oldest of the Hindu scriptures the Rig Veda was compiled around 1000 BCE. Lao Tzu was born around 604 BCE and died around 531 BCE and Confucius was born 551 and died 479. And the Buddha was born around 566 and died around 486 BCE. Great wisdom that has endured to this day. "

Correct true Christianity by its meaning, "Christ follower" is new. However, if you mean Christianity in the as the following of the One True God, and believe in the Genesis beginning, then its a lot older then the rest. People were believing in God, long before Buddha. Now Hinduism is proclaimed as the oldest, being that it had the first known written language pertaining to religion. One could argue cave paintings then, but it is still nil when you throw in the creation story. Now if one does not believe in Adam and Eve, then you get to pick your own. That being said, belief in the One True God, dates back about 10,000 years at the time of creation. "

shumphreys wrote on May 6, 2009 7:32 AM:

" Mr. Hendren Hinduism stories (some)start at the dawn of time. That is as far back as Genesis goes. "

shumphreys wrote on May 6, 2009 7:33 AM:

" Oh and Mr. Hendren creation, the start of this Universe goes back a bit more than 10,000 years. You are a bit behind the times. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 6, 2009 7:56 AM:

" jrhendren, this was your original statement about the peasants:

"The church had become to involved with state matters, and would not let the "peasants" or minorities read the Scriptures."

When I asked how many peasants you thought were literate, you then posted:

"So it was okay to persecute them because they could not read? It was okay to use your power over someone less fortunate? I hope that is not what you are really saying here."

Who said anything about persecution? That is only a distraction from the obvious--Mr. average Joe Peasant could not read. I am not Catholic, but that argument against the Church is absurd. I've heard it many times before, probably parroted from those old Chick tracts the Baptists used to distribute.

Your other responses to what I originally posted likewise contained distortions of what I said.

However, it was interesting how you avoided the subject of Christians and divorce when I brought it up earlier in this thread. "

father bob wrote on May 6, 2009 10:56 AM:

" Woah.... "

jrhendren wrote on May 6, 2009 11:48 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 6, 2009 7:32 AM:
" Mr. Hendren Hinduism stories (some)start at the dawn of time. That is as far back as Genesis goes. "

shumphreys wrote on May 6, 2009 7:33 AM:
" Oh and Mr. Hendren creation, the start of this Universe goes back a bit more than 10,000 years. You are a bit behind the times. "

Genesis is the beginning of time, and the world is only about 10,000 years old. I know evolution wants it to be more, but it just is not true. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has some problem with evolution. That is neither here nor there and is off topic anyways. "

jrhendren wrote on May 7, 2009 12:10 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 6, 2009 7:56 AM:
Who said anything about persecution? That is only a distraction from the obvious--Mr. average Joe Peasant could not read. I am not Catholic, but that argument against the Church is absurd. I've heard it many times before, probably parroted from those old Chick tracts the Baptists used to distribute.

To answer your original question I would say very few. That being said, to say it is illegal for someone outside of the Catholic clergy to read the Word is religious persecution. My answer to your question still stands.

Your other responses to what I originally posted likewise contained distortions of what I said.

However, it was interesting how you avoided the subject of Christians and divorce when I brought it up earlier in this thread. "

I thought I did mention something to your question, but if I did not then I am sorry and will here. Divorce, outside of marital unfaithfulness, is sin, just as adultery, murder, lying, and other sins. It is also forgivable, as their is only one unforgivable sin. Jesus states, ""It has been said, "'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.'" - Matthew 5:31-32 If their is marital unfaithfulness by either party, then divorce is allowed. Unfortunately, the reason for most divorces is the good old "unreconcilable differences" or "this is to hard" syndrome. Now one could say that if you look at how a husband is to treat his wife, and he is not doing as he is to do. Then she could get a divorce on the grounds of he is not a husband, but that is a grey area and not by area of expertise in Scripture. Even then if it was sin, it is still not the unforgivable sin. I am not like some who say that if a person is a homosexual they are going straight to Hell. First, because I am not allowed to judge anyone's salvation. Secondly, it is not the person, it is the act, and all sin can be turned from. Just as the alcoholic can turn from drinking. Does that mean he is no longer an alcoholic? No, because all it takes is that first drink to start again. Once you have a addiction, you always have it, it's the saying, "NO!", that gives you control over that addiction. I hope that answers your question. "

Tony Hawk wrote on May 7, 2009 12:46 AM:

" Hate to be a bother as I can see that everyone is seriously involved in this discussion. However, I am wondering if anyone involved is actually a homosexual (just curios)?

Also, if those in favor of homosexual biblical validity are in favor of it because it would be intolerant to judge someone based on what is right for them...(I mean who are we to judge. What is right for me might not be right for someone else)...Then why can't those in favor of the biblical condemnation of homsexuality be entitled to their own opinion. Aren't we judging them and being intolerant of their beliefs when we say they are wrong?

Obama - 2012 "

Harry Potter wrote on May 7, 2009 6:31 AM:

" That being said, belief in the One True God, dates back about 10,000 years at the time of creation. "

I see were back to saying the earth is only a few thousand years old, huh? I guess all those scientists are wrong about dinosaurs being around over 60 millions years ago were wrong too.

Sounds like someone is scribing to the Sarah Palin/ Vanatta theory on the age of the earth. I thought we had gone beyond that idiotic idea. "

shumphreys wrote on May 7, 2009 7:29 AM:

" Tom Hawk if they kept their opinions to themselves rather than try to use their opinions to justify laws that affect everyone yes we could just say each is entitled to his own opinion. Also at what point does spreading "your opinion" become hate mongering? Is it okay to voice your opinion if it leads others/encourages others to commit acts of violence? Just saying that I didn't really mean for people to take me seriously and go and beat that guy to a pulp doesn't cut it, in a court of law or morally. Do you think that going around and stating publicly that people are sinners and doomed to he__ because they are: (you can pick here) homosexual, get an abortion, follow a different religion, promotes love of neighbor, a healthy community, helps create a place where ALL can live in peace (heaven on earth)? The community or nation that tolerates intolerance will be destroyed by it. "

shumphreys wrote on May 7, 2009 7:50 AM:

" Sorry Mr. Hendren only those who don't understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would think that there is a problem/conflict with evolution. As any school teacher will tell you, one student in a classroom is an example of order, multiple students is an example of disorder/entropy. Which is what evolution is all about from simple to complex, from order to disorder. Now than about the age of the earth, on PBS last night a program about the last great extinction which happened 12,900 years ago, the extinction of the great land creatures shortly after Clovis man appeared in the area of New Mexico where the Clovis point received its name. How can anyone think or trust your understanding of the Bible when you don't even have a basic grasp of science or our world? "

shumphreys wrote on May 7, 2009 7:54 AM:

" Oh and Mr. Hendren Evolution doesn't WANT it to be more (more than 10,000 years old) the world IS more than 10,000 years old, quite a bit older in fact. The Universe itself is about 13.5 BILLION and our planet about 4.5 BILLION years old. Its a great place this planet of ours, you should learn a little about its history sometime. "

jrhendren wrote on May 7, 2009 11:18 PM:

" Harry Potter wrote on May 7, 2009 6:31 AM:
" That being said, belief in the One True God, dates back about 10,000 years at the time of creation. "

I see were back to saying the earth is only a few thousand years old, huh? I guess all those scientists are wrong about dinosaurs being around over 60 millions years ago were wrong too.

Sounds like someone is scribing to the Sarah Palin/ Vanatta theory on the age of the earth. I thought we had gone beyond that idiotic idea. "

Nope using the same science as those who claim it older. Although since it is entirely off topic, I will not discuss the issue any further here. "

jrhendren wrote on May 7, 2009 11:33 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 7, 2009 7:29 AM:
" Tom Hawk if they kept their opinions to themselves rather than try to use their opinions to justify laws that affect everyone yes we could just say each is entitled to his own opinion.

Just as your pushing for laws affects others. Once again pot or kettle?

Also at what point does spreading "your opinion" become hate mongering? Is it okay to voice your opinion if it leads others/encourages others to commit acts of violence?

Except the fact that we are not doing this. You like to lump all who are against your beliefs in one group. That is really an unfortunate thing to do. That is just as bad as saying all Muslims are evil terrorist, it is just not true. In fact, it is close to being profiling, and I'm sure you are against that I would hope.

Just saying that I didn't really mean for people to take me seriously and go and beat that guy to a pulp doesn't cut it, in a court of law or morally. Do you think that going around and stating publicly that people are sinners and doomed to he__ because they are: (you can pick here) homosexual, get an abortion, follow a different religion, promotes love of neighbor, a healthy community, helps create a place where ALL can live in peace (heaven on earth)? The community or nation that tolerates intolerance will be destroyed by it. "

Once again you are trying to condemn people as sin. The act is the sin. Now on the matter of sinners. We all are sinners, because all have sinned. Just as we are all earthlings because we all live on earth. The only difference between those going to Hell and Heaven is those who choose to follow Christ. Does that mean a Christian never sins? No, we sin just as much as the next guy, however we are covered by the blood of Christ. Any Christian who tells you they no longer sin, or fall to temptation, just sinned, because they lied. I have said from the beginning do not hate the person, but the sin itself. Why do you want to broaden sin I do not know. "

medic57 wrote on May 11, 2009 7:35 PM:

" Susna, you and I should feel very lucky, if you lived in Sausi Arabia, yoy would be executed for being and athiest and I would bw executed for being a christian, At least we can argue or religion as we see fit, when ever we want to. "

nbnm wrote on May 12, 2009 6:43 PM:

" Why are there so many people worried about who is gay or not? We need to worry about the real issues in the world like the war and getting out of this recession. Is the Bible real or is this just another book like the Odyssey by Homer. I believe people are just afraid to accept change and open their minds to what is real and what is not!I believe people have to make justifications to their shortcomings. If people are true Christians they would follow the 10 Commandments instead of making their own ideas on passages from the Bible. "

Rohn Gordon wrote on May 12, 2009 6:47 PM:

" jr tells us >"Nope using the same science as those who claim it older. Although since it is entirely off topic, I will not discuss the issue any further here. "
----------------------------
Another good cop out by someone who is showing ignorance as usual. "

jrhendren wrote on May 12, 2009 11:27 PM:

" Rohn Gordon wrote on May 12, 2009 6:47 PM:
" jr tells us >"Nope using the same science as those who claim it older. Although since it is entirely off topic, I will not discuss the issue any further here. "
----------------------------
Another good cop out by someone who is showing ignorance as usual. "

It is not jr my friend I deserve that much respect at least. The subject was off topic if you would take time to look at the subject at hand. If the time comes, and has before in the past, I will gladly converse in the subject. I gave an answer and stated I would not go any further. Why your personal attack on this of all statements is puzzling, and calling me ignorant because of your personal dislike is appalling. Susan, someone who emphatically disagrees with my position, has never even stooped to there, and I would hope would not. What ever your reason I hope you can get over it. "