2
   

Gay Clergy-About time or moral oxymoron?

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2004 09:32 am
Oh, I'm sure jason wholeheartedly, unquestioningly, unreservedly loves his god ... which, of course, precisely is the problem.

A note to jason ... have you read enough of this thread to have discerned my personal stance on the root topic - gay clergy? I surmise you have not. If indeed you have not, head back to the beginning pages of this thread and check it out ... you well might be surprised.
0 Replies
 
Lekatt
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2004 01:35 pm
panzade wrote:
Lekatt, I like your religion and this statement:"The Christian doctrine is appealing because it is exclusive. However God is inclusive. God is love, if you love God you will do as He does."
It seems jason does not love God.


I think it is more complicated concerning Jason, but thanks for the compliment. I will bow out of this thread, seems I am being censored.

Love
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2004 01:38 pm
Wait Lekatt!, TOS strictly prohibits posting certain sites...it was just a mod decision and had nothing to do with your fine posts.
0 Replies
 
Lekatt
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2004 01:50 pm
panzade wrote:
Wait Lekatt!, TOS strictly prohibits posting certain sites...it was just a mod decision and had nothing to do with your fine posts.


Which is a form of censorship, the link led to quoted Bible verses clarifying my position of the beginnings of Christianity. My site is a research site on near death experiences and what they reveal about spirituality.

But the mods do have a right to exclude sites or people from their boards. I am not complaining just looking for a more level playing field.

Love
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2004 01:54 pm
Lekatt, no one can post their own site on the boards - it has nothing to do with the content of your site. To read the Terms of Service, which we all agree to when we join a2k, click on the small blue letters Terms of Use at the bottom of the page.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2004 02:10 pm
One more thing Lekatt. If our discussions consisted of quotes from our own sites it would get rather grueling. Much better for me to read your own interpretion of your beliefs and as I said, I do enjoy your posts.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2004 08:01 pm
I also enjoy Lekatt's posts. It is SO true that religions are exclusive while spirituality is inclusive (to me spirituality is the realization that all is one).

Jason says "only becuase they 'CHOSE' to be intoxicated with sexual perversion." He has chosen to be intoxicated with the doctrine of Paul as refracted by fundamentalist American "christianity."

I will not respond to any other comments by Jason. I believe it is the only way to deal with such self-blinded fanatics.
0 Replies
 
Lekatt
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2004 09:40 pm
I want to thank all of you for the kind words about my posts. I really do appreciate them.

I just need more freedom than is available on this board.

Love
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2004 11:45 pm
Not to push you to stay, but do you mean to post your website? Really, believe me, none of us can. It has nothing at all to do with your posts. Lots of us have websites, but no personal websites can be posted. Didn't you read the agreement?

If you want to go away angry and hurt and feeling censored, feel free, but that is not really appropriate.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2004 11:58 pm
I don't think you get the thrust here, Lekatt. You're welcome to post, say, or discuss just about anything you care to. Though you can't link to your own website, you're perfectly welcome to copy-and-paste material from it, pretty much as long as it isn't spam/promotional, hatespeech, pornography, or gratuitous vulgarity. Along with a general proscription against ad hominem attack and similar incivility, thats about it around here for freedom-limiting. Its hard to understand how anyone other than the irrational and/or irresponsible might find the local boundaries oppressively restrictive.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 02:40 am
Well said, Osso and Timber. "Freedom" is always a fine balance of freedoms, in fact.

That being said, I shall miss Lekatt, if s/he chooses not to post again.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 10:46 pm
I think once s/he thinks about it, s/he'll realize there is more to be gained here than just posting a web site. His or her posts have been too thoughtful not to have been expressed with appreciation of the opportunities for social and intellectual sharing found here.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2004 05:12 am
agreed
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/16/2021 at 05:31:40