Nice cut and paste. Remarkably spelled.
Quote:The Catholic church without it's gay priests would be as likely as Congress without lawyers.
Hmmm, I find congress
with lawyers far more objectionable. Ugh.
Kjv,
So what. Why do I care what the Christian Bible says about marriage or about homosexuality?
Christians did not invent marriage. Marriage was around before Judaism was invented.
If you are right that God is willing to kill people of with diseases just because he doesn't agree with them -- isn't this a very immature and hateful being?
The God of the Bible is guilty of terrible atrocities. He killed scores of his own people with a plague. He commanded a genocide including the murder of women and children. The crimes of Saddam pale in comparison.
So where does this God get off judging me for how and with whom I care to express my love.
I can't believe that an all-loving, all-powerful creator is going to waste so much time keeping to people who love each other apart. And I certainly can't believe an all-loving God would encourage such hatred.
I believe very strongly in a democracy. This country is based on the ideal of liberty. People have the right to build the life that will make them happy.
But, if God can't accept my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I will have nothing to do with Him.
If he doesn't like it, he should at least have the guts to come tell me himself.
ebrown_p wrote:Kjv,
So what. Why do I care what the Christian Bible says about marriage or about homosexuality?
Christians did not invent marriage. Marriage was around before Judaism was invented.
If you are right that God is willing to kill people of with diseases just because he doesn't agree with them -- isn't this a very immature and hateful being?
The God of the Bible is guilty of terrible atrocities. He killed scores of his own people with a plague. He commanded a genocide including the murder of women and children. The crimes of Saddam pale in comparison.
So where does this God get off judging me for how and with whom I care to express my love.
I can't believe that an all-loving, all-powerful creator is going to waste so much time keeping to people who love each other apart. And I certainly can't believe an all-loving God would encourage such hatred.
I believe very strongly in a democracy. This country is based on the ideal of liberty. People have the right to build the life that will make them happy.
But, if God can't accept my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I will have nothing to do with Him.
If he doesn't like it, he should at least have the guts to come tell me himself.
Wow!!! Amen to that!!! I couldn't agree more. I may be a believer in God, but certainly not in the bible. If the god in the bible is the one I believed in, then I wouldn't want any part of him. The bible is just a book for heavens sake. It may be well written, but it's still just a book!!!
kjv - you may be responding to Frank, but the rest of us are reading, and, in ebrown's case, responding to you.
I'll add another "bravo" for ebrown's comments.
kjv - did you go and read the article I linked to?
kjvtrue wrote:"I was answering Franks Question, DUH!" 
This is a public forum where we ALL share our opinions about certain topics and about other peoples opinions, so we tend to respond to eachothers opinions wheather we agree with them or not. DUH
The christian right can't think of anything but the Bible. You ask them a question and its, 'well in the book of blah, blah, blah'. This way they don't have to think, it's lazy and it's an excuse for a lot of realities they don't want to face.
Was that harsh? Good, I lived with that very sickness for a while so it's a personal opinion of mine. This gay marriage issue is just another case of it. Put everything in a box and look only into the box with blinders on, that's how they like it.
I also hate it when people push the bible and try to tell everyone that this is Gods word. People who quote the bible to me don't stick around me for very long because that is one thing I won't listen too.
It's a freaking book!
I really feel sorry for people like kjv. I mean how do you live with so much hate, and narrow mindedness. Must be really tough eh ?
kjvtrue wrote:"I was answering Franks Question, DUH!"
But I didn't ask a question, DUH! So how could you be answering it?
I made a statement.
And the statement was correct.
The Bible condemns homosexual
conduct[b/].
It does not even mention homosexuality at all -- and more than likely the people making all this stuff up never even thought of the possibility of people with latent -- or surpressed homosexuality.
Supposedly, Jesus never had sexual relations with anyone. How would anyone know whether he was sexually aroused by women or men?
There are -- and always have been -- people who have forsaken sexual activity (can't imagine doing it, but...) -- and more than likely some were (are) heterosexual and some homosexual.
DUH!
Because of those who have no Faith, have no morals, to see that Homosexuality is wroung. That's why most of them are getting cought in a crime, that believe is not wrong, because they have no Faith or Moral's. Maybe this is it's hard to prove that Homosexuality is wrong.
Kjv,
You are quite wrong.
We have morals. We just have morals that are different than yours. Don't confuse the two.
Our morals (if I may presume to speak to most people here) say that hatred, prejudice and discrimination are wrong. Our morals say that people have a right to privacy and liberty as far as possible without hurting others.
I would say these are very strong morals.
In contrast your morals appear to say that we should force people to follow our beliefs, and when they don't we should discriminate against them and speak against them.
Likewise, I do have "faith" in God (and here I do not presume to speak for anyone else). I just see God quite different than you do.
You God is stern and narrow. He condemns people to enternal punishment for seeking happiness -- in spite of the fact that they don't hurt anyone in the process. He sends diseases down on people who don't agree with him. He asks his followers to oppose and despse on people who don't follow him.
Your God says you must insult anyone who thinks differently by attacking their "morals".
Further more your God demands that you have a closed mind. You must continue in narrow beliefs in spite of strong evidence to the contrary.
In contrast I have a strong faith in a Creator. My faith is based on a God that created humans with a mind and a soul who encourages them to use both.
I believe the Creator urges us to recognize the beauty in human beings and to appreciate differences. He, created the amazingly complex and beautiful being that is mankid, brings out compassion and heroism and the best of humanity.
Furthermore the creator gave us an incredible gift of a mind. We have the liberty to explore. We have the ability to question and to decide our own identity. The diversity in experience that this has brought to humanity is magnificant.
So kjv, it is true that we don't share your morals or faith. This doesn't mean we don't have morals or faith.
You think Homosexuality is wrong. We think prejudice and hatred are wrong.
I think I will stick with my morals and my view of the creator.
kjv - I'll ask again. Did you read the article I linked to?
No, my Faith is not Racest because Race dose include what type of Sex you do. Here is some deffintion's of the word:A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
A genealogical line; a lineage.
Humans considered as a group.
Biology.
An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[French, from Old French, from Old Italian razza, race, lineage.]
Usage Note: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populationsCaucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoidare now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean "white" or "European" rather than "belonging to the Caucasian race," a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other pointssuch as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in anothermany cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.
How can you say they don't discriminate, when they discriminate those who have Faith?
kjvtrue wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:
It does not even mention homosexuality at all -- and more than likely the people making all this stuff up never even thought of the possibility of people with latent -- or surpressed homosexuality.
"That's because there was no such word, as Homosexual in those times.
Frank Apisa wrote:Supposedly, Jesus never had sexual relations with anyone. How would anyone know whether he was sexually aroused by women or men?
There are -- and always have been -- people who have forsaken sexual activity (can't imagine doing it, but...) -- and more than likely some were (are) heterosexual and some homosexual.
"That's because he is a God!" If somebody believed in a God, that wouldn't make such a stupid statement, like that.
I've come to the conclusion that discussing this with you would constitute "picking on you" ...and that obviously would be inappropriate.
My guess is that you will not really understand what I was trying to communicate here -- but it really is a message for the others involved here.
