Say Anything Blog

Chuck Currie, from the UCC, feels the same way.

I’d like to see adulterers, fornicators, porn addicts, gamblers, and alcoholics all stand up in church and demand acceptance for their behavior.

I wonder how these liberal denominations would react to that.

Does that make my ogling, flirting, or worse, affairs with these many, many women moral or right? Heavens no!

If oggling hot women is wrong...then I don’t want to be right.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The problem with some of those analogies is that you don’t seem to differentiate between the actions of two consenting adults and actions that are harmful to unconsenting adults or despicable behavior with children.

The Bishop didn’t make sweeping generalizations about all behavior, you did. I say shame on you.

I’m sure gettin jiggy wit it falls somewhere in there.

I say shame on Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori for pushing the idea that behaviors are not to be judged; Shame on her for leading her church down the undeniable path of moral relativism.

How do you feel about churches like Gene Redlin’s who accept people not only as members but also as pastors (if his is like many in his denomination..believe he wrote AG) who have been divorced and remarried for reasons other than adultery by the offending party?

Happens all the time.

Churches like to ‘pick their sins’ and some would cost them too much at the collection plate to harp on.

Again, be logical and consistent.

Rob:

Some people come into this world with affections towards cows, horses, and sheep.

Did you intend to overlook those with a penchant for camels?

Some people come into this world with affections towards cows, horses, and sheep.

Must be talking about Republican anti-abortion extremist Neal Horsley:

“Hey, Alan, if you want to accuse me of having sex when I was a fool, I did everything that crossed my mind that looked like I...”

AC: “You had sex with animals?”

NH: “Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule.”

This thread is becoming more twisted than the U.S. Episcopal Church, its rather sickening, hell thats why God gave us fire, to burn those churches to the ground.

WETBACK, has anyone in your family been divorced and remarried for reasons other than adultery?
Then they are termed adulterers.  Interesting how some churches concentrate on certain sins.

Poor Sphagnum, his beliefs are being persecuted by the nasty liberal Episcopalians promoting tolerance.

Diane I dont go to church, there isnt a church that stands that preaches the truth, besides you dont need a church to have God, the body is the temple.

As for your question, None that I know of, but from what I thought the church hardly recognizes devorces, but than again I havent went to church since I was about 12 years old.

But I agree it is adultery but this thread goes beyond adultery even beyond sodomy.

So, jason equivalences immorality as “tolerance”.  Nice redefinition. I guess if I don’t like bank robbers, I’m “intolerant”, then?

My point is that sin is sin.  Churches tend to pick and choose.  If we believe the Bible, we don’t ‘pick and choose’ what is and what isn’t sin. 

Romans 1 is the ONLY New Testament scripture I can think off that talk about homosexuality, while condemnation of adultery and remarriage except for adultery scriptures are throughout the New Testament and talked about by Jesus himself, who never mentions homosexuality.  Paul is the one who talks about it in Romans.

rrb, I like the very fitting conclusion provided by Horsely,

NH: It has historically been the case. You people are so far removed from the reality… Welcome to domestic life on the farm...”

kinda remind me of this “pro-traditional family values” republican candidate

..rrb, Horsely is almost as helarious as the ten commandment Republican Congressman

r108-

It is only immorality in your opinion.  Also, it is not illegal like bank robbery, so your analogy is ridiculous.

Well Diane I guess they dont like the part where Paul says that Homos well not enter the Kingdom of God.

Sin is Sin, and all churches have become corrupt, so I do not understand your point?

Here’s a working link,
The Ten Commandments Congressman

Paul also says alot of other people won’t enter the kingdom of God.  Ephesians says, for example, that the greedy have no inheritance in the kingdom of God. 

The whole point of the New Testament message is that we are ALL sinners and Jesus paid the price for everyone’s salvation and that NO ONE gets into the kingdom of God by good works or their own ‘righteousness’.

When we start picking and choosing ‘bad sins’, we run into brick walls.

I guess Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Revelation was left out of Diane’s Bible.  Sorry bout that.

I don’t really give a rip what the Anglican Church thinks.  It has joined the great whore church. 

Those who understand things will come out from among them.  This is where division come.  Compromise.

The idea that dumbing down our theology will attract people is baloney.  Never happens.

The people you try to attract aren’t going to go to Church anyhow.

...The entire interview

So, this really isn’t about saving marriage at all.

Bishop Schori is just making things up as she goes along.  There is no scriptural basis for her beleif, and certainly nothing that should cause her to embrace what scripture clearly condemns.

FWIW, the Episcopal Church also ordains Adulterers, so at least they are being consistent.  (And so are the orthodox, who oppose the ordination of adulterers).

Diane, you say that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality? 

1.  If He should have (as Schori must think) , don’t you think he might have?  He never spoke about pedophilia or beastiality either.  That makes these okay?

2. Arguably, when Jesus did speak about marriage, about Men and Women coming together in one flesh, He WAS talking about homosexuality as well.  Men are Men, Women are Women, and “sexual orientation” is not part of Gods plan for us.  If it were otherwise, don’t you think He might have mentioned it?

The ECUSA has been off the deep end for a long time now, but finally the sleepers in the pews are starting to take note.  Not long from now, they will be another fringe gay sect, ala the Unitarians and Metropolitans.  They are worshipping a god that does not approve of the Bible.

[Feet make good soup!]

Churches like to ‘pick their sins’ and some would cost them too much at the collection plate to harp on.

Again, be logical and consistent.

Not sure if this was posted towards me or Gene, Diane, but in any case you are exactly correct.  When a church comes out and says they are endosing a pastor who cannot keep his married life in order, that is a grave mistake as well....  I am very consistent in condeming all sin.

The problem with some of those analogies is that you don’t seem to differentiate between the actions of two consenting adults and actions that are harmful to unconsenting adults or despicable behavior with children.

The Bishop didn’t make sweeping generalizations about all behavior, you did. I say shame on you.

Oh, but she does.  She takes those behaviors that she “likes” and pardons them even though they are clearly sin.  To be consistent, any preconception one might have in life must not be sin becasue “God made me this way”.  If I am made to like to have sex with women, then womanizing is not a sin, right?

She is blatantly wrong and there isn’t even a way to argue her point rationally.

Doc Dave you nailed it

Doc Dave you nailed it

Jason: So, now something is only immoral if it’s illegal?  Immorality doesn’t depend on legalism, except in your world.

I guess Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Revelation was left out of Diane’s Bible. Sorry bout that.

r108-

Morality / Immorality is a matter of opinion.  You think homosexuality is immoral.  I don’t.  I am not concerned with what people do as long as they are not hurting anyone else.  Bank Robbery is illegal and I think it is immoral as well.

jason:  Morality is strictly a matter of religion.  For an Islamic not to grow a beard is immoral, or more precisely, to shave is immoral, after he is married.  I never said that I thought homosexuality is immoral.  It is immoral to lie about another person, IMO.  You are a moral relativist, but many of us disagree with that philosophy.  It is immoral for you to try to impose your philosophy on me, or to judge me because I don’t agree with you.  You might try some humility.

So there we have it, Diane points out that Jesus took away the law, and all Churches are curropt. wheres the argument here?

Hey Gene I do have a question for you if you dont mind (off topic) do you believe its necessary to be baptised by a priest or what have you, or do you believe that its only a tradition and that Jesus Christ has baptised us already?

Just curious, to me I dont see how someone who has (most likely) commited sin in there life time baptise a baby who commited no sin, it appears it should be the other way around to me lol.

I dont mean to bring this thread off topic but Iam just curious to what Gene believes.

I never said that I thought homosexuality is immoral.

Let me guess, you actually think it is the opposite? It’s moral?  LMAO.

It is immoral for you to try to impose your philosophy on me or to judge me because I don’t agree with you.

Uh, apparently disagreeing with you in a Democracy is “imposing” my philosophy on you.  Also, where did I judge you?  Was it by saying you thought homosexuality was immoral?  Well, I guess you didn’t actually say it, but let me guess, you don’t believe that?  LMAO...again.

First of all if you are going to use religion to base your argument on then you are starting from a premise that does not exist. Prove your God or shut the fuck up! If you have to depend on your religion or God to back up or give you morality then you are basing your world view on a fantasy.
Give me one example other than a religious based reason against homosexuality! Your hatred for homosexuals is based only on the false biblical morality and it means nothing. Do you beleive in the tooth fairy? Same lies and fantasy. You are nothing but a ship of fools.

So there we have it, Diane points out that Jesus took away the law, and all Churches are curropt. wheres the argument here?

I didn’t say all.  Please quote me correctly if you’re going to say I said something:

Gene:

I don’t really give a rip what the Anglican Church thinks. It has joined the great whore church.

Me:

Oh, well, Gene, now there’s where I go even farther. I think most churches have ‘gone and done’ that.

i wonder if our new pastor has read the bible much?  and diane, you’re forgetting a reference from the new testament, though it’s “just” paul, and not jesus.  1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV, emphases mine): Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be decieved: 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.”

jason: You make the common leftie mistake of assuming the opposite.  According to Christianity, homosexuality is immoral.  I clearly said that immorality is a matter of religion.  I am not a religion.  Get it yet?  I don’t participate in homosexual behavior.  Does that make me a “homophobe” in your judgemental moral relativism?  I don’t fear homosexuality either.  Confuse you?  I don’t fit into any of your pigeonholes, so what are you going to do now?  Try to stick to facts and logic, if you can.  Personal attack is usually a sign of lack of substance.  What is the benefit to society at large of homosexuality?  Why should we advocate or even tolerate it?  What is the benefit of that for me?

Not at all, Daniel. Like WETBACK, you must not actually see what I post.  Here it is again:

Note I said that I could think of. 

My point is that sin is sin. Churches tend to pick and choose. If we believe the Bible, we don’t ‘pick and choose’ what is and what isn’t sin.

Romans 1 is the ONLY New Testament scripture I can think off that talk about homosexuality, while condemnation of adultery and remarriage except for adultery scriptures are throughout the New Testament and talked about by Jesus himself, who never mentions homosexuality. Paul is the one who talks about it in Romans.

diane on June 19, 2006 at 5:17 PM

I NEVER said there weren’t others.  Didn’t want to run and grab my concordance.

and I also mentioned greed:

Paul also says alot of other people won’t enter the kingdom of God. Ephesians says, for example, that the greedy have no inheritance in the kingdom of God.

And divorce without scriptural basis.

There’s a whole laundry list.  You prefer to cherry pick homosexuality as the ‘biggie’ apparently but have no basis for segregating it from the others, such as gluttony and greed and slander....

By the way:  Do you know any ‘greedy’ ‘christians’? 

Unless you are ‘deceived’....better start warning them!!!  It’s lumped right in with homosexuality and ADULTERY.

Now, if we want to get into adultery, there’s a list of well known..

Well, never mind.

Oh and Daniel...did you forget Revelation 22, on who is ‘outside the city’??

“Dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and EVERYONE who loves and practices falsehood.”

Now, let’s just say that we went to war with Iraq based on false information........

i think you’re overreacting a bit there, diane.  i wasn’t saying “ha!  look, diane missed one, so her entire argument is obviously wrong!” it was more along the lines of “hey, here’s another one.”

and diane, as far as your cherry picking argument goes (not very), i think you’re a bit off.  the reason we’re making faggotry the “biggie” is because we have a pastor right here saying it’s ok.  if you can find me a high-profile pastor (or any pastor, for that matter) saying that greed, gluttony, or slander, then i’ll be happy to argue against that person as well.  until then, homosexuality is the issue at hand.

Thomas out side of the bible homosexuals is against nature, homosexuality is a sickness, they are not normal, they need help. homosexuals deserve a bullet in the head not special laws. Children should not be taught by anyone that its normal behavior its unacceptable.

If you wanna suck cock and take it in the ass, then do so without telling me everyone bleeds red.

Sorry Wetback. There are multiple examples of homosexuality in nature among all speceis. They don’t read the bible. Your argument is soley based on hate and ignorance. You are a homophobe. What happens between consenting adults is no business of yours.

OMG somewhere in the world 2 chicks are doing it!!!

What are we gonna do about it???

homosexuals deserve a bullet in the head not special laws.

Wetback, your words make it obvious that you are a hate filled homophobe. It’s too bad you hate must manifest itself in violence against your fellow man. What does not only your Bible but the law say about threats of murder?? I take your comments seriously and will report your threats to the authorities.

. the reason we’re making faggotry the “biggie” is because we have a pastor right here saying it’s ok. if you can find me a high-profile pastor (or any pastor, for that matter) saying that greed, gluttony, or slander, then i’ll be happy to argue against that person as well. until then, homosexuality is the issue at hand.

Daniel on June 19, 2006 at 8:55 PM

Their silence on those topics is what I’m talking about, Daniel.

Yes, they are ‘cherry picking’ and they have no reason to do so.  It’s lumped in with many other sins and you are picking this one out because this woman okays it.

By NOT preaching about greed, gluttony, envy, adultery, divorce for reasons other than unfaithfulness, etc., the preachers of today are say silently they are no big deal.

Anyone with a logical mind and any experience in churches knows they cherry pick.  And they cherry pick what’s okay by never mentioning it.

Especially when you see that they themselves weigh around 400 lbs., as some nationally known preachers do.

P.S.  I’ve heard it said that GLUTTONY aka BIG FAT ‘christians’....is the one sin the church willingly accepts and yet

The ONLY sin you can’t hide.

LOL

This isn’t about homosexuality; it’s about a female bishop trying to change thousands of years of Christian teaching to fit her leftie agenda.  Let her start her own homosexual religion, if she can.  Homosexuals are a small, special interest group.  I support them to create their own institutions, not to try to hijack ours for their selfish desires.

Thomas I dont give a F who you show them to, truth hurts dont it.

In the defence of all the young children who are forced to have to be lectured on the twistedness of homosexuals. and as for my Bible, God would bless anyone who keeps the young pertected from such abominations.

homosexuals deserve a bullet in the head not special laws.

Wow! That about sums it up.  The Christian solution to the homosexual problem!  Let’s just shoot ‘em!

I know r108 would disagree though, because he does not hate / fear homosexuals.(not a homophobe that r108) Let’s wait and see.

and as for my Bible, God would bless anyone who keeps the young pertected from such abominations.

Wetback, your ignorance is so significant! You seem to think that homosexuals are pedophiles. The protection from abominations you speak of are more than likely purpetrated by male sexual predators against underage female victims yet you continue the false claim that gays are out to victimize under age males. Your ignorance is glaring and blinding to you. Have you ever watched the show to catch a predator on NBC? All of the men who are preditors are after under age girls. Take your homophobia and ignorant statements and do some research and stop listening to Bill O’Reilly and the anti gay homophobes!

i don’t think we need to be killing them… more along the lines of letting them die out.  pick an island in the middle of nowhere, and send all the homos there (males on one island, females on another).  give them everything they need to survive and live in comfort, but no means of getting off the island.  with no way to reproduce and no new young minds to corrupt, their numbers would decrease at a decent rate.

jason… just because you don’t agree with/like a certain group of people doesn’t mean you’re afraid of them.  besides which, if wetback or r108 or any of the others, myself included, were afraid of homos, do you think we’d be badmouthing them?

and remember kids: rectums are exit only.

homosexuals deserve a bullet in the head not special laws.

You have said a lot of reprehensible things here Wetback, but this crosses the line.

This could be construed as a threat - perhaps Rob, to keep SayAnything free from legal entanglements, should consider banning you.

First of all if you are going to use religion to base your argument on then you are starting from a premise that does not exist. Prove your God or shut the fuck up! If you have to depend on your religion or God to back up or give you morality then you are basing your world view on a fantasy.

In case you missed it, this is a religious topic.  This is a topic about a church and a woman’s seeding further evil into that church.  You missed the point entirely I believe.

Their silence on those topics is what I’m talking about, Daniel.

Yes, they are ‘cherry picking’ and they have no reason to do so. It’s lumped in with many other sins and you are picking this one out because this woman okays it.

I’m really not sure what your point is, Diane.  The church that I am a member of speaks out very loudly and often about all of the topics you have raised.  But even if it didn’t, does someone’s church not condeming one sin make other sin acceptable?  Heavens no!

Sin is sin, immoral behavior is immoral.  There is no black and white here… Homosexuality, beastiality, pedophilia, pornography, lust… all sexual perversions and sexual sins.  They all are condemed by God and the fact that this church is OK with the behavior shows you what a worthless church they are indeed.  They might as well change their name to the United Sunday Get Together-ers....

Homophobe bigot #1(wetback)- We should put a bullet in their heads.

Homophobe bigot #2(Daniel)- We should round them up and ship them off to an island.

Feel the Christian love!!  Kill all the homos!!  No, wait, ship them off to a desert island so they kill themselves off!! Doesn’t matter, either way, they all die!!

You people call yourselves christians?  I guess you are not the compassionate christians we so often hear about.  You do not care about anything but your “christian” beliefs.(which convicts everyone who does not fit your definition of “christian” to death)

Anyone who does not fit into your little club is worthy of nothing less than death and eternal torture in hell.

Sin is sin, immoral behavior is immoral. There is no black and white here… Homosexuality, beastiality, pedophilia, pornography, lust… all sexual perversions and sexual sins. They all are condemed by God and the fact that this church is OK with the behavior shows you what a worthless church they are indeed

Sphagnumb- You are a sinner of the worst kind.  You JUDGE people who live lifestyles you disagree with.  You on your high horse EQUATE what adult men and women do in their own privacy with bestiality and pedophilia.  How sad it is, one (you) can be so full of hate that they have to demonize anyone who is different from them or those who they cannot understand.

Oh wait, you were one of the guys who liked to beat up on the homos?  You know, teach them a lesson.  Beat that hetero sense into them.  I hope you have a homosexual child.  Maybe then you can tell us how you corrected it’s behavior.  Maybe you’d beat the hell (homosexuality) out of it?

You guys are something else.

Put a bullet in their brains or stick them on an island to die out?  I recall a man called Jesus is reputed to have said ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’.  Which of you is going to take up that challenge?

Homosexuality isn’t natural?  You obviously don’t get out much.  Homosexuality is widespread amongst the animal kingdom, of which we are a part.  Can’t get much more natural than nature.

After conception we all start out female, but then hormones trigger the genes to express male or female characteristics (X or Y).  It would appear that too much or too little of the male hormone (testosterone) or female hormone (oestrogen) may have an influence on sexual characteristics.  But don’t start letting the facts get in the way of your prejudices.

Moral relativism?  Why is it any less moral relativism to not follow the rest of the laws in Leviticus, other than not lying with a man as a woman?  Stop wearing clothes of two materials or by god you’ll be stoned.

So Paul has something to say about who gets in to heaven?  I thought that Jesus determined who and how one got to heaven.  Talk about revisionism.

You guys are a bunch of laughs.  I see little to distinguish you from the Taliban.  Don’t hide behind a religion of peace and love to spout your hate and prejudices.

It’s interesting to observe the lefties trying to turn everything inside out to defend homosexuality here.  It’s practiced by a small minority of the population.  Five percent, give or take.  Common sense tells us that heterosexuality is required for the vast majority of the population to ensure reproduction of the species.  If homosexuality were simply another variation, there would be more of them.  As to the morality issue, it is strictly a matter of religion.  Interestingly enough, Islam is more against homosexuality than is Christianity.  There is probably a practical reason for this, as the Kosher and Halal prohibition of eating pork was really about preventing disease, but it got put in religious terms.  Maybe the same is true for the religious prohibition against homosexuality.  Homosexuals are obviously not evil, but have no right to try to force their agenda on the rest of us, which is probably the source of anger by some against homosexuals.  Action - reaction.

KiwiInOz, you have said many of the things I already said.

Now you see why I walked out of church two years ago when I finally got my last dose of double standards and war supporting.

Here’s some of the attitude that finally clinched it for me with the churches in the area (and probably most areas, although there are some wonderful Christians who meet together as they used to in the early days of the church):

don’t think we need to be killing them… more along the lines of letting them die out. pick an island in the middle of nowhere, and send all the homos there (males on one island, females on another). give them everything they need to survive and live in comfort, but no means of getting off the island. with no way to reproduce and no new young minds to corrupt, their numbers would decrease at a decent rate.

I guess he’d like to send them there along with all the rest of us who don’t agree with everything the ‘religious folks’ here from the far, far, faaaaaaaaaar right think is essential to true humanity and valuable personhood.
They’d love all of us who don’t agree with their position on everything to be put on an island, I have the feeling.  And, you know, if it was a long way from them, I think it sounds darn good.

Actually, though, I think they need to be isolated from the normal people of the world on that island they’ve chosen for others.  They are a raving group of far right NeoCons who really are dangerous, much like Hitler’s followers.  They have that same crazy devotion to these leaders in whatever capacity they are in and they hate everyone else.

You’re right, KiwiInOz, Jesus was the only one left standing when he offered to let them throw the first stone.  But you know what?  I have the feeling that one of these ‘folk’ WOULD have picked up the biggest rock they could get their hands on and bashed the woman’s brains out.

Because they are so pure, as you can see from this thread, so full of love and compassion.  Surely one of them would have had the right to throw that stone?

Jesus didn’t though.  He just told her he didn’t condemn her and to go and sin no more.  She wasn’t homosexual even!

Robert108, I’m interested that you have labelled me a leftie, even though you do not know anything about me.  If the definition of a leftie is someone who can see the hypocrisy spouted on this page, then count me in.

Research suggests that sexuality actually occurs on a continuum, with a small proportion of the population either strictly homosexual or heterosexual (you said 5%).  The rest of the population falls somewhere in between.

As for your comment that if it was just a variation there would be more of them is laughable.  Variation is just that, variable.  Not dominant.  It hasn’t been bred out of the human population because it does not appear to be genetically triggered, rather it appears to be hormonally triggered.  Research continues on this.  However, if it were genetic, a) homosexuals/bisexuals can and do have children, and b) homosexuality could be selected for through evolution because of the advantage it confers through extra child rearing capacity in family groups.  There are also a number of other possibilities.

Another interesting fact is that the most virulently anti-homosexual people are often repressing their own latent homosexual tendencies, often in a self loathing way.  Now I’m not implying anything about you guys, but if the shoe fits, etc.

Spaghnum, my comments were addressed to the preacher, Gene, who on one hand admitted in another thread to tailoring his church’s services to be appealing to what people want these days..like Starbucks in the lobby, guitars/worship ‘teams’ (sooo cooooool), etc., and on the other hand talks about how wrong it is to do that type of thing.  Boy, have I heard alot of dumbed down theology in the type of church Gene is talking about that caters and entertains with coffee, donuts and bands.  Here:

The idea that dumbing down our theology will attract people is baloney. Never happens.

The people you try to attract aren’t going to go to Church anyhow.

***************

the fact that this church is OK with the behavior shows you what a worthless church they are indeed. They might as well change their name to the United Sunday Get Together-ers....

I’d say alot of churches might as well change their name to the Sunday Social Feel-Good club with hugs and “Love you brothers” all around and then this kind of hatefulness after they leave the parking lot (sometimes before).

Boy, there sure are a lot of FAT PEOPLE though in those pews.  Gluttony is the one sin you just can’t hide.

Kiwi, Robert108 calls everyone who isn’t right of Atilla the Hun a ‘leftie’.

Another interesting fact is that the most virulently anti-homosexual people are often repressing their own latent homosexual tendencies, often in a self loathing way. Now I’m not implying anything about you guys, but if the shoe fits, etc.
KiwiInOz on June 20, 2006 at 1:08 AM

Hmmm...three of the ‘bloggers’ just accused me of possible lesbianism in another thread.  I think you may be right.  There is definitely some anxiety in that direction on their part it appears.

They’re just having a guilty fantasy, Diane.

Signing off for the day.

Cheers.

nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

defamer: one who attacks the reputation of another by slander or libel

Alot of that going around.

Especially by you.  Almost every post you make defames someone.  How about something positive for a change?  You criticize the ideas and thoughts of others, but rarely offer any solutions to the problems you claim exist.  Why is that?

Sphagnumb- You are a sinner of the worst kind. You JUDGE people who live lifestyles you disagree with. You on your high horse EQUATE what adult men and women do in their own privacy with bestiality and pedophilia. How sad it is, one (you) can be so full of hate that they have to demonize anyone who is different from them or those who they cannot understand.

Jason, you’re an fool… Speaking out against Immorality is not a sin.  Where you come up with that idea is beyond me.  Your newage religion tells you that judging is the ONLY sin and that everything else is perfectly OK.  That is moral relativism.  That is waht this Bishop is doing.  It’s wrong and it’s absurd to try to make the aguement.

Clearly a sin.  No wiggle room, and yes, in our denomination sins require admission and discipline.  I realize that there are many churches that have actually re-written the bible.
I noticed when I visited one.  Yes, bank robbery is a sin, as well as all those in the commandments.  For the record, I am a sinner.

Wetback,

Baptism,
I believe what the Bible says (as I understand it).

First you must come to faith in Jesus.  If not Baptism is an act of making you wet.  That’s all.

Anyone can Baptize if it’s done in faith.  “Anything not of faith is sin”.  Priest or Pastor not required.

A baby can’t believe in Jesus so baby baptism is a waste of time. 

Baptism is an act of obedience after coming to Faith.  It is a call of the Holy Spirit in your life.  It is an act that demonstrates by the action an identification with the death and resurrection of Jesus.  Dead to sin, Alive in Christ.

When I baptize, I want to be sure it is not a legalistic act.  That it is an act of obedience.

Last obvious question.  MUST you be baptized to get to heaven.  Yes and No. 

Yes, if the Holy Spirit convinces you of it’s necessity and you decide out of stubbornness not to, that is resistance to the Holy Spirit.  Never a Good Thing.  The Ethiopian Eunuch says, “What hindereth me to be baptized”

NO, if it’s just some traditional action of a religious nature.  Most baby baptisms are simply actions meant to keep the in-laws at bay.

If we really believed that non faith (baby) baptisms were effectual then we should load up a military cargo plane with as much water as it will hold and fly over cities during outdoor concerts, ball games and festivals spraying water on them yelling “I baptize you..........”

He that BELIEVES and is BAPTISED shall be saved, He that Beliveth not (nothing here about baptism is there) shall be damned.

It’s all about obedience.  To obey is better than sacrifice.

So, thanks for asking.

Diane,

Marriage and divorce in the pulpit.

Read my blog on this:
The Sacrilidge of Christian Marriage

Gene, I don’t have to read your blog to know what the Bible says about divorce and remarriage.

What I’d like to know is how do you deal with people who were already Christians while they were married and still got a divorce, remarried (with no adultery on the part of either) and are both now living in what the Bible says is an adulterous relationship?  I’m sure you have a few like that and I’m betting no one has said a word to them and they are good, ‘tithing’ members.

That’s why I say churches cherry pick which sins they won’t tolerate.

On the other hand, if two homosexuals were to come in as a couple, I doubt you would allow them to continue attending as an obvious couple (hugging or holding hands like the adulterous couple do) or join as members, as most churches do such divorced couples.

And I bet you’ve got a ton (pun intended) of gluttons as full-fledged and undisciplined members as well, correct?

When did science discover the gay gene?

I tend to believe that “nurture” has more to do with someones sexual orientation than “nature” does.

That and casual observation tells me that many gay people often have additional personality issues.

gay marriage is about love, unlike having sex with animals or children or Sphagnum’s affairs with many women.  People who want to get married to anyone are selecting a person that they want to make a life-long commitment to.  I don’t think that the government should be telling anyone who they can and cannot love.

"gay marriage is about love...”

How can you know this is true in every case?  Are you all-knowing?  Gay love, however wonderful it might be in any particular case, is not marriage.  The institution of marriage, which has always been heterosexual, is a primary building block of every society in the world.  Heterosexuals consider marriage to be a responsibility, not a “right” which might give you some insight why it is wrong to call gay relationships “marriage”.  If gays want to solemnize their relationships, let them create that institution for themselves; just don’t hijack the institution of real marriage for what they do.

“the government should be telling anyone who they can and cannot love.”

The govt is not doing anything of the kind.  You make a common logical error here.  The govt supports the traditional requirements for marriage.  Anyone is still free to love anyone else.

I am a Jewish person and I really don’t understand Christianity’s obsession with sin and evil.  The old testament which is the “Torah” does not spend much time on it and “Satan” is a made up thing that doesn’t come along until much after the writing of the Christian book of the bible or the new “New Testament” To my knowelege Jesus never talked about the devil or satan by ran against the old temple system.  In a sense, Jesus was the first reform Jew.  I just don’t understand it.

Well you really aren’t very familiar with the torah, are you.

Satan, sin, evil - it’s all right there.

Satan shows up in the book of Job, and Chronicles, for example.

Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.

"How can you know this is true in every case?”

Of course I can’t, and of course you can’t say that every homosexual marriage is about love, either.  The vast majority of people, gay or straight, aren’t going to get married and spend all their time with someone unless they love them.

Marriage, for anyone, is about love and commitment.  Isn’t our society better off when people in love can make a life-long public commitment? 

You say that marriage has always been heterosexual.  Well now that’s has changed and homosexual marriages want to be recognized.  However, what hasn’t changed about marriage, and what will never change, is that it is about love and commitment.

"Marriage, for anyone, is about love and commitment. Isn’t our society better off when people in love can make a life-long public commitment?”

For real marriage, it’s about commitment to being an essential part of the social structure.  It is about legitimization of offspring, the joining of families and the continuance of bloodlines, along with love and commitment.  Only one of those is true of homosexual relationship.

I don’t know if there is any benefit to society in general if two homosexuals have a lifelong public commitment.  Who benefits besides the happy couple?  On the other hand, real marriage benefits everyone in many ways.

I’ll say again: I think homosexuals should create their own institution of commitment, and stop trying to hijack ours.  They can have all the perks(which is one of the real agendas here) by signing a contract for exchange of services, plus a durable power of attorney.  That gives them all that “married straights” have, without the social responsibility.  Rights without responsibilities, the leftie’s dream!

I don’t know if there is any benefit to society in general if two homosexuals have a lifelong public commitment. Who benefits besides the happy couple?

Exactly. Why pass laws that benefit individuals if they don’t also benefit the collective? The common good before the private good, as I always say.

Dave: Again with the flawed analogies.  Changing a thousands of years old institution for the benefit of a small special interest group, which has no benefit for the vast majority, is the subject here.  Your pathetic attempt to equivalence that with Marxism is laughable.  Get some vitamin B12 in your diet.

I haven’t thought about homosexual marriage much, partly because it doesn’t get mentioned in my state. Homosexual marriage will remain banned in my state for a while, and they will always find a way to be able to live together happily. It’s really their problem, not mine.

However, robert, I can see where your conversation can be taken the wrong way. Here’s how:

“For real marriage, it’s about commitment to being an essential part of the social structure. It is about legitimization of offspring, the joining of families and the continuance of bloodlines, along with love and commitment. Only one of those is true of sterile relationships.

I don’t know if there is any benefit to society in general if two sterile people have a lifelong public commitment. Who benefits besides the happy couple? On the other hand, real marriage benefits everyone in many ways.

I’ll say again: I think sterile people should create their own institution of commitment, and stop trying to hijack ours. They can have all the perks(which is one of the real agendas here) by signing a contract for exchange of services, plus a durable power of attorney. That gives them all that “married reproductives” have, without the social responsibility. Rights without responsibilities, the leftie’s dream!”

My point being: you can make the same argument for sterile people. What differs sterile relationships from those of homosexuals is my question.

Heterosexual relationship is the fundamental building block of every civilization in history, I believe.  We can start there.  There is also the blending of families, sharing of property, inheritance....

Need more?

Your pathetic attempt to equivalence that with Marxism is laughable.

If the “sterile couple” is heterosexual, they already meet the requirement for real marriage.  If the “sterile couple” is homosexual, it is of no significance.  Sterile heterosexual couples aren’t out to change the fundamental definition of an institution that is thousands of years old, and which has existed in every civilization in history. 

Just for starters.

Heterosexual relationship is the fundamental building block of every civilization in history, I believe. We can start there. There is also the blending of families, sharing of property, inheritance....

Need more?

How is it fundamental? The romans were homosexual and they had a large empire with plenty of orgies. Not to mention, bathing with little boys. Of course it fell, but nonetheless, it was very successful for a while.

Blending of families occurs with any marriage. I’m going to have a stepfather, his family is going to be my family. However, I do not share the same blood.

Sharing property and inheritance happens with a LEGAL marriage. Sterile people and homosexuals can adopt children and leave inheritance and property to them. Mom knows a pair of married lesbians who have a house together. Homosexuals can be compared to sterile couples except for the fact that it’s two of the same private parts, yet they can do some interesting things together.

Dave: You just ignored all the facts about majority support for real marriage, and the attempted enforcement of so-called “gay marriage” by a small minority.  What about that?

I don’t “oppose” same-sex marriage.  I don’t recognize it as a reality.  You can put words together, but if they have no corresponding reality, they have no meaning.  What homosexuals do is not marriage.  I support them, once again, to create their own institution for their own purposes.  Just don’t call it “marriage”, because it isn’t.

Marxism enforces minority rule, and cares nothing for the majority wishes.  That is the analogy.  Get it?

Homosexuality has been around for centuries, at the least. Homophobia has not been around very long at all.

Gene: Thank you for your reply regarding Baptism. I have read verses such as Mathew 28:18-20, and have some good friends who are Jehovah’s Witnesses who share your belief that “A baby can’t believe in Jesus so baby baptism is a waste of time.”
I my self happen to believe differently, hey Gene the comment you made about throwing water out of a plane and yelling I baptize you.......... dont sound like a bad idea

Thomas: Do not think that I am singling out just homosexuals, I believe murderers, rapists, child molester, etc deserve death as well, I do not care about the feelings I hurt stating this, as a Christian I believe it should be our duty as Godly people to rid the world of such.

Diane: How good it is of you to love murderers, rapists and child molesters, tell me Diane when was the last time you welcomed those types to your home? I assume your against the death penalty but do prisons exist in your world?

Ken McCracken: What I said can not be construed as a threat, I merely stated an opinion. As a Christian I believe it is our right to stand loud and firm on issues such as this.

You’re incorrect.  Marriage, even by Prez. Bush’s definition, does not require children or the continuance of bloodlines.  Many people marry and either don’t have or cannot have children.  Marriage is about love and commitment.

Adoption, especially among infertile couples, is a very common practice among hetersexuals.  Should the government tell infertile couples that they can’t marry?  Of course not. 

Both heterosexuals and homosexuals want to marry because they love each other.  The ‘perks’ you refer to are afterthoughts, as they should be in heterosexual marriages and as they will be in homosexual marriages.

WETBACK, I invited a rapist into my life and he almost killed me. I believe he should be castrated in the most painful way. Do you go for torture at all?

"The romans were homosexual and they had a large empire with plenty of orgies. Not to mention, bathing with little boys.”

Your ignorance is profound.  You are talking about a behavior of a small minority of the ruling class, not the fundamental structure about Roman society.

Homophobia is a made-up word, which is essentially a lie.  A phobia is a mental illness, so it implies that anyone who is normal, and who doesn’t buy into the homosexual agenda, is mentally ill.  Nice propaganda, but simply untrue.  It is the essence of smear.

Homosexuality has been around for centuries, as a small minority behaviorial syndrome.  It is obviously a minor part of the human experience.  Why impose it on the majority through social legislation?  What is the benefit?

Hijack alert

Well, well, well, nutters what have we here…What’s that you ask?

ANOTHER BUSH GOP FOUND GUILTY

That makes 21 found guilty or plead guilty.
It’s a great day for democracy.

Nick: You are incorrect.  Having children is not a requirement for marriage; the vast majority of real married couples produce children, and the fact of their marriage legitimizes those children and provides them with a large part of their identity.  Children who are not born to married parents are very disadvantaged in life.  The minority of married couples who don’t bear children don’t somehow justify calling what gays do “marriage”.  There are other considerations, as well.  Again and again, I have said that I support homosexuals to create their own institution for solemnizing their relationships, if they want to do that.  Society in general has no interest or stake in it, either way.  Just don’t hijack real marriage for the selfish or politically agendized desires of a very small special interest group.  We still have majority rule in this country, not the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marxism enforces minority rule, and cares nothing for the majority wishes. That is the analogy. Get it?

Marxism puts the interests of society (the ‘collective’ over the interests of the individual, which is exactly what you are doing in opposing gay marriage, according to your own words, which I will reprint again:

“I don’t know if there is any benefit to society in general if two homosexuals have a lifelong public commitment. Who benefits besides the happy couple?”

You’re right. The happy “groom” is the only one who will benefit if we legalize same-sex marriage. Society does not benefit at all. You believe that this means there is no need to pass the law--laws must benefit society in order to be passed.

Do you apply this view to everything? Who benefits from the legalization of smoking? Society at large certainly doesn’t. In fact, the only ones who would benefit at all from such a law would be the smokers themselves. Do you oppose this? You should, according to your previously stated standard: the law must benefit society to be passed.

“Society” doesn’t benefit if we allow neo-Nazis to march in Skokie. “Society” doesn’t benefit if we allow libraries to store copies of Mein Kampf. And, as we’ve said above, Society does not benefit if we allow smokers to smoke and gays to marry. So why do we support these things?

Because THE INDIVIDUAL benefits.

If homosexuality is only a small amount of people, then it shouldn’t concern you. As a matter of fact, if two males or two females decide to marry each other, it should be none of your business.

Homophobic may not be the word you are looking for, but you are scared of homosexual people it seems, or have some kind of hate for them.

what do you think they did in roman bathhouses? or while they were forced to stay away in the roman army. They weren’t allowed to see their wives, so they either had to sneak out or find a man.

What is the benefit of a heterosexual marriage? Neither seems to benefit me. It’s all a personal choice. Perhaps we should just get rid of the entire institution of legal marriage and leave it up to the church. Not only that, but just have the banking accounts differ. Marriage, for some straight people is just a title and they really don’t care about what their partner is doing. you could say the same about homosexuals. You’re forgetting that homosexuals and sterile people fall into having nearly the same benefits as each other. It’s really none of your business how much sex is going on in the home.

When love and commitment are the only things that define a true marriage (and they are: no marriage can be, as you say, ‘real’ without those two things), there can be no other institution.  When two homosexuals legalize their love for each other there can be no other name for it besides a marriage. 
If, as you say, “society in general has no stake in it, either way” then why are we arguing?  If you don’t have a stake in it either way, let two people who love each other get married and move on with it. 
You’re right about the small interest group, though.  A ‘real’ marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, is about a dedication to love and commitment between two people, and that’s all.

Dave: As usual, you are confused, logically.  A small group of individuals(the gay marriage lobby) does not get to impose its wishes on society in this system.  In a marxist system, if a small elite decides that “gay marriage” is desirable for some reason, it mandates it, by reason of its dictatorship of the proletariat.  The majority of the population not wishing to have their institution of marriage hijacked by a small special interest group is called democracy, which is the opposite of marxist dictatorship.  Get it yet?

“Society” doesn’t benefit if we allow neo-Nazis to march in Skokie. “Society” doesn’t benefit if we allow libraries to store copies of Mein Kampf. And, as we’ve said above, Society does not benefit if we allow smokers to smoke and gays to marry. So why do we support these things?”

Society benefits from the First Amendment being exercised.  We allow(or support, if you say so) smoking, even though it is harmful to non-smokers, who are in the majority.  That is probably why smoking regulations are becoming more common.  We do not support “gay marriage”, by a very wide margin, therefore, it shouldn’t be allowed.  Get it?  BTW, if a majority of Americans wanted “gay marriage”, we would have it.  They don’t.  The “gay marriage” advocates, therefore, are using unconstitutional means to advance their agenda, thus the marxist analogy.  Clear yet?

poppycock

It is interesting to hear people say that marriage as an institution is thousands of years old, as if it has remained a static, stable entity over that time.  It hasn’t.  In many cultures, including our own, marriage was an economic or power-based contract between families.  Women are or were the chattel of the man.  This has only recently changed in our culture.

Marriage is only a religious institution if you choose it to be.  It is primarily a state institution that gives you certain legal and contractual rights, i.e. you get married before the state irrespective of whether you get married before a god.  All marriage cele