Yesterday, outside a restaurant I went to..there were newsstand/vending machines for two papers in Texas. One was a Dallas paper (Dallas Morning News) and the other was for a smaller city.

The HEADLINES of both were interesting. They were not about Fallujah, not about the Economy, not about Arafat...they were about Texas schoolbooks.

The Dallas Morning News article was proclaiming that the textbooks would
now carry a strong message about the importance of abstinence from pre-marital sex. The other paper had a headline about major textbook publishers such as Holt Rhinehart Winston, agreeing, apparently under pressure now, to change their definition of marriage, to one which specifically states that marriage is relationship between a man and a woman.

From
http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1203

Texas textbooks to reflect anti-gay, anti-safe sex attitudes
by NewStandard Staff

Nov 7 - The Texas Board of Education has approved new health textbooks that specifically define marriage as between one man and one woman and focus on abstinence only sex education. The decision comes after the board pressured the publishers to change what one board member referred to as "asexual stealth phrases" in favor of more gender-specific language, reports the Associated Press.

At the Board’s request, publishers Glencoe/McGraw-Hill and Holt Rinehart & Winston, changed the phrases "married partners" to "husband and wife." According to the AP, Holt Rinehart & Winston included the definition of marriage as a "lifelong union between a husband and a wife," while Glencoe/McGraw-Hill changed "when two people marry" to "when a man and a woman marry" and "partners" to "husbands and wives."

The Board also chose textbooks that all but leave out contraception as an option for preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. According to Reuters, three out of four approved texts fail to mention contraception at all, while one only mentions condoms in passing.

The Board’s critics said that in addition to putting teens at risk, the decision may violate state regulations, which require sex education curriculum to include information about contraception. Board members countered that the books were satisfactory because information about contraceptives is included in teaching supplements or teachers’ editions."
==========SNIP=========================
I am introducing this topic because I think it is an extremely important one. Many of us here HAVE children in school, are in school, or will have children in public schools.

I am interested in ALL opinions on this topic, and will try not to get involved in this discussion. I really am trying to see where we are as a community. If you are a "believer", atheist, agnostic, pagan, whatever, how do you feel about this?

The question is this. Since the President apparently believes he has a mandate with his 51 or 52 percent of the votes, is it now proper and appropriate that the administration becomes more aggressive in promoting a "faith based" agenda?

Thanks for your participation in advance.

~Code

PS - Since I am not posting my opinion, anyone interested in my opinion...please fire up Google.com , type in-
blog, Codewarriorz and take your pick :)

Let the witch trials begin.

Seafood is an abomination unto the Lord. We must close every Red Lobster, crab shack and oyster bar in the country.

Prostitution and gambling alone should be enough reason to close off Nevada and Atlantic City, not to mention every Indian reservation in the country and the river boats on the Mississippi.

Lotteries? Heaven forbid.

The stock market is the home of the money-changers. We know what Jesus would do.

Bring back Prohibition.

That is just a start. Anything less is hypocrisy.

Wait! One more. Let's revive the Spanish Inquisition. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition. Our main weapon is fear and surprise.

Chief amongst our weaponry is...
fear, surprise and code warrior!

Get the Comfy Chair!

Oh no! Not the Comfy Chair!

I'm with Ziemann.

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

I think that's sick! That completely goes against our freedom of religion and goes way too far to surpress innocent people.

gdZiemann, where exactly is this seafood abomination business coming from? Are there specific Biblical references to such abominations?

If Bush wants to push something like this ahead, I think he should be very careful and gentle about it. It would be wise of him to seek counsel from other believers of the same faith somewhere (not just the current politicians in office). If he's going to push ahead for law, then he should be _very_ careful.

Since when were people innocent? We're all guilty of something "bad".

Leviticus 11: 9-12

11 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.

11:10 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:

11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

I been thinking a lot about these so called Christian and I don't think I want to be call one anymore. The way it's going it's not the kind of Christian I was raised to be.

By innocent I mean having a homosexual relationship. The bible (along with a number of other religious texts) are the only real other things that say otherwise, and since we cannot (or so I thought) use religion to define how everyone should live, I don't see any problem with homosexuality.

AkwardBlakrabit....Tell me where in the Bible it says anything about homosexual relationship. Are that it has to be a Man and Woman only. I don't think I have ever read that. I keep hearing this and I must have missed it. I see you have no problem with it. And I feel the same way. But I would like to know if you know. Are anybody else that knows. I want to read it for myself.

"...since we cannot (or so I thought) use religion to define how everyone should live."

I believe the point is that, apparently, it CAN. The question is, how far does it go? If we're gonna get religion, are we supposed to be half-assed about it? Kind of like we're fighting a war?

Correction: Kind of like the WAY we're fighting a war?

Then let's discuss, "Thou shalt not kill." Or maybe "Thou shall not bear false witness" applied to weapons of mass destruction.

And let's dispense with this silly Alert Level nonsense. Just give each American an assault rifle and let the bastards in.

Unfortunately, at some point the "eye for an eye" factor is going to come into play and we're about 200,000 eyeballs ahead.

And so ends my brief Sunday sermon...

I'm starting my own church. all you godless heathen send me money or you'll burn in heck. then we're going to deal with those unclean bastards who just don't get it.

and gall darn it, my church will be ATF approved

and were going to preach the king asscrack version of the bible.

and everybody knows them dam 'puters are the work of the devil so we won't be havin' any of that.

wait, whadda ya mean football is on? well, maybe we'll meet on tuesdays....

Tuesday is bowling night.

Seriously this is getting out of hand with King the Cowardly. First he gets reelected and now hes going around with this faith based mandate. We have a President who believes he is a prophet. America is no a representative democracy. Welcome to American Theocracy.

Sorry this is my first post in a while.

King George the Cowardly*
America is no longer a representative democracy*

dudes....I am getting sick of any americans who bitch about George Bush.

I don't like the man or his party either....ya know what...the majority of your country voted him back him....so don't just hate one man....you're living with all them other voters that think just like him...hate them too.

You voted..now live with it.

Sneaky, very sneaky...

Flip the same coin over and see the terrorists.

I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the Divided States of America. And to the Republicans, for which it stands, one nation torn by God, with liberty and justice for all except the ones we don't like.

gilbd wrote: Tell me where in the Bible it says anything about homosexual relationship.

FYI:
Leviticus 18:22
Romans 1:26-28

(There are other passages in Paul's epistles.)

P.S. Folks, don't shoot the bearer of unwelcomed info.
It seemed she really wanted to know.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the Divided States of America. And to the Republicans, for which it stands, one nation torn by God, with liberty and justice for all except the ones we don't like."

George Z., that's superb!

"....you're living with all them other voters that think just like him...hate them too."

Actually, this PIPA study shows that Bush supporters do not know what Bush stands for. In other words, they are ignorant.

"Bush supporters also have numerous misperceptions about Bush's international policy positions. Majorities incorrectly assume that Bush supports multilateral approaches to various international issues--the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines (72%)--and for addressing the problem of global warming: 51% incorrectly assume he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty. After he denounced the International Criminal Court in the debates, the perception that he favored it dropped from 66%, but still 53% continue to believe that he favors it. An overwhelming 74% incorrectly assumes that he favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. In all these cases, majorities of Bush supporters favor the positions they impute to Bush. Kerry supporters are much more accurate in their perceptions of his positions on these issues."

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

DemandRelevance
Thanks I have read it but. I guess when I read that I get it different from you. Sorry I keep reading it over and over and still have a problem understanding it that way. But My dad always told me that everybody gets a different message when they read the bible. And I guess I'm just don't read that message into it. I'll keep trying because I'm not getting anything at all in it.

Two things:

Firstly: I am a teenager. My thus informed oppinion is, telling teenagers to avoid sex is not going to work. It just doesn't. Forget the idea. You might as well argue with gravity - the attraction is just as imutable.

Secondly: I think the bible has a vague reference, something about 'men who lie with men and men who lie with beasts'? But thats probably out of context, I might be confusing it with another religious book, not to mention that in any work of such sheer bulk you can probably find a quote to support any arguement.

Thirdly: Bush is a severe problem. He just happens to be a popular problem, with his great talent at manipulating the voters, support from the right places and a good campaign team. Just because he has popular support doesn't make him right - and the election was close, in terms of popular vote. He is just a bad president.

Those who believe the Bible as God's Word report that they can pray to God's Holy Spirit to give them wisdom to understand it better; actually, there's a passage somewhere like that which says so, too.

I'd like to answer Code's original question with a question.

Does a morality based agenda have to always be labeled as 'faith based'?

The issues at hand (abortion, gay marriage, abstenance...) can be important moral issues, even for non-religous people.

By trying to always make them "faith based" we grant ourselves the luxury to side step these issues because religion has no place in our government. We want to convince ourselves that Government has no business in these areas, but I think that is wrong.

Governments are established to govern and protect a society and to mandate laws that uphold that societys values. They don't have to be tied to a specific faith, even though all faiths have a moral code of conduct.

Example, I am in favor of imprisoning rapists and child molestors, not because I am religious (I am a Christian), but because I find the behavior extremely damaging to society and it is our job as adults to protect our kids from predators.

Teaching children abstenance as part of sex-ed is not just a religous POV, it is common sense protection is a STD world. It's no different than teaching good eating habits to help them live healthier and longer.

My gut feeling is that most teens with an STD (or teen pregnancy) WISH someone had encouraged them to wait... as now it is too late.

No one has a problem with teaching abstinence. The problem is when they want to teach ONLY abstinence. From the article:

"The Board also chose textbooks that all but leave out contraception as an option for preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. According to Reuters, three out of four approved texts fail to mention contraception at all, while one only mentions condoms in passing."

(My previous message and this one are in response to gilbd.)
Those verses in Romans 1:26-28 include: ". . . men having abandoned the natural relation with women, burned with lust for one another; men doing a shameful act with men . . . and for their error getting punished in themselves . . ."

[Again, folks, don't throw darts at me for reporting information that a poster is seeking. ]

"No one has a problem with teaching abstinence. The problem is when they want to teach ONLY abstinence."

mroop, you are right on target.

The same thing can be mentioned about allowing the possibility of intelligent design to be included along with the theories of evolution -- as long as there is BALANCE.

. . . and fairness to the best extent possible; academic freedom must be handled responsibly.

DemandRelevance....I also have the problem that when it was changed from the old language to ours. How do we know if they changed anything they didn't like. So that has a lot to do with the way I look at things. I question it in a lot of places. I don't know if that's good or bad.

DemandRelevance

I also watch the professors. That have study the bible and They have made me look at it in a different way. They have given a different version of it.

"I also have the problem that when it was changed from the old language to ours. How do we know if they changed anything they didn't like?"

Valid concern.
One method was to locate the oldest extant manuscript available in the original languages and have a reliable person translate it to English. (A daunting task.)

Prior to the King James Version, there was a Geneva Bible. And, of course, the Puritans and the Pilgrims had a pre-King James version that they brought along to our shores in the early part of the seventeenth century.

Naturally, Bible scholars study the earliest/most reliable copies of the orginal Hebrew and Greek manuscripts; they have an advantage over us.

I would say, those wishing to do their best to avoid modern taintings of the original renderings of Bible passages could check out a Geneva Bible from a library -- but, keep in mind that it will have old English vocabulary at times that can send you paging through a reference book.
That, and pray for spiritual discernment.

From the front of the New York Times' web site...

"Karl Rove said today that the president views a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage as essential to a "decent" society."

"Since the President apparently believes he has a mandate with his 51 or 52 percent of the votes, is it now proper and appropriate that the administration becomes more aggressive in promoting a 'faith based' agenda?"

Proper and appropriate? Hmmm...

Gonna happen anyway.

When they're done with the gays, who do they come after next? Jazzmary? Got any ideas on that?

This country displaying a right-wing, conservative trend? No way.

Obviously under this president we are going to see more and more of this kind of Government action. The key is not to get hysterical about it. Let's live with it for the next four years, and in 2008, make sure that it does not happen ever again.

"11 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.

11:10 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:

11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

For those of you who don't know, this rule was for the Jews only. They also couldn't eat pork.

Well who were the Ten Commandments for? The Egyptians?

For those of you who don't know, the entire Old Testament was by/for the Jews/Hebrews.

Either you believe in it or not. You can't pick and choose the parts you like.

gilbd

This is from the New International Version which speaks in pretty straight forward language.

Romans 21-32

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,

30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;

31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

"For those of you who don't know, the entire Old Testament was by/for the Jews/Hebrews."

That's correct.
The Hebrews/Jews were God's chosen people, and the events and guidelines of the Old Testament pertained primarily to them.
And you're right also about not being able to pick and choose.

In the New Testament (New Covenant), that's where gentile (non-Jewish) people can be saved by a sort of "grafting-in" process -- i.e., anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as their personal Savior from sin, can be part of God's "family" of believers if they remain faithful to the end.
(This doctrine is from Paul's N. T. letter to the Romans: chapter 10, verses 9-12, and then all of chapter 11.)

Here is an interesting page on the ten commandments.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/numberng.htm

Now, I would agree that one certainly can be moral, and have a moral code based on something other than a Christian orientation, but it is very clear that Mr. Bush has, nominally, a "Christian" orientation, as does his "podnah"( partner)
Mr. Cheney.

To me, the troubling aspect of this news is that, other school systems may end up with school texts that are similarly changed, and that these changes may be starting out this way, and may go further.

Once the pressure groups smell blood, they will undoubtedly find other passages, ideas, etc., that they believe need changing.

If a child who has parents who are gay (such family units DO exist), believes they are married, and yet,is taught in school that a marriage is ONLY between a male and female, and they are tested on such an assertion, I forsee problems.

We have heard that one can boil a frog alive if you increase the heat slowly.

I think we have seen the water temperature edge up a few modest degrees in Texas.

terabyte
"Obviously under this president we are going to see more and more of this kind of Government action. The key is not to get hysterical about it. Let's live with it for the next four years, and in 2008, make sure that it does not happen ever again."

If claiming without a doubt Sadam's connection with 9/11 and found inaccurate,vowing there were "WMD's" in Iraq and found wrong, loosing track of 377,000 tons of high grade explosives that are probably being used against our soldiers right now, coming from a balanced budget to the greatest deficit in history, claiming victory in Iraq over a year ago, and the list goes on..., what could possibly make sure it does not happen again?

gdZiemann - I thought you would nail something from the OT. Traditional Jews, correct me if I'm wrong, still abide by the OT. Christians today abide by the NT, since they believe that Christ came to earth, paid the price, divided Christians from all else, and resurrected from the dead. James -> all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial.

Nothing wrong seen with homosexuality? Okay, for one thing, there's a reason why men and women were made, to procreate and sustain the human race. Taken to the extreme, and ignoring technology, the human race would not last beyond more than a few generations if homosexuality prevailed in all.

gilbd - being called a Christian means you follow Christ. Obeying Him is what it's all about. Ignoring stereotypes, Christ says you should be glad when labelled that by others, b/c He was hated first. Dunno if that was encouraging, it was to me

"other school systems may end up with school texts that are similarly changed"

at least five other states will receive the same textbooks.

AsiaMinor -- So the OT is wrong?

Many people still equate religion with Christianity. That's where a lot of problems originate from.

I think the problems originate from the fact that each and every religion teaches they represent the one "true" deity and everyone else on the planet is wrong.

That's the problem I've always had with organized religion--not that they "believe;" I can respect that. But that they tend to want to force others to accept their morals as absolutes. And I really wish they'd stay out of our schools. All they do is screw up the kids more. Like goldenpi says, they aren't going to stop teen sex by legislation or selective education. All they'll do is drive the teen pregnancy rate and the STD rate higher.

Exclusively? Hummmm.... one religion? to the exclusion of all others?

One political party to the exclusion of all others. Hummm, sounds familiar.

gdZiemann actually, "non-white" peoples in the USA have been the brunt of religious "reasoning" with plenty of verses to prove the intellectual inferiority, blunted moral capacity, and suitability for servitude to the "christian" men. Gays are just the new "negros," where they are defined by folks who don't know them, fear them, and want to conform them to their dominant culture. Just like the arawaks in the Carribean, the many nations of native peoples, the Chinese who built the railroads, the heathen-cannabilistic african peoples.salem "witches" .. and on, and on, and on. Just when you think you are making progress, this religious ignorance raises it's ugly head again.

This textbook thing is just the start of it...

Jazzmary2U

For the past four months or so, all we heard from you was Register, get out and Vote... Be Heard...... and the people did, they got out, they Voted, they were Heard..YOU should be proud! You got your message out!!!

Lets put religion aside here. At which point do you accept the will of the people???

Think now the conservatives can see why we wanted Dubya out of power? I'd say coming this soon after the election, this nasty little change was already in the works, wouldn't you? There used to be a word we used a long time ago--tolerance--which now instead they have perverted for their own use. Now it is "zero tolerance." If they don't approve of you, that's what you can look forward to.

Yes, we're going to help the illegal immigrants (read: Mexicans) by depriving them of government services -- like food, immunizations, access to health care, specifically. Maybe education, too. Fire protection, paramedics, all those public services.

pepe, much as I respect you, you don't get it. If your government passes a law that goes against your personal beliefs, would you follow it anyway? This isn't just about religion, it's about freedom. They're attacking our personal freedoms, imposing their beliefs on all of our society, and dividing this country into US and THEM. And if you're not with THEM, you must be against THEM. Discrimination is wrong, whether it's sexual orientation, skin color, religious beliefs, or anything else.

Pepe, we accept the will of the people.

We're merely debating the wisdom of the majority and examining the potential ramification for the near future should the current trend continue.

Or conversely, we may actually not really give a rat's ass and are just messing with your minds.

If you believe in things you don't understand, then your suffering...

...from superstition anyway...

I accept the will of the people, Pepe, when the voting can be certified as accurate!! This has NOT happened yet.. and rampant cheaating is emerging everywhere.. was my vote counted correctly.. was yours??
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm

cheating..

What really is "the will of the people"? The will of the people in the South during the Civil War, was the blacks be treated and sold as chattel (not cattle, chattel).

The will of the people during McCarthyism, was to hunt down and prosecute, alleged "Communist sympathisizers" and "fellow travellers". The will of the people in Nazi Germany, was to disallow Jewish people from practicing their profession, their trade, or ultimately, even to exist.

There are intolerant assholes in this country. There are a lot of them watching cars go round and round on Sundays, who think that we just need to get rid of the "atheists, queers, and baby killers"..and these bastards , I guarantee, are Mr. Bush supporters. Remember his little humorous comment "Some call you the elite, I call you my base."

Mr. Bush is now, was always, and forever will be, the party girl for the rich, white, monied interests. He was bankrolled by the sugar daddies called the Bin Laden family, and he tries to continue to be buddy buddy with "Bandar Bush" from Saudi Arabia.

What we are talking about here is a pathway back to the intolerance and paranoia of the 1950s, where blacks are bad and shouldn't vote, where good boys and girls marry and have 2.5 children, corraled inside a white picket fence, and consumerism is the watchword of the day.

There WILL be a draft within the next four years. "Read my lips- No New Taxes" and we had taxes from his Poppy.

"No draft" means a draft from Junior.

So, you guys better listen up.
There WILL BE a pledge of allegiance, and by God, it WILL say "under God". Children should wear white , collared shirts and dark, or khaki trousers for boys, and a dark skirt for girls. Short short hair for boys, and long or medium length for girls.

We will need a national program to test everyone for mental illness (already in the works since before the election...The New Freedom Initiative).

Yes sireeee. We need lots of nice clean cut young men in new uniforms, ready to conquer the wor...er...uh...defend from terrorism.

We need to quit worrying about uncovering corruption and wrongdoing in corporations. And yes, LOTS OF FOOTBALL for everyone, along with wholesome CLEAN reality programs.

Yes my friends, pat your dog Spot on the head, get that hand over the heart, buy you a flag and plant it outside, and get ready for four more years of war, under our war President.

Yowsah yowsah yowsah, what's good for General Motors and Sony, is good for the USA.

And, of course, this piracy thing is WAY out of hand, so get ready for arrests and prosecutions (in order to keep THE HOMELAND safe). This P2P crap has GOT to STOP! It's terrorism on the half shell buddy boy.

So, snap to attention. Salute the Commander in Chief, and get a big , Sh*t eating grin on your face. That's an Executive Order.

And, to quote Mr. Bush when they asked what he would say if he heard Mr. Arafat was dead :
"God bless his soul"

Allah be praised. Ah selam a lakem (or whatever).

Pepe, you live in Canada. Come to the USA and live under this regime and "accept the will of the people". Hey, if there is really a will , will you check and see if I am a beneficiary, CUZ UNDER THIS PRESIDENT..I AM GOING BROKE!

I need some of that big time inheritance money.

elegant segue...

bulkeraser

I have being voting for the past 35 odd years, and have NEVER once had the party that I voted for get in.

I've lost track of the number of times I've had to watch them pass legislation that would horrify a mass murderer.... One has to get past the bitterness to affect any kind of positive change...

I'm not saying the OT is wrong. The OT is right, but from a historical perspective with respect to the traditional Jews. Christ's work on earth changed all of that so Christians now live in the NT. B/c of Christ, the OT is historical for Christians and the NT is what matters to them. Maybe I'm phrasing something incorrectly - we wonder why English is one of the hardest, if not THE hardest, language(s) to learn

Pepe- if you think that what is going to happen here in the next four years is going to be "postive change", I have a bridge in San Francisco I'll sell you for just 20 million.

I think during Nazi Germany, the people thought positive change was on the way. You had a rotten economy, you had people out of work, and suddenly, there arose this war hero from the First World War, a little corporal who was fighting for the average German. He targetted those who were the enemies of the good Germans. The American citizens will be groomed to be the good Germans in the positive change you envision. I think it is interesting that it seems that the two posters who are telling us to get over it, don't live here!

My sister lives in Nashville.... she doesn't seem so horrified..guess thats a red state though huh? See, it's all how you look at it... it's all in your perspective...

Moving on here...

I honestly believe that Janet Jackson's fiasco at the Super Bowl set the dividing line between between faith and secular oriented people.

Almost half of the country became appalled by the idea that the media had become so complacent that it was now "ok" to tear a woman's clothes off in public, not to mention the simulated sex acts that preceeded it on live national tv.

All of a sudden, people woke up to the fact that perhaps the country was going to hell in a hand basket.. and maybe they should get up and do something about it..and they did..in droves..

I do understand about the erosion of rights and freedoms, but in the Christian realm, our rights and freedoms shouldn't allow us the freedom to a sin filled life.

as far as the OT, you had to sacrifice living creatures to make up for shit. These monothesistic religions from the Middle East are big on martyrdom, on demanding you convert everyone to your belief, and getting into this sin and Satan deal, this "jihad" against evil, or perceived evil.

Jesus said "remember the Sabbath and keep it holy". I don't see all the Christians avoiding work on the Sabbath (which is Saturday, the seventh day). As Mr. Ziemann said, you accept the bible en toto, or none at all. The Neo-Con Christians want to practice their own, 21st century, Caucasian, corporate version of the Bible. Jesus would get his money changing whip out to these people if he were here. He would especially want to open up a can of whup ass on Halliburton Cheney!

It's hard to avoid invoking Godwin's Law when
discussing the policies and practices of the
Bush administration. And the strategery (yes
the use of this Bushism is intentional) here is
divide and conquer. Pit the Blue voters who
are liberal and progressive against the Red
voters who are conservative. That way when
the last of our civil liberties are taken away from us, we'll wlecome the coming fascist
dictatorship without question.

The greatest enemy is not the Neo-cons,
nor is it the Islamic fundamentalists, both
of which are opposite sides of the same coin. It is human conditioning - people being
brainwashed into thinking a certain way and
doing what others (the media, talk radio,
Karl Rove, etc) tell them to do without
thinking critically about it, or the consequences of such action.

There has been aired on the BBC2 a series
about the use of political fear by both the
Neo-cons and the Islamicists - it is called
The Power Of Nightmares. It can be found
on most P2P networks, and a few sites also
have BitTorrent files for it as well.

"I do understand about the erosion of rights and freedoms, but in the Christian realm, our rights and freedoms shouldn't allow us the freedom to a sin filled life."

I hate to take a hammer to your crystal chandelier version of the world Pepe...but, "We ain't all Christians" on this bus.
Some are...(Shock and Awe shall ensue)---ATHESISTS.

Heavens, clutch the pearls!

And, TAOISTS don't believe in such a thing as sin.
Sin ain't carved in stone for the Buddhists either.

What is sin by the way? Dancing and playing instruments is sin to some of the Christian fundamentalist sects.

Women cutting their hair is sin to some of the fundamentalist sects. And, when I was young, the Oneness (Pentecostals) taught it was sin for women to wear short sleeves. I came out of such an environment, so don't try to act like sin is this objective thing that all Christians will recognize if they get some on their proverbial sleeves!

"For doth not the scriptures teach it is a sin for a man to have long hair".

'Nuff said on this "sin" shit!\

Atheists, not whatever the Hell I wrote. Sorry, tired and my fingers dance on the keyboard like Elephants on Crack dance---------poorly!

Actually, pepe, that's the difference---"our rights and freedoms shouldn't allow us the freedom to a sin filled life."
One person's sin is another person's pleasure. And as long as it doesn't do harm to another, it's no one else's business. Or in a free country, it isn't.

Yer doin' a damn fine job, there, bulkeraser. Never mind them typos.

BTW...Repubs chose the jackass for their symbol. I say that's a good choice. And don't give me that crap that it's a mule or a donkey- ain't no donkey or mule gonna take that kind of abuse.

Thank you ma'am. I'm just a country boy from Texas, but I know a cow patty when I smell one. And, we got one in the White House for another four years. You can try to polish a turd, but it will still spout a Bushism.

Lol, I guess that explains the elephant--big and clumsy and hard to maneuver...

"as long as it doesn't do harm to another, " But that's another problem. There are many sinful situations out there that harm others. The adulterer that hurts his wife and kids, the murderer that kills a loving husband and father, the cheating public that perhps put the wrong President into power???

If one doesn't know what a sin is, how can one know that it will hurt others or not?

lol--I'm tireder than I thought. Yup, it's the elephant for the Republicans.
http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20000810.html

They say an elephant never forgets, and I guess that's how Halliburton got those big, no-bid contracts from our Gov-ment.
Halliburton Cheney never forgot. And, Mr. Bush should never forget who bankrolled Arbusto Oil and his other little ventures- the Bin Laden family.

Now, cynics might say that if he were still owing favors to the Bin Ladens, he wouldn't catch their son, little Osama and bring him to justice. Cynics might say that---call me a Cynic.

That's true about what bulkeraser wrote concerning people having options of how to live.
Pepe was speaking about those "in the Christian realm".
Obviously, non-Christians aren't obligated to conform themselves to spiritual ideals if they choose not to do so.

DemandRelevance True

This is just sad.

Suicide suspected at WTC site
Friends say man was distraught over election results

NEW YORK (AP) -- A 25-year-old from Georgia who was distraught over President Bush's re-election apparently killed himself at ground zero.

Andrew Veal's body was found Saturday morning inside the off-limits area of the former World Trade Center site, said Steve Coleman, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

A shotgun was found nearby, but no suicide note was found, Coleman said.

Veal's mother said her son was upset about the result of the presidential election and had driven to New York, Gus Danese, president of the Port Authority Police Benevolent Association, told The New York Times in Sunday's editions.

Friends said Veal worked in a computer lab at the University of Georgia and was planning to marry.

"I'm absolutely sure it's a protest," Mary Anne Mauney, Veal's supervisor at the lab, told The Daily News. "I don't know what made him commit suicide, but where he did it was symbolic."

Police were investigating how Veal entered the former World Trade Center site, which is protected by high fences and owned by the Port Authority.

Pepe- If you run up and whop someone on the side of the head who did nothing wrong, just for the fun of hurting someone, you don't need to get your King James Concordance, or place an emergency call to the Rabbi to break out the Torah, to know that's wrong.

The Bible codified a lot of things that are common sense, but, let's say I see my neighbor's wife (hypothetical because my neighbor is a single guy) and she is dressed scantily, and I lust after her, and let's say I am married. In the bible, that's a sin, but I haven't "hurt" anyone in a substantial way. The bible, like Mr. Bush, loves to make criminals from people who just think in unauthorized ways.

Riddle me this Batman
"Violation of the Patriot Act is a sin"
Hands?

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar. Render unto God what is God's. And Render unto pork fat what was once a Pig.

Where I used to live,Old Dimebox, in Texas, we had a name for people like Mr. Bush. We called them the folks who "ain't right in the head".

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

We have all sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Pedophile priests.

Religion may not be the opiate of the masses, but it comes close to the crack of the faith based.

Religion is a control method. From the time of the Pharoahs of Egypt straight to George "My favorite philosopher is Jesus" Bush, aligning yourself with the Supreme Being is a short path to "power borrowing" and legitimacy.

By the way, note to Mr. Bush who CLAIMS to be a Christian,
Christians don't call Jesus a "philosopher". Athesists do.
If you are a Christian, Jesus is the example, he is the Way, the Truth, the Light, he is the annointed one, the son of the Most High, Yeshua, Lord, My personal Savior, but he ain't a philosopher. You want a philosopher Mr. Bush? How about looking at http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337/philosophers.html

There are plenty of mortals who think about life and ethics there. MY LORD AND SAVIOR AIN'T NO "PHILOSOPHER".

bulkeraser

I can honestly say I love your posts, you have the most "elegant" way of putting things that just makes me laugh... seriously, in a good way

Hypothetically, your being married and lusting after the girl-guy next door, is hurtng your wife, if you spend all your time day dreaming about said neighbor and ignore your wife, OR perhaps your wife isn't looking as good to you anymore..which leads to all manner of things, lust, maybe a whore or two, (or even said neighbor) leading to an STD...all hypothical of course.

Thanks Pepe.
And, the truth is, one lustful look at another woman, not even thinking about her all day and all, is considered, by some sects, as a sin, and if unrepented, can doom ya to an eternity in hell. Now, if one is a faithful of Catholicism (the word catholic literally means "univesal", and these are the people who killed the Knights Templar, including but not limited to Jacques DeMolay ( see http://www.demolay.org/history/people/demolay/index.shtml )
due to a power struggle involving the King of France )anyway, the same sin if a Catholic, could be expunged post confession with a few Hail Marys.

But, SOME Christian sects, such as the one that Rasputin belonged to, believe that to be really saved, one must engage in all kinds of debauchery and sin ( http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/bailey/65/rasputin.html ).
"It was while on one of his escapades that Rasputin was first impacted by the mystical powers of the Russian Orthodox religion. At Verkhoturye Monastery Rasputin was fascinated by a renegade sect within the Orthodox faith, the Skopsty. Followers of the Skopsty firmly believed that the only way to reach God was through sinful actions. Once the sin was committed and confessed, the penitent could achieve forgiveness. In reality, what the Skopsty upheld was to"sin to drive out sin." Rasputin, one of the biggest sinners of the province, was suddenly struck by the potential held by this theory. It was soon thereafter that the debauched, lecherous peasant adopted the robes of a monk, developed his own self-gratifying doctrines, traveled the country as a "staretz" and sinned to his heart's content."

And, lots of the various books of what SHOULD have been "The Bible" were left out in the Counil of Trent because the "editor" didn't believe they belonged. One group in particular, the Gnostics, had some practices that may be viewed as sinful, if not outwardly bizarre, but they claimed these were Christian.

http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/spermo.htm
" Not all gnostics were "spermo-gnostics". But of these I will speak now. I will summarize the complex Gnostic traditions (although the subject is far too diverse for anyone to depict it accurately in a short essay) but not their literature, nor compare their cosmology in general, nor their History; (1*) I will also go to modern times, where modern Gnostics probably find both worlds more real than the ancient Gnostics did. (2*)"

Now, like I said, I'm just a simple country boy from Texas, but I do know that the quickest way to start bickering and maybe a "knock down drag out" at the barbershop on the corner, is to get a Southern Baptist arguing with a Catholic on the way to salvation.

Now, although I am a simple country boy from Texas, I may also be an atheist from San Diego CA, or a rabbi from New York, or an agnostic from Flagstaff AZ. If you are a Christian, and know much about the Bible, you ought to agree it is / was , based on Jewish law. Jesus/ Yeshua, was a Jew (skinhead idiots not to the contrary, Jesus was a Jew, get used to it).

Let's talk about Jewish law---Halakha. It literally means " going", or, how to go about living. It is based on the commandments of Mosaic law, the Torah. Most Orthodox Jews, hold that halakha represents the actual will of God, either directly, or as closely to directly as possible.

A "sin" is a violation of Jewish law. Now, to any Texas Jewboy like me, this is something we need to know about, and be as mindful of, as we are mindful of keeping the salt lick ready for old Bessie. Now, the term "sin" means different things to Christians and Jews. Judaism has a wider definition of the term sin, and also uses it to include violations of Jewish law that are not necessarily a lapse in morality.

The generic Hebrew word for any kind of sin is aveira. Based on the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) Judaism describes three levels of sin.

Pesha - An intentional sin; an action committed in deliberate defiance of God;
Ovon - This is a sin of lust or uncontrollable emotion. It is a sin done knowingly, but not done to defy God;
Cheit - This is an unintentional sin.

Judaism holds that no human being is perfect, and all people have sinned many times. However a state of sin does not condemn a person to damnation; only one or two truly grievous sins lead to anything approaching the Christian hot hell.

Now, maybe I am a shit kicking Texas Jewboy, or a little Chinese man in San Francisco (remember, I own that bridge there). Or, maybe I am an atheist who says it's ALL bullcrap.

You pray in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first.

bulkeraser Thats hillarious!!!

Ok, this is what I believe...and I think it's all very simple.... I believe that what we have of the Bible now is what God wanted for us to have.

We are ALL sinners, and that the way to procure a place in Heaven for ourselves is for us to acknowledge that Jesus is the son of God and that ONLY through Him will we accomplish that goal. John 3:16..you know that sign you see everyone holding up at sports events..yup...the one and only sign.

I don't believe in complicated... I don't think God does either.... people in OT times couldn't get two doves to rub together...how could they be expected to follow ten commandments? That is why Jesus died on the Cross...he is our dove!

I know a lot of people here can't or don't see this, and I'm fine with that. But I've had too many "miracles" in my life to doubt for a moment.

In closing though, I seriously believe if we had a lady president like Pepe, JazzMary2U, Lachatte, Carla, or ShadowMom, this country wouldn't be IN this mess. How is it that half the population is female, and not ONE president in two hundred years has been. Not even ONE VICE PRESIDENT has been female! People act like Women are the hidden slaves, only good enough to wave and look up to her big strong husband and look on adoringly as HE takes the oath of office.

Excuse me for cursing ladies and gentlemen, but FUCK THAT!

ShadowMom / Carla in 2008...and when they change the law allowing foreign born to run for president...Pepe in 2012!

Are you also, by any chance, an anarchist?

We can all thank Pat Robertson and the 700 club. He supplied dubya with over 40,000,000 voters.

By the way, heaven for me is having my wife next to me and getting a kiss from her. After 13 years, that's saying something I think.

Darn you shadowmom...Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Sorry, women have more important things to do!!! But I appreciate the vote.

Gotcha. Have a good one. Pepe, we love ya. 'Night all.

"However a state of sin does not condemn a person to damnation; only one or two truly grievous sins lead to anything approaching the Christian hot hell."




I think one of those sins your refering to damnation to hell for Christains is blasphemy of the Holy Spirt....that is to completley ignore or go aganist the truth after you have recieved it.

In then Christian religion,that is the "unpardonable sin"

Forget me (but thanks for the vote of confidence) in 2012, you guys will be trying to decide between Hilary and Condaleeza for President with Obama as an independent

Good night all, strange as it seems, I love all you guys too!!!

night pepe...take care my friend!
Love ya!

bulkeraser, nice to meet another former UPC "brother" lol

I normally come here just to get the RIAA news, but last few weeks have become sick to my stomach over Bush and his faith based agenda, the country may have been founded with religious beliefs but the founding fathers also knew very well to keep church and state seperate

I would not make it past the vetting!
Too many indiscretions.
But thanks for the vote of confidence.

Getting back to the subject at hand, there is nothing wrong with faith based religon as long as it doesn't manipulate or control others in what they believe. To help people in need with Christain-Jew-Islam ect. church groups I think is a good thing. But man always finds a way to manipulate and control. To much religious input can be harmful. If you are a bible thumper you know that Jesus never pressured anybody into believing something he wanted.....he instructed through love and kindness, He broke bread with the common people not heads of state or religious leaders. So there is a middle road to faith baised programs which should not go to far one way or the other. We did have things in the past like the Spanish Inquistion & cruisade which did get out of control.

Thanks, bulk.. now I will sleep well!

Yes! Us Christians just got a MANDATE to impose our religious beliefs on the rest of you heathens! So, to all those baby killers out there, and to all those but suck'n homos, look out, we're gonna kill you!

Also, look out you rogue nations, our armies of compassion, our bullets of kindness, and yes, our GODBOMBS will be knocking on your door!

The Christian Revolution has begun. Prepare for death!

First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" etc...

From my view, that means that none of our tax dollars should go to religious organizations. But it's already going on.

Most religions have somewhere a section of text claiming it is the mission of its members to convert others. Simple meme theory - a religion has to be quite agressive in its recruitment to survive.

Found this:

Last Essay: "1967"

This is Bertrand Russell's last manuscript. Untitled, it was annotated "1967" by Russell, at the age of 95, two or three years before he died. Ray Monk published it first in The Independent of London on the 25th anniversary of the Russell Archives. The essay's politics are uncannily prescient.

The time has come to review my life as a whole, and to ask whether it has served any useful purpose or has been wholly concerned in futility. Unfortunately, no answer is possible for anyone who does not know the future. Modern weapons make it practically certain that the next serious war will exterminate the human race. This is admitted by all competent authorities, and I shall not waste time in proving it. Any man who cares what the future may have in store therefore has to choose between nothingness and conciliation, not once, but throughout future ages until the sun grows cold.

Unfortunately, our politicians are not accustomed to such a choice. However hard they try, their minds inevitably slide back to the courtroom and the criminal world. If, out of kindness, the last man foresees the murder of the last man but one, the whole law-enforcement campaign imagines all the apparatus of police, Scotland Yard, judges and wigs ready to catch and punish him. But this is not how the scene will be. There will be first the death of nearly all the inhabitants of New York or London or Peking or Tokyo, then a gradual extension of deaths to the country, then famine due to failure of trade, and at last gasping, horrifying lonely death in the mountains, and then eternal silence.

If the Great Powers continue their present policies, some such end as this is inevitable. When two or more Powers disagree, what can they do? A can yield to B, or B can yield to A, or they can reach a compromise, or they can fight. If either yields, it is thought pusillanimous: either it loses caste, or, next time, it must fight; or it must secure an ally. Since the number of States is finite, this process must soon come to an end. We have seen all the steps in this development since the end of the Second War. Consider what happened in the Cuba crisis. Both sides were willing to fight, but at the last possible moment Khrushchev's nerve failed and he allowed the world to live till the next crisis. But it turned out that Russia would have preferred death, and Khrushchev fell.

Can we count on this always happening?

What is the present system?

When there is a quarrel, a conference is summoned, each side debates, they reach two compromises, one favoured by one side, the other by the other. If each contains disarmament clauses, each is aware that they may be infringed. Each considers the tiniest chance of infringement a greater misfortune than the end of the human race. And so nothing is done. The powers must learn that peace is the paramount interest of everybody. To cause this to be realized by governments should be the supreme aim.

What has been achieved towards this end, and what have I personally contributed?

Publicly, in the relations between states, very little, but still something. Russia has expressed willingness to transform NATO by joining it; but China is a new threat. The Vietnam war seems likely to end in negotiation. Generally, the powers (except the U.S.) show a reluctance to go to war. France is uncertain, but leaves room for hope. At any rate, the stark opposition of Communist and non-Communist is breaking down. If peace can be preserved for the next 10 years, it will be possible to hope.

What can private persons do meanwhile? They can agitate, by pointing out the effects of modern war and the danger of the extinction of Man. They can teach men not to hate peoples other than their own, or to cause themselves to be hated. They can value, and cause others to value, what Man has achieved in art and science. They can emphasize the superiority of co-operation to competition.

Finally, have I done anything to further such ends?

Something perhaps, but sadly little in view of the magnitude of the evil. Some few people in England and the U.S.A. I have encouraged in the expression of liberal views, or have terrified with the knowledge of what modern weapons can do. It is not much, but if everybody did as much this Earth would soon be a paradise. Consider for a moment what our planet is and what it might be. At present, for most, there is toil and hunger, constant danger, more hatred than love. There could be a happy world, where co-operation was more in evidence than competition, and monotonous work is done by machines, where what is lovely in nature is not destroyed to make room for hideous machines whose sole business is to kill, and where to promote joy is more respected than to produce mountains of corpses. Do not say this is impossible: it is not. It waits only for men to desire it more than the infliction of torture.

There is an artist imprisoned in each one of us. Let him loose to spread joy everywhere.

". . . Generally, the powers (except the U.S.) show a reluctance to go to war. . ."

Wow, written way back during the Vietnam debacle, this is an astute observation that easily applies to the here and now.
The more things change, the more they remain the same?

"Tell me where in the Bible it says anything about homosexual relationship. "

Why was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? Why do they call anal sex Sodomy?? The Bible is VERY CLEAR on the issue of homosexuality.

Does Bush have a right to pursue a "faith-base" agenda? That's a loaded question Code.

1.) The claims that Bush won 51% of the voting public are dubious at best--with hundreds of reports coming in of voting machine errors on huge scales, the real outcome of the election is still really unknown; no matter what the media reports.

2.) Does Bush really represent what a "Christian" is? I think the best answer to that can be found in this article:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1025-25.htm

3.) Would Bush push a "common denominator" Christian agenda--an agenda that was used as a cornerstone of founding our country?

So, ask yourself those questions, like I did. And then you can come to a pretty good conclusion.

Myself. I say no. I think Bush is an extremist, hell-bent on bankrupting our nation while he tries to help build an Empire for his neocon buddies. The Christian claims are just his way of pandering to the religious right who falsely believe that Bush is a God-fearing man.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy

"The Bible is VERY CLEAR on the issue of homosexuality."

Yeah, but that's the Old Testament. Someone on one of these threads informed me that the OT doesn't apply to Christians. So all of this creationism, Ten Commandments, prophets, Sodom and Gomorrah -- all irrelevant.

Actually, it was earlier in this thread.

Let me explain myself. I don’t always do that very good. I do understand what it say in the Bible. It’s that I just can’t believe that everything has been change to our language in the right way. And that may be because I have heard different version of the bible. I always try to put all things in question because of other things in the bible. I don’t know if I’m making myself clear to you now. Hope so. I knew after seeing what everybody wrote that I didn’t make myself clear.

gilbd -- You can justify any action -- including murder -- with quotes from the Bible.

gdZiemann....I agree with you on that

True George... In fact, I'm impressed that anyone would know that the Old Testament is irrelevant to Christians. There are many scriptures that talk about homosexuality in the New Testament also. See I Cor 6, 10; Romans 1:24-27; Jude 7.

What I believe gilbd is saying I believe is the bible is translated badly..in which case he is correct. There is NO reference to homosexuals in the original text of the bible.

The original Greek and Hebrew Translations say nothing about homosexuality, that was introduced by King James.

Thank you Chaos2ndz

I know I always don't make myself clear to people. But I try keep trying.

Sorry That was But I keep trying.

"The original Greek and Hebrew Translations say nothing about homosexuality, that was introduced by King James. '

Prove it. Read I Cor 6, 10; Romans 1:24-27; Jude 7. Even if the term "homosexual" isn't used, the concept of men lying with men should be apparent.

Also when the bible was changed from the old language it was done by priest. And they wanted to control the people. So they wrote it in the way they wanted us to behave. At least that is my understanding. I could be wrong. But that’s why I question it. I'm not saying I'm right. If you know different I'm open to listen.

1 Corinthians 6-10:

9 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 cowards (incorrectly translated as "effeminate;" The Greek word means "soft" or "pliable"), nor abusers of themselves with men (The Greek word is used only here and in 1 Timothy 1:10 in lists. The word literally means "male bed" and is not found in contemporary Greek until many years after the time of Paul. To translate it "homosexuals" or other similar words is abusive and incorrect.),

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

(Since this list would include many politicians, preachers, business people, and just about anybody with power over other people, it is obviously incorrect to apply the passage exclusively to homosexuals and to ignore the context and purpose of the whole passage.)

Romans 1:16--2:1:

16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for liberation ("salvation") to every one who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written: But the righteous shall live by faith (Habakkuk 2:4. This verse in Habakkuk 2:4 was considered by the Jewish teachers to be the entire Law reduced to one statement.).

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of those who suppress the truth by unrighteousness.

19 Because what is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them.

20 For since the creation of the world, God's invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made; so that they are without excuse. (How about this wonderful expression of God's revelation through nature: "natural revelation"!)

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor God or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

23 And exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals, and crawling creatures.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them.

25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever, Amen. (Idolatry is obviously the problem that is being addressed here.)

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the usual (natural) function for that which is against nature.

27 And in the same way also, the men abandoned the usual (natural) use of the woman, burned in their in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a distorted mind (mind that "does not measure up" or "pass the test"), to do things that should not be done.

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, malice, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,

30 Slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; ("unloving" is the Greek word for "Family love" or "family ties" but was translated in KJV as "without natural affection" and was interpreted for centuries as a condemnation of homosexuals, which have no connection at all with the word. The word is actually would condemn parents who reject their own gay children!)

32 And although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, every one of you who pass judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who judge practice the same things.

(If you read carefully all of Romans chapters 1, 2, and 3, you will see how Paul developed this entire section to show how desperately all people need Jesus Christ as the guide and hope for their lives. Then Paul shows how Jesus is available by faith to all who turn to God for help.)

Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed not because of homosexuality, the city was destroyed for being inhospitable. To claim a city was destroyed because of homosexuality is ridiculous considering there were people in the city...if they were all gay they would have bred themselves out and the city would have died on it's own.

In other words being inhospitable is what the church does to many gay and lesbian people. They are shunned by their parents, condemned by the church, tormented by their peers, abused at their jobs, attacked on the daily news....In essence our country has commited the same hostile actions against gay people that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

zxt....
dudes....I am getting sick of any americans who bitch about George Bush.

I don't like the man or his party either....ya know what...the majority of your country voted him back him....so don't just hate one man....you're living with all them other voters that think just like him...hate them too.

You voted..now live with it.

don't worry...f*ck bush and his psyco christian supporters...whether it is 51% or 99% i don't care!

I also find it hilarious that the only people Jesus himself openly condemned was the proud and arrogant church!

Jude 7



"Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 7; King James Version)



An obscure Bible passage often found in the anti-gay litany of misinterpreted Scriptures is from the book of Jude. Jude is a very short book, with only 25 verses, which immediately precedes the book of Revelation in the New Testament. Verse 7 contains a brief commentary on the destruction of the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Anti-gay zealots will often use this single verse to prove without a doubt that these cities were annihilated by God because of their homosexuality. They are convinced that "going after strange flesh" can mean nothing else except pursuing same-sex relations. (This phrase is not found in the New International Version, but is referred to as "perversion.")

In order to understand the author's intent, we must look at the original Greek text. The words "strange flesh" are translated from the Greek phrase SARKOS HETERAS. SARKOS means "flesh" and is the root word of many medical and scientific words referring to skin. HETERAS means "different," which is where we get the word "heterosexual." Thus, this phrase literally means "different flesh." In King James English, "strange" meant different. Therefore, the translation is accurate, but its interpretation as a reference to homosexuality is far from correct.

If Jude was trying to describe homosexuality, he probably would have used the Greek word for it, provided the word was in his vocabulary. Lacking knowledge of this word, his next logical choice would have been to use a combination of Greek words to illustrate his point. The obvious phrase would have been SARKOS HOMOS, which means "same flesh." Jude's choice of words, however, indicate that he must have had something else in mind.

The fact is, "different flesh" shows Jude's understanding that the visitors whom the men of Sodom were trying to gang rape were angels sent by God to warn Lot and his family of the impending doom of his city. Jude realized that the angels are from a different order of creation than humans, just as animals are a different order of creation. He saw this behavior as a total breakdown of civil morality and the epitome of human depravity. While Lot may not have known that his guests were angels, Jude knew this very well, having the Genesis account to draw from.

Jude's coupling of this attempted angel-rape with the Sodomites' propensity for sexual immorality is meant to show two major reasons why God chose to burn these cities to the ground. The fact that these two thoughts appear in the same verse cannot be construed as an indication that they are inextricably linked as a single factor, especially when compared to other Scripture passages, such as Ezekiel 16:49-50.


(In other words the reason they were destroyed was due to them going after DIFFERENT flesh...trying to gang-rape angels would be different)

Ezekiel 16
49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Yup sounds just like America

The Spitit of Liberty

The Spirit of Liberty is a simple one to understand, but a very difficult one to put inot concise terms. The sheer scope of it has been underestimated by almost all people, most notably so by those we elect into power, no matter how well-meanin those people may have been. I will try to put it into simple terms so there might be no misunderstanding.

To have liberty, you have certain rights, not priviliges. A Right is something that you have uncontested use and access to; a Privilige is somethingthat another allows you to have access to. These rights are the right to freedom (the total independence of oneself), the right to live (to exist), the right to own property (personal belongings). Liberty allows you to do anything you wish to yourself, as it falls under your right of freedom. You have only two real things that you can offer to another; your time, and your services. You can trade those things with another person for further personal gain (called commerce, loosely). Nobody can force you to give up these things, as this would be an infringement to your right to freedom. This menas that anything that you earn through your own work is yours, and to have that taken from you by any means that you do not agree with is theft (read taxes, liens, actual theft...)

You may form loose groups of individuals, if all the individuals are of a like mind, to work towards a communal goal. You may also put leaders into position, if the whole of the group agrees on this leader. However, this leader has no more power than any other person in the group; he/she is simply a mouthpiece that helps with further organization. Nobody is forced to conform to the will of the leader in liberty if they do not want to. To do so would be slavery (the theft of a person's freedom).

Nobody may take the life of another person, as this would be the theft of thier right to exist (murder). As a group consensus, this person may be ejected from society, but not imprisoned, as this wuold take away htier right to freedom. The same goes for thieves and enslavers or people. The worst that can be done is to remove these epople form activity in society, since to take retribution upon them is to demean thier rights to mere priviliges, and that is unthinkable, since once it applies to one person, it immediately applies to all persons.

Liberty means that nobody rules your life but youself, and you are free to do with it what you will. Most people will trade thier time and skills with other people for goods, but if you do not choose to do so, that is your choice. And liberty means that the government has no more authority over you than you ALLOW it to have over you.

How did we stray so far from this?



On another topic, no, religious government should not be allowed. Moralistic government should noteven be allowed, since they don't know my moralistic code. Do you know what is right and wrong to me? Do I know what is right and wrong to you? For most people, if ther wife was raped, the morally right thing to do would be to kill the attacker. Does this happen? Why not, if the government is a moral one? There is nothing wrong with a few loose rules, like Don't Kill people (other than yourself, if you want, since you're not hurting anybody lese), Don't take from other people anything that they do not actively give to you without thier consent, stuff like that. To have such horrible things imposed upon us like the removal of privacy in our phone converstions, our emails; the removal of our rights to share information with one another (P2P forever!), with the advent of the Patriot Act, our rights to even know why ew are being held prisoner or hostage (since that is what it really is, don't kid yourself) and the right to express our opinion if it does not conform to the Authority in Power is inexcusable and I will fight it to my dying breath.

I truely do believe in the next step that I am taking in my own castle, and that is to fly the colors upside down. That is a time-honored and well understood signal that the peersons or people underthat flag are in grave distress (etymologically speaking, not just stressed out), and I can think of no greater symbol of our times than that.

*sigh*

I have no trouble with Christians, Muslims, Jewish people, Pagans or *ANYONE* who is religous. Religion can do good things for people, I will not deny that.

...however what annoys me is things like this:

“No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”

- George H W Bush

My personal hatred of the Bush family stems from that sort of statement.

Now... we live in a world where many Christian fundamentalists profess the concept of "Freedom of Religion," which I totally agree with. However Freedom of Religion also means Freedom FROM Religion.

Therefore, by imposing Christian values onto a populus you are destroying the Right that we have to believe (or not) anything we want. People can say that "it is Gods will", but frankly God does not run America, or any other Demcratic nation, the PEOPLE run it - that is what Democracy is FOR!

Now take an article from the Guardian the other day: It explained about George W Bush's approval of a book that will be sold in National Park Museums and Bookshops that explains to children that the Grand Canyon is only 2000 years old and was created by Noahs flood.

Now the National Paeleontologist Society, who've spent YEARS figuring out exactly what the Grand Canyon actually is, are slightly pissed off, since their carefully proven scientific experiments PROVE this to be total rubbish.

Now, I have a few friends who are Christians and they were appauled at this - most Christians do not take the Bible at face value, and at least accept that there are different interpretations to what the Bible says.

Now... I am 17, and I live in the United Kingdom. I was tought Evolutionary theory at school. I do not know non-metric measurements in any way (one of my earliest memories of school was the description of a centimetre).

The UK (and Europe) is now one of the most secular societies in the world. Frankly, fundamentalist Bushite Americans, get with the century. The rennaicaince was hundreds of years ago, we've moved on from those sorts of views.

I wonder if the "Flat Earth" lobby will begin to have a voice.

By the way, the "Missing Link" - the holy grail of Biology has been found.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3964579.stm

The final part of Darwins puzzle, if everything goes OK this could well be the final "proof" that evolution is indeed correct.

I wonder how much of the American media covered that....

(btw the idea that some might be still alive is pretty stupid - the article is just making a point)

of course if we found some dna......

Political correctness is much more important among people these days than truth. It has been learned over the last ten years that the truth can often be an annoying hindrance.
It can also negatively effect profits.

Religion is fighting a losing battle. In the 21st century many people are having less and less need for an archaic fictional text that speaks of an invisible man in the sky. Unfortunately there are enough "simple" people out there, and enough people who cannot deal with unanswered questions, that the myth is kept alive.

Postulate #1: the more primitive a culture, the more fundamentally religious they are.

The efforts of the Texans are the death throes of pervasive mind control. They find themselves in a delightful time of Bush induced conservative bible mania, and are taking advantage of it.

It's actually funny to see the leader of the free world on TV, telling billions of people that his inspiration and strength come from a spooky invisible supernatural omnipotent being in the sky. It shows how 'advanced' humanity really is.

In the mean time the catholic fatherhood is losing its supply of fresh alterboy meat.

If you're fed up with all this religious bullshit, I suggest you try a unitarian universalist church. They accept gays, lesbian, wiccans, atheists, agnostics, etc. no questions asked. In fact the only time the reverend says "Jesus Christ" is when he trips over his robes coming down off the altar.

from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/07/blue_state_to_reds/
attributed to one "Commandante Camembert"

An open letter to the Red-State victors:

With hard work and superb organization, you have triumphed over John Kerry and the forces of Blue-state paternalism. Congratulations. The multinational corporations that hold you in bondage remain free to profit off your sweat nearly tax free, while their overpaid senior execs continue to pay a pittance in personal income tax.

Your primary and secondary schools will continue to turn out third-rate pupils with limited opportunities, while you enjoy the satisfaction of making it on your own without health care when a catastrophic illness bankrupts your family.

Your agricultural universities will continue issuing Ph.D.s in football, and bogus Protestant Evangelical and Fundamentalist theology, and how to jerk off a bull safely. Your children will learn to borrow enough money to erect chicken houses so that they, like you, can take custody -- not possession, but custody -- of Tyson's chicks, feed them, rear them, assume losses from those that fail to thrive, and in the end earn just enough money to service their endless debt, and realize a profit of perhaps $12K a year. Your bank thanks you; Tyson thanks you; George W. Bush thanks you; and I thank you.

You can continue sending your sons to die in Iraq on a fool's errand. When you bury them, you can console yourselves with Bush's platitudes about their heroic mission to defend America from weapons of mass destruction.

You can savor the deficit spending that stimulates commerce today, but will cripple the US economy in ten or fifteen years' time when the bills come due with interest. Perhaps a Democrat will be in office at that time, who can be blamed for W's delayed economic fiasco.

You can continue believing, as Republican Party brainwashing has persuaded you, that we, your neighbors, are your enemies. You can believe that we have no morals; that we pimp out our teenage daughters for Internet porn; that we eat babies; that we are all gay; that we are cowards on the battlefield; and that we want to run your lives and give you AIDS.

Here's a clue: we are not your enemies; we are your countrymen. Your enemies are the greedy multinationals that the Republican Party bends over backwards to accommodate. Incidentally, most of them are based in Blue states, as are their Republican owners and major shareholders.

Here in the Blue States, Democrats and Republicans alike generate the lion's share of America's wealth, although it is you Reds who provide the lion's share of the stoop labor. You are our Mexicans, so to speak. We could not have accomplished the economic miracle that is America without your willing capitulation to a system that lies to you and fucks you over at every turn.

Look at economic output and educational achievement on a state-by-state basis: it's painfully evident that we Blues are immensely more productive and better educated than you Reds. We have lots more money. We live longer. We eat better. We work less. We fuck more. We do cocaine and smoke fine Canadian buds, not the homebrew crank and cheap Mexican headache reefer you guys are stuck with. We drink French wine and Stoli martinis, not Budweiser. Our children rarely bother us: we've got them on Ritalin and Prozac. Our teeth are straighter and whiter, our necks longer, and our fingernails cleaner. And many of us are the Republican elite who have just punked you.

It's good to be a Blue, regardless of which party you join.

Understandably, you resent us, so you've fabricated an imaginary measure of superiority: Christian "values." Yet you talk about values the way a pre-teen girl talks about "love" in fan letters to Ashton Kutcher. You recycle quasi-religious platitudes and received slogans. You know nothing of moral theology, a rigorous philosophical pursuit that hardly exists outside the Catholic Church and its elite universities. You make of the Bible what you will; you attend prayer meetings with other semi-literates, where you reinforce each other's sloppy understandings of the text, and combine them with half-digested bits of old-timey Hallmark-card "wisdom." And when you spout gibberish, you call it "speaking in tongues." You actually fancy that you're saints, you silly, narcissistic creatures.

Nevertheless, you are fellow Americans. The Blue Republican elite encouraged you to vote for George W Bush, because they quite simply own him, and they know that his administration will make policies that help them, even if hurt you. We Blue Democrats voted for John Kerry because we believed he would minister to your needs better than Bush. A President Kerry would have shared some of our wealth with you, assured your health care, raised the minimum wage, and checked the rapacious greed of the multinationals that hold you in thrall.

President Kerry would have helped us to help you, which is all that we ask. It pains us to see you in wage slavery. It pains us to see you so ignorant and uneducated, and so eager to place yourselves in bondage. Yes, we live better; but we wish you to live better too, even if it means sacrifice on our part.

What we wanted for you would have been far better than that which you, in your ignorant pride, demanded for yourselves. Oh, you defeated us all right, but only to your detriment.

We Blues will come out of the Bush era no worse for wear, although you Reds will come out very much diminished, deeper in debt, and less able to improve your circumstances by your own powers. But because you wish to be flattered more than helped, you will be grateful for your ass fucking from the Blue-state Republican elite that is laughing behind your backs today.

We did not wish it so. We honestly did want to help.

On 2 November, you thanked us by electing a shrewd, manipulative handmaiden to corporate America who panders to you while ruthlessly exploiting your ignorance and weakness for the benefit of his patrons in the national plutocracy. There is nothing we can do about that. You won fair and square.

We should let you rot. We should secede and leave you to fend for yourselves. Then you will see firsthand just how dependent you are. We are sick of fighting for you by fighting against you. Perhaps, when you see how dreary your lives have become without us, you will finally develop the spine to fight for your basic, human rights. And then we will gladly confront the plutocracy alongside you. We need your help to defeat the Blue Republicans, who, I assure you, are just as decadent as we are, though often richer.

But until you finally learn to respect yourselves, we can't respect you, and we therefore can't be bothered to give a rat's ass about you.

So let us secede, Blue America and Red America. We can handle the Blue state Republicans, so long as we don't have a lot of ignorant Red state lemmings frustrating our efforts and screwing themselves in the bargain. Secession will enable us both to live as we have chosen without the other's interference. We will prosper, and you will get a clue.

But do stay in touch after the borders slam shut. When you finally tire of living on the modern, corporate plantations of Cargill, Tyson, ConAgra and Smithfield; when you tire of shopping at Wal-Mart and sending your daughters to sling hash at Denny's in hopes that they'll meet the nicer sort of truck driver; when you tire of sneaking into Blue America as illegal white-trash wetbacks eager for casual work dusting our parlors; and when, like men, you finally rise up in rebellion against this immoral usury -- then, and only then, let us talk.

We'll gladly get your backs. But first you must grow the brains and the balls needed to profit from our help.

This is a very good discussion. As a christian, and after reflecting on what I have read here, I must say that thinking of sodom as an example has me needing to do some research. Jesus himself fraternized with whores. He did not hate the person, but hated the sin. This does not mean that I believe that homosexuality is right. What it does mean is that we should not be so quick to cast them out.

I always smile when I see people calling christians unthinking sheep. Especially when this is precisely the term Jesus used to describe humanity in general. But it is true, we will let ourselves be led around wherever those with power want. Only through him can we have wisdom. The Eureka of the inventor, or that great idea that pops into your head, I believe that to be God.

There are plenty of intelligent, critical thinking christians out there, but following Christs example of pacifism, they (I don't want to be arrogant)don't tend to make a lot of noise. Many use the church for power, and it works, but there are plenty who see the truth of what's going on.

I know many Christians who voted for kerry. Perhaps they are wiser than I, but I suppose it doesn't really matter. The problem in my eyes is that Christians are hated by so many. I am saddened by so many people proudly announcing that they are athiest, and that they know the Bible so well. I do not hate the athiests themselves, for they are all Gods people. However, it is that defiance of God that I find easy to hate.

Maybe it is because I can see myself as a better Christian because that guy over there is worse? I know that's an incorrect view, but people aren't always logical. I would like to think it's because I see my God being rejected.

The threat in my eyes, is the over acceptance of ideas that are considered wrong to christians. We would be forced to pull our impressionable children from the public because otherwise they would be taugh values that we do not wish them to be taught. Anyone can understand that.

I feel that I am now rambling. Back to work.

Bravo Fobix Bravo!

One does get tired though of being bashed over the head with a "two edged sword"
as the Christians call the bible when that same sword can be reversed and can be used to attack them and their ignorance of their own religion!

"I do not hate the athiests themselves, for they are all Gods people."

There you go, in one sentence you've stated that all atheists are ignorant fools who refuse to believe in a truth you dont question. That's why atheists have a distaste for you. Atheists dont have a god, therefore the god you have doesnt apply to them. They are not "lost sheep" or "un-enlightened" . They are not "refusing to accept a truth", they are refusing to accept a myth., your truth. You, as a good little christian, refuse to question the validity of what you have been told, therefore, you believe that anyone who thinks the truth is different, is wrong.

"However, it is that defiance of God that I find easy to hate."

The reason you hate that is because, as a good little christian, you have answers provided to you for life's most scary and perplexing questions. The thought that what you have been conditioned into believing may not be true is scary to you, and upsets you on a subconcious level. That's why you will walk around thinking non-believers are lost sheep.

"...Maybe it is because I can see myself as a better Christian because that guy over there is worse?"

Humans are a tribal species, they have evolved that way. Everything from political conventions to the lure of professional sports is an outlet for the very human instinct of the tribe. Tribes and 'clans' held us together as we evolved. They offered protection. As a good little christian, you consider your 'tribe' to be better and more enlightened than any other tribe. Whether it be Jews, Atheists, or Buddists. They are all wrong in the eyes of your clan. Doubt is not tolerated by your elders. The most important aspect of your religion is belief.

Have you ever noticed that religious nuts who approach you are more concerned with whether or not you believe than what kind of person you are, or what your morals are?

The more people who believe, the more obvious and real the myth feels.

"...I would like to think it's because I see my God being rejected..."

My god has a bigger dick than your god. Again, rejection of your god offers harm to your tidy little notion of life. You'll have none of it.

"...We would be forced to pull our impressionable children from the public because otherwise they would be taugh values that we do not wish them to be taught..."

We, we, we. Who's we? You're waxing tribal again. What values? Is it the priests who are fondling the little alter boys? The ten percent of your ministerhood and priest hood which is gay? The same values you try to pin on "those other tribes" are the same values permeated through yours.

"Those so called sinners that you're praying for, they're standing by your side."

Bravo Fobix Bravo! Amen Brother!!!

Quote:
You make of the Bible what you will; you attend prayer meetings with other semi-literates, where you reinforce each other's sloppy understandings of the text, and combine them with half-digested bits of old-timey Hallmark-card "wisdom." And when you spout gibberish, you call it "speaking in tongues." You actually fancy that you're saints, you silly, narcissistic creatures.

I love it. Thank you.

Ok lets get a couple of quick objective truths straight:

1. Jesus was reactionary leftist revolutionary. There is just no other way to describe the guy. Last time I saw Jesus he was standing in front of a tank Tiananmen square.

2. The bible as we know it was put together by the Greeks roughly 300 years after Jesus was the victim of an overly aggressive conservative puppet regime that fancied capital punishment. As we all know today there were many other gospels that the Greeks left out. For whatever reason the Greek priests were particularly misogynistic and tailored the bible to portray women [sex] as evil.

"There you go, in one sentence you've stated that all atheists are ignorant fools who refuse to believe in a truth you dont question. That's why atheists have a distaste for you."

You have drawn a conclusion where none exists. From the viewpoint of a christian, you are made by the same God that made us. The fact that you drawn that conclusion so easily, and so easily develop a distaste for us is the very reason that most Christians don't care to be around you.

"The reason you hate that is because, as a good little christian, you have answers provided to you for life's most scary and perplexing questions. The thought that what you have been conditioned into believing may not be true is scary to you, and upsets you on a subconcious level. That's why you will walk around thinking non-believers are lost sheep."

How is that answering any of lifes questions? I would say the same about you however, that you are afraid that what you have been conditioned to believe may not be true. And I stated that all people are sheep. Not just unbelievers.

"As a good little christian, you consider your 'tribe' to be better and more enlightened than any other tribe. Whether it be Jews, Atheists, or Buddists. They are all wrong in the eyes of your clan. Doubt is not tolerated by your elders."

They are all wrong in our eyes in the same manner that we are wrong in yours. And doubt, as it appears, is also not tolerated by you.

"We, we, we. Who's we? You're waxing tribal again. What values? Is it the priests who are fondling the little alter boys? The ten percent of your ministerhood and priest hood which is gay? The same values you try to pin on "those other tribes" are the same values permeated through yours."

There are many who claim to be Christians who in fact are not. They claim to be because they want to fit in, but they do not believe or practice anything that has to do with Christianity. Those that you point out as doing horrible things are not representatives of the overwhelming majority of Christians.

"Those so called sinners that you're praying for, they're standing by your side."

We are all sinners.


"Bravo Fobix Bravo! Amen Brother!!!"
-your point?

Uh, folks, I didn't want to have to jump into this fire-rimmed foray again, but when lack of information rears its head, then it's difficult to resist.

First, those of you who have been quoting and doing expositions from the Bible -- check out Genesis chapter 19, verses 4 and 5.
The word "homosexuality" doesn't have to be used here, because the intent of some of Sodom's men is quite plain in THOSE passages (which no one previously quoted).

And, of course, there is always Leviticus 18:22. The term 'homosexual' isn't used, but the concept of men lying with men should be apparent . . . as someone has already posted.

That being said, I still agree with George Z. who said, for Christians, it's the New Testament that counts.

It's already been reported from the N.T. book of Romans chapter 1, verse 27:
"And in the same way also, the men abandoned the usual (natural) use of the woman, burned in their in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

So, let's get over it. We can't deny that both the Old AND the New Testaments condemn homosexuality, but so what? A lot of OTHER things are condemned, too! (making me and everyone else -- heterosexuals OR homosexuals -- pretty guilty of lots of stuff)

It imparts bad taste when people use any sacred book as a whip.
I don't think it's proper to do that. But I sometimes present information on any controversial subject (and have: abortion; atheism; capital punishment; euthanesia; homosexuality; evolution) if I see something lacking consideration in the debate. Otherwise, it's best for my peace of mind to stay out.

BTW, how often did (the N.T.) Jesus intimidate or threaten sinners?
I read about Him as reaching out, ready to forgive, and asking that appropriate changes be made.

Isn't it a truism that most people have the power of free will to make decisions about their lives?
Why is there such a problem with that -- especially in the spiritual arena, I mean?
Really, now.

Fobix

Wow, are you ever a sore loser!

Geneisis 19-4/5 The men of Sodom trying to gang-rape angels, nothing homosexual about that. In many ancient cultures men were raped to be humiliated like women, like I said before Sodom's sin was not homosexuality it was inhospitality to strangers.

LEVITCUS 18:22,20:13

Leviticus 18:22 reads, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 18:19, just three verses before, reads, “You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness.” And herein we find a problem. Leviticus proscribes detailed and at times odd-sounding regulations for the ritual cleanliness of ancient Israel. It deals in such subjects as leprosy, bodily discharges and the proper way to make various sacrifices. In these verses, the word translated "abomination" is the Hebrew "toevah," which refers to acts that make one ritually unclean, such as eating pork or having sexual intercourse with a woman during menstruation. The question here is one of ritual purity.

Christians have been virtually unanimous in recognizing that the church is not under the purity provisions of the Old Testament law. We do not keep kosher, nor do we forbid heterosexual intercourse during menstruation. When arguing about same sex relations, conservative Christians will pull verses like Leviticus 18:22 out of context by invoking an alleged distinction between ceremonial and moral law, so that we may not keep kosher but we are under the 10 Commandments. However, even if such a distinction is recognized, it does not settle the question, “To which category does the prohibition of same-sex relations apply?” Since Leviticus itself does not answer this question, one must either argue in a circle or look elsewhere for justification of the claim that the Leviticus 18:22 and similar passages belong to the moral as opposed to the ceremonial law.

(ceremonial law for Isreal)

Romans 1:27-I Answered Above (It Is A Mis-translation which literally means (Abusers Of The Male Bed) In essence those whom rape people, those that lead people in the bedroom under false pretenses, from the original GREEK Translation

I strongly encourage all to read "The History Of Homophobia"
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/homopho1.htm

Q: Should there be a new religious/faith based agenda?

A: No.

nuff said

"That being said, I still agree with George Z. who said, for Christians, it's the New Testament that counts."

Actually, I believe it was AsiaMinor who provided that bit of illumination early in the thread, when I brought up the proposed seafood ban. I am merely echoing.

The last time I was in a Christian church, the Bible had BOTH the OT and NT. Always have.

This is the first I've been led to believe that we ignore the OT.

This is whacked.

gdZiemann

We don't ignore the OT..one simply compliments the other..the OT points out to us what sin is....it also points out to us how impossible it was for the people to follow the law.

When Jesus died on the Cross, with Him went the sins of the world, past present and yes, future, (He also knew we couldn't keep it all together either) for all of us, for all time...we have only to accept that, accept Him into our lives, confess our sins, and have the faith to believe. He desires a pesonal relationship with all of us...it's not a private club.

pesonal? duh, personal....

I believe there once really was a man named Jesus who died nailed to a cross...

with the religious leaders yelling out..Crucify Him, Crucify Him!

The same as religious leaders are doing today with anyone that is outside
their mis-interpreted text and "because the preacher said" mentality.

underline MAN inde...

Jesus asked me to help SAVE him from his followers.

Of course the Christians Will Always Believe

1.There once was a city named Sodom-All The Gay Men Where There
2.There once was a city named Gomorrah-All The Lesbians Lived There

"mis-interpreted text"?

"In Geneisis 19-4/5 -- The men of Sodom trying to gang-rape angels, nothing homosexual about that."

Excuse me, nowhere is there any indication that the men of Sodom knew those "men" were angels. Note their words to Lot:
"Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can rape them."
It's those men of Sodom intending to gang-rape men. Any different conclusion is tenuous if not rationalizing.

But you are still correct in the sense that Sodom's transgressions extended to many things; other parts of Scripture attest to that, as you have said.

You are also right in saying Christians are not under the ceremonial laws (ritual cleansing, ritual purity, etc.); and -- hey, George Z. -- when I inadvertently attributed that part about the O.T. as having been said by you, that was unintentional (as most inadvertent things are
Also, it would have been closer to my meaning if I had said "For Christians, the New Testament counts more than the Old." And that's because of all the regulations for the chosen people (Hebrews/Jews) of the O.T. which do not apply to N. T. believers.

Key point: In terms of biblical doctrine, sexual purity extends beyond ritual purity -- it's considered a moral issue.
O.T. rules may be immaterial for N. T. believers, but in regards to Romans 1:27 you wrote that the original rendering should be "Those who rape people, those that lead people in the bedroom under false pretenses, from the original GREEK Translation".
Even so, with or without lexicons, note the context of the passage is in reference to MALES abusing the male bed.
That's salient.

"If you read carefully all of Romans chapters 1, 2, and 3, you will see how Paul developed this entire section to show how desperately all people need Jesus Christ as the guide and hope for their lives. Then Paul shows how Jesus is available by faith to all who turn to God for help."
Very articulately stated, and this remains the basic truth for all who wish to be saved!

"I believe there once really was a man named Jesus who died nailed to a cross...
with the religious leaders yelling out..Crucify Him, Crucify Him."

According to the Bible, He was/is "God in the flesh", having both a human and a divine nature.
Also, His story doesn't end with the crucifixion.

Oh, yes, the religious leaders of His day. Isn't it interesting that there are always those kind of religious leaders around!

Genesis:
Words of Lot:"Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can rape them."

It's to KNOW them.

It's also speculated that this did not even imply sex at all
that Lot was an outcast of society in this city and he was not
allowed to have visitors without proper credentials.

But regardless this had nothing to do with commited same sex, loving relationships.
---------
In Romans 1:26-27 the translation is: "Abusers of the male bed," this implies violent activity.
Why did I write all of that, and not just the key verses (26 & 27)? Because verses 26 & 27 MAKES NO SENSE without the rest of the verses. Here we see blasphemers of the most wicked kind, whom God gave over to the lusts of their flesh BECAUSE OF their wickedness. A true Christian does not live a life wallowing in the things listed above, and they certainly are not "haters of God", neither are they those who "did not like to retain God in their knowledge". To the contrary - true Christians care about the Lord very deeply and seek to do the opposite of those things, whether gay or straight.

And just as we saw in Leviticus, here are men who LEAVE the woman for men, burning in their lusts (i.e. who just want to satisfy their sexual appetite with whatever they can get). The natural attraction of these men is toward women; yet they leave the natural use of the woman to be with other men. It speaks of sexual lust, not sexual identity. Heterosexual men are the ones in a position to have the ability to leave the woman. Homosexuals are not.

Notice also in verse 26, we see women who CHANGED their natural ways. These are women who WERE HETEROSEXUAL by nature (that is, their inner attraction was originally toward males), but turned from being with a man to being with another woman


Also erased from the bible is two positive same sex relationships, one between

King David and Jonathan

The relationship between David and Jonathan went WAY beyond that of "dear and close friends" it would seem. Their story begins in 1 Samuel 18:1-3 where we are told that "the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul....Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul." Now, this is the very definition of a marriage - two souls knit together in love, and bound with a covenant. Had this same event taken place between a man and a woman, no one would contest that it referred to nothing less than a marriage.

Ruth And Naomi
Far from home, her family entirely deceased, Naomi decides to go back home to Israel. Ruth, the wife of one of Naomi's deceased sons will not take Naomi's advice and go look for a new husband. Ruth responds, "Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I
will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me."

The words of Ruth's covenant to Naomi express such intimate and tender love that heterosexual couples repeat them to each other during marriage ceremonies.

Ruth and Naomi returned to Israel. God blessed and honored the covenant the two women made between them. Ruth became an ancestor of Jesus.

The Invention Of Sodomy By Mark Jordon:


http://web.archive.org/web/20030218205647/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/bible/invention.html

If you had people in here quoting from the Koran, wouldn't you be put off?

Quote from any and every source that you wish folks! (even the copyrighted ones!)

Btw, wherever you are tonight, Jeffmorse752, thanks for the post. I really want to see that special. I read about it a few weeks ago, and it looked worthwhile. Did you catch it?

"It's to KNOW them."

"Know" is a sugar-coated King James rendition of what is actually sexual interfacing.
(Adam "knew" his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore a son.)
What counts is: How does the original Greek read? (not "what is speculated").

"But regardless, this had nothing to do with committed same-sex, loving relationships."
Granted; we move on.

"Heterosexual men are the ones in a position to have the ability to leave the woman. Homosexuals are not."
Anecdotal aside: I once knew a guy with tendencies who tried to go straight; he married, but things did not work out.
They both sort of agreed to leave each other behind. The guy went back to his gay associations.


"A true Christian does not live a life wallowing in the things listed above" (ref. Romans chapter 1).
Valid point. In fact, the bulk of the chapter (from verse 18 onward to verse 32) is directed toward: wicked people (see verse 1 who have no real excuse (verse 20) and who trade the true God for a lie (verse 25).
People who live wickedly...who have no excuse...who trade the true God for a lie...
Point of logic: There is nothing in this section to prevent it from including and indicting ANY person who lives in violation of God's laws in the manner so described in this chapter.


"Erased from the Bible is two positive same-sex relationships; one between:

King David and Jonathan" . . .

Where is there evidence for something existing and being "erased"?

"Ruth and Naomi" . . .
"The words of Ruth's covenant to Naomi express such intimate and tender love..."

Point of contention: Their relationship could have been at an "intimate" friendship/in-law-kinship level without it necessarily including sexual relations.

Actually, those two sets of examples WERE "positive same-sex relationships", as you stated...without any need to hypothetically expand the meaning beyond face value.
Or, in your mind, does the fact that Ruth and Naomi stayed together automatically lead to presumption of sexual intimacy in addition to friendship intimacy?

The word know...is Yadha, it is clearly used 924 times in reference to "get acquainted with"

It is used clearly 10 times in the bible in regards to sex.

-------------------------------------
Romans 1: 26-27
"Anecdotal aside: I once knew a guy with tendencies who tried to go straight; he married, but things did not work out."

And I also know married gay men that live the life at home with the wife and kiddes and have a gay lover on the side...one over 10 years

"Marrying someone just to fit in" would fit that description I gave above.
---------------------------------------
The evidence on David and Jonathan is erased because
even the wording on their relationship was altered.
The word for their love is...ahabah
Which translated is either...love for one's self, love for a woman, love for god, sexual desire,



1 Samuel 20:41
"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)

Other translations have a different ending to the verse: "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)
"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)
"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)
"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)
"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)
"Then the kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)


The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan is too threatening for Bible translators, so they either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.
------------------------------------
Ruth and Naomi


Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
------------------------------

I don't "know" nuthing... but I do know I wanna get to "know" you all!

"The evidence on David and Jonathan is erased because
even the wording on their relationship was altered."

Well, the King James sometimes did some altering from the original Greek. Is that what you're referring to?
Naturally, we try to verify with the oldest known Greek manuscripts, as you know.
(BTW, the use of "ahabah" is inconclusive for sex, as you pointed out.
It can mean a love for another which transcends love of self.)

All that weeping emotion and its concomitance is not conclusive about there being a sexual relationship in its aftermath.
That word for "great" could just as easily mean he had the greater grief, rather than becoming "great" in the sense of becoming erect.

Hebrew is a tough language to work with because it doesn't use vowels; that's why I dislike it.

"Yadha" is used at least ten times in the Bible in regards to sex.
Yes, and one of those times is in the instance of Genesis 19:4,5.

The Living Bible takes liberties, so I'm at all surprised at what they may or may not have decided.

Note that the word "cleave" is followed by "and they shall be one flesh." It's that latter phrase that gives the cleaving its sexual empowerment.
Cleaving without the one-flesh designation does not automatically imply sexual intimacy.
Therefore, "Ruth clave onto her" makes sense in the context of how she had said to Naomi rather emphatically:
"Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die.
May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me."

Those words are a STRONG cleaving promise, but adding a sexual dimension to it (in the absence of some kind of verbal support) is a stretch.

Regarding: "the thought of two adult men kissing" --
Yeah, well, that's so ethnocentric or culture-biased of people not to understand how things work elsewhere, isn't it. As you and I both know, hugging (and kissing, though not necessarily on the lips) has been traditional in the Middle East for men to do for thousands of years.
Even in the New Testament, there is an occasional reference to greeting one another with "an holy kiss."

Some folks even get all shook up about how David danced before the Lord. I guess it doesn't take much to rattle some folks' cages.

It's hard to have any patience with translators that make a mockery of truth; you and I both strongly agree on that.

Insofar as the topic of the article that was presented at the top of this thread, I tend to go along with those who say that we shouldn't add any more religious agenda to politics.

"Insofar as the topic of the article that was presented at the top of this thread, I tend to go along with those who say that we shouldn't add any more religious agenda to politics."

I would agree on that

The whole agenda of this was also...that the bible itself is pretty
vague about a lot of things and shouldn't be uses as a means to
measure a person or judge them. One's truth can be another's
falsehood. Long outdated repackaged books/scrolls
shouldn't be used to judge a person instead they should go out into
the world and get to know people, right here, right now open minded.

I could go on and on and add more references to David and Jonathan's relationship as well as other things but the whole point of this would be moot.

Sure there are bad examples in the gay communtiy as in any community.

One being a guy that had sex knowing he was hiv+ and knowlingly spread
the disease to his lover of two years and bragged about having sex with
hundreds maybe thousands when he was arrested.

But also there are excellent examples

Such as my uncle whom had been partnered for 30 years and raised his
sister's children as his own after she passed away (which grew up to be nice heterosexual people).

But in the ironic twist of fate his lover died (which he had no right to visit in the hospital) and he is losing his home now
because of his lover's family rejected him and the house is in his name so
his family (which he hadn't seen in over 30 years) owns his home now
through legal means. The uncle now 64, lives in a small apartment
barely scraping by and he wouldn't be if he didn't have the help of
his two adopted children whom love him dearly and feel he deserves
much more than this!

I'm glad you shared those examples for all of us to read.

People do need to have more understanding and be more caring about others, as you say.

Earlier there was a post about how Jesus typically conducted himself -- reaching out to others, offering forgiveness and restoration, asking that appropriate changes be made (but He seldom was heavy-handed in His approach). His motive was love and service to those in need.
The world would do well to follow His example; so much good could be accomplished in so many areas -- the physical, the mental, the emotional, as well as the spiritual -- if only more people did.

aye, i say remove ALL religion from gov't. no "god save xxx and this court" crap. no praying in congress...etc. btw i read on a website that homophobia can be attributed to the Hebrews originally!!!
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/homopho1.htm

DR: I found this site today while searching for parental responsibility:

http://www.xu.edu/peace/economic.htm

Lachatte, thanks for posting that link! I'm reading it with great interest.

Already, (and this is just in the first section) some gems to be found there:

"Together and with God we are more powerful than the forces of evil in our world. If we picture the minimum basic structures for a world of peace with justice, then we can search for the means to build that peace."

"All of us have a natural right to water, to food that is nutritious, to a healthy environment, to shelter, to health care, to education."

"Even to think outside the box is a price as a society we seem unwilling to pay."


(Glancing ahead, I see many items worthy to consider.
There's even a reference to Jesus saying how He is the Living Water.
I'll be glad when I have time to read everything on this link.)

Clarification.
I should have written:
"Jesus offers what He calls Living Water, referring to himself as the source of genuine spiritual life."

At the bottom of that page, notice the name Russell Mokhiber. I love his questions! http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1008-15.htm

Man, that was great! I felt like saying YES-S-S, right on, way to go!

"I read on a website that homophobia can be attributed to the Hebrews originally!!!"

You're joking.....