the smoke screen of opposing gay marrige

[shegeek72]

The Pope speaks of the "evil of homosexuality." Yet, I have not heard
exactly what those "evils" are? Could it be pedophilia? No. The
majority of pedophiles are married, heterosexual men and Catholic
priests. So, where is the evil?

There are evils in dictators, murderers, robbers, thieves, con
artists, etc, but what harm is there in a man loving another man and
vice-versa? Some have claimed the harm of incontinence resulting from
anal sex. Yet, no one has provided figures on how many gay males
suffer from this malady. Then there's the fact that heterosexuals have
anal sex and lesbians typically don't. All of the objections to
homosexuality I've read and heard talk about males, but practically
nothing about lesbians.

Indeed, even among those who find nothing wrong with homosexuality,
some are repulsed at the thought, or sight, of two men making love,
yet are not repulsed by two women having sex and many (particularly
males) find it erotic. This is probably due to the cultural norms that
allow women to be more intimate in public. Hardly anyone would be
bothered by two women walking arm-in-arm, yet two men doing the same
could draw second looks and sneers.

I think it's this repulsion, or objection to, men being intimate
that's a significant factor allowing people to so easily buy into
their belief that homosexuality is "wrong," without even the biblical
(mis)interpretations.

Then there are those who insist that without the breakdown of
heterosexual marriage, gays wouldn't be pushing for same-sex marriage.
As if gays have been waiting in the wings for hetero marriage to fall
apart. To those who've claimed this I've asked again and again for
some proof to this connection and none has presented a shred of
evidence.

They also claim that once gay marriage is "normalized" all sorts of
variations on marriage will appear, like bestial, pedophile marriage,
etc. Yet in the states and countries where gay marriage is allowed
none of this has taken place.

Instead of using so much energy in opposing gay marriage, religious
leaders and people should instead be addressing the dismal failure of
hetero marriage; that over half of all marriages end in separation and
divorce. Indeed, I think many religious groups are using their
opposition to gay marriage as a smoke screen to ignore the failure of
their own vaulted institution.

Perhaps, the next time you decry gay marriage, look in the mirror and
think, "Shouldn't I be addressing the failure of heterosexual marriage
first?"
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[DKleinecke]

Post by shegeek72
Then there are those who insist that without the breakdown of
heterosexual marriage, gays wouldn't be pushing for same-sex marriage.

I wonder why we are discussing marriage on soc.religion.christian. I
thought this group was about the Christian religion.

Oh, yes, I remember. The people who run the religions keep finding
things to say about marriage - to applaud this and to deplore that.

Marriage was around long before any of the currently practiced
religions were formulated. It is, surprise, related to, but not
bidentical with, reproduction which has been going on for a long time
now.

The current hullabaloo is caused by the fact the government wants to
regulate marriage. Since almost all out governments have gone secular
they have no guidance from any religious group and make silly
compromises. The governments have tried regulating other human
behavior - for example, drinking alcoholic beverages, opening stores
on Sunday, and so on. The most spectacular attempts have failed and
been repealed. Lets just agree that the government attempt to regulate
marriage has failed.

I say this is NOT a religious question. I expect most people to be
shocked. But why is it? What value is there to society in government
regulation of marriage?

I consider myself a Christian (people have suggested I am fooling
myself) and I can see no need for the government to get involved. The
churches can get involved as much as they want - just not the
government. A few laws will need to be changed and a lot of habits. In
fact it would be probably be easier for the United States government
to cut and run from marriage than it will be to cut and run (or
whatever they call it) from Iraq.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by shegeek72
Then there are those who insist that without the breakdown of
heterosexual marriage, gays wouldn't be pushing for same-sex marriage.

I wonder why we are discussing marriage on soc.religion.christian. I
thought this group was about the Christian religion.

I would say this shows you need to reread the FAQ and Charter, but I
haven't been able to access them myself for a long time now. No, you
are wrong: remember: it is SOC.religion.christian, not just
"religion.christian". So all topics that have to do with Christianity
in society are fair game.

Post by DKleinecke
Oh, yes, I remember. The people who run the religions keep finding
things to say about marriage - to applaud this and to deplore that.

No, that is not why. See above: besides: why _shouldn't_ they "applaud
this and deplore that"? That is clearly what Paul gave Timothy and
Titus instructions to do.

Post by DKleinecke
Marriage was around long before any of the currently practiced
religions were formulated. It is, surprise, related to, but not
bidentical with, reproduction which has been going on for a long time
now.

That would be marriage according to natural law. But we do not live
under natural law alone, we live under the "perfect Law of liberty
(Jam 1:25) known as the Gospel.

Post by DKleinecke
The current hullabaloo is caused by the fact the government wants to
regulate marriage.

Hardly likely, since governments have been regulating marriage since
Hammurabi, yet the hullaboloo is quite recent.

Post by DKleinecke
Since almost all out governments have gone secular
they have no guidance from any religious group and make silly
compromises.

You miss the point.

Post by DKleinecke
The governments have tried regulating other human
behavior - for example, drinking alcoholic beverages, opening stores
on Sunday, and so on. The most spectacular attempts have failed and
been repealed.

Again, you miss the point: the _most_ 'spectacular' attempts have been
repealed, but governments have _not_ pulled out of the effort
altogether. Nor should they.

Post by DKleinecke
Lets just agree that the government attempt to regulate
marriage has failed.

Why should we? So far, every reason you suggest or give explicitly in
this post has been based on a misconception of what governments are
_trying_ to accomplish with such regulation.

Hint: they are NOT trying to enforce Christian morality. Their goals
are far less ambitious.

Post by DKleinecke
I say this is NOT a religious question. I expect most people to be
shocked. But why is it? What value is there to society in government
regulation of marriage?

Quite a bit, especially if done correctly (which hasn't been seen much
lately). After all, the notion that governments need to do _some_
regulation of marriage to ensure the stability of society is at least
as old as Plato, and has not been overturned yet.

Post by DKleinecke
I consider myself a Christian (people have suggested I am fooling
myself) and I can see no need for the government to get involved.

Plato saw it, Aristotle saw it, most governments since then have seen
it. Why don't you see it? Have you _read_ the preamble to the state
code (for any state) governing marriage? If you would do this, you
would see what their goals are. They are necessary goals.

Post by DKleinecke
The
churches can get involved as much as they want - just not the
government.

Dream on. It has been a 'right' of governments since Hammurabi. On
what grounds would you take it away?

Post by DKleinecke
A few laws will need to be changed and a lot of habits.

Quite a few, actually.

Post by DKleinecke
In
fact it would be probably be easier for the United States government
to cut and run from marriage than it will be to cut and run (or
whatever they call it) from Iraq.

Since both are impossible, your comparison doesn't mean much;)
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

---

[Sorry, I haven'at been into the office since the last power failure.
The web site will be back tomorrow. -clh]

[B.G. Kent]

Post by shegeek72
The Pope speaks of the "evil of homosexuality." Yet, I have not heard
exactly what those "evils" are? Could it be pedophilia? No. The
majority of pedophiles are married, heterosexual men and Catholic
priests.

So, where is the evil?

Post by shegeek72
There are evils in dictators, murderers, robbers, thieves, con
artists, etc, but what harm is there in a man loving another man and
vice-versa?

B - It's a strange world to be sure. I often wonder if it is this concept
that for a man to take on feminine traits...being "entered bodily"...or in
other cases...the clothing persona....many men see this as a "step down"
and that to actually choose this (which obviously is not a choice) that
there must be something to being a woman that is superior to their own
mindsets....ergo...the frightening aspect that women may have SOME power
beyond just using their sexuality.
I can't see any other reason...fear of something different perhaps...just
the basic fear of the symbolic "other" when that "other" is just
ourselves.....God in all its fruitfullness of creativity and variety.

Where does fear and hatred come from?

Bren

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by shegeek72
The Pope speaks of the "evil of homosexuality." Yet, I have not heard
exactly what those "evils" are?

You keep on saying this, no matter how often people tell you what it
is. Have you even ever _read_ one of the Benedict's sermons/speeches
on this topic in its entirety?

Post by shegeek72
Could it be pedophilia? No. The majority of pedophiles are married,
heterosexual men and Catholic priests.

Do you have some statistics to back this up, or is this just another
of your slurs against people who neither share nor endorse your
depravity?

Post by shegeek72
So, where is the evil?

It is clear in all your perverted posts in support of depravity. For
your perverted false reasonings are all _excellent_ examples of what
Solomon warned us about in Proverbs:

The way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know over
what they stumble. (Pro 4:19)

You really don't know what you are stumbling over, since even when
people _do_ answer your questions, you never take the effort to
actually understand the answer before you criticize it based on many
fallacies.

Post by shegeek72
There are evils in dictators, murderers, robbers, thieves, con
artists, etc, but what harm is there in a man loving another man and
vice-versa?

You have not believed the answers you were given, most of which you
either ignored or scoffed at. So instead I am going to approach it
another way: I will point out that you are asking entirely the wrong
question.

And yes, it really is entirely the wrong question. For we know from
Scripture that _every_ commandment of God is for our own benefit. We
do _not_ need to know _how_ it is for our benefit. And despite your
equivocations, we also know that God has commanded against this
depravity you speak in favor of. Therefore, it is for our benefit that
we avoid it.

What is particular sad about your failure to understand it is that you
claim to be a Christian, yet deny this very basic principle, which
Solomon expressed _so_ clearly for us in ONE Proverb:

He who keeps the commandment keeps his life; he who despises the word
will die. (Pro 19:16)

You despise the word of God, denying it says what it so _clearly_
says. So guess what will happen to you. You will _not_ keep your life.

Post by shegeek72
Some have claimed the harm of incontinence resulting from
anal sex. Yet, no one has provided figures on how many gay males
suffer from this malady.

More stumbling in the deep darkness. But this was not one of the more
convincing arguments against the depravity.

Post by shegeek72
Then there's the fact that heterosexuals have anal sex and lesbians
typically don't. All of the objections to homosexuality I've read and
heard talk about males, but practically nothing about lesbians.
Indeed, even among those who find nothing wrong with homosexuality,
some are repulsed at the thought, or sight, of two men making love,
yet are not repulsed by two women having sex and many (particularly
males) find it erotic.

You are introducing just another in your long line of irrelevant
distractions.

Post by shegeek72
This is probably due to the cultural norms that allow women to be
more intimate in public.

Another irrelevant distraction, this time one that is groundless and
irrelevant speculation.

[snip]

Post by shegeek72
that's a significant factor allowing people to so easily buy into
their belief that homosexuality is "wrong," without even the biblical
(mis)interpretations.

Did it ever occur to you that your persistent dishonesty, calling this
_mis_interpretation, is an example of the evils people sink to once
they start down your road of depravity? No equivocation or dishonesty
is too shameless for you.

[snip]

Post by shegeek72
Instead of using so much energy in opposing gay marriage, religious
leaders and people should instead be addressing the dismal failure of
hetero marriage;

You miss the point: anything serious they could do to 'address' this
"dismal failure" would be completely undercut by the dishonest
endorsement of "gay marriage", which cannot be marriage at all.

[snip]

[shegeek72]

On Aug 21, 7:54 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
Do you have some statistics to back this up, or is this just another
of your slurs against people who neither share nor endorse your
depravity?

That the majority of pedophiles are hetero males, usually a family
member, is well known. If you doubt it do a little research. The
Catholic priest pedophile scandal has been around for several years,
with hundreds of cases being reported and prosecuted.

As for my "slurs" against people who "neither share nor endorse my
depravity," what proof do you have? Where are the statistics?

And for someone who likes to boast how learned they are about biblical
issues, you haven't come up with_one
_Bible passage that addresses transssexuality.

Post by Matthew Johnson
And yes, it really is entirely the wrong question. For we know from
Scripture that _every_ commandment of God is for our own benefit. We
do _not_ need to know _how_ it is for our benefit. And despite your
equivocations, we also know that God has commanded against this
depravity you speak in favor of. Therefore, it is for our benefit that
we avoid it.

You mean not for 'your' benefit. You do not speak for all in this ng
(even though you'd like to think so). Sounds like you need to get help
for your delusions of grandeur. :)

Post by Matthew Johnson
What is particular sad about your failure to understand it is that you
claim to be a Christian, yet deny this very basic principle, which
He who keeps the commandment keeps his life; he who despises the word
will die. (Pro 19:16)

Again, where does it address transsexuality in the Bible?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
Some have claimed the harm of incontinence resulting from
anal sex. Yet, no one has provided figures on how many gay males
suffer from this malady.

But this was not one of the more
convincing arguments against the [sic] depravity.

Exactly. I've seen_no_convincing arguments.

Post by Matthew Johnson
You are introducing just another in your long line of irrelevant
distractions.

Not at all. The vast majority of objections to homosexuality I've read
in this ng refer to males.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
This is probably due to the cultural norms that allow women to be
more intimate in public.

Another irrelevant distraction, this time one that is groundless and
irrelevant speculation.

Groundless? Hardly. If you doubt it find someplace where there are a
lot of people and watch the differences in the ways males and females
communicate and relate to each other.

Indeed, one of the delightful differences I discovered after
transitioning was there's an unspoken camaraderie among women, even
between two women who've never met before, that says: 'I know you're
safe and I can trust you.' Whereas, with a male a woman has never met
before she cannot assume this and has to be on her guard.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Did it ever occur to you that your persistent dishonesty, calling this
_mis_interpretation, is an example of the evils people sink to once
they start down your road of depravity? No equivocation or dishonesty
is too shameless for you.

Actually, my dishonesty was trying to live as a male: everyday I was
forcing myself to been something I wasn't.

Post by Matthew Johnson
You miss the point: anything serious they could do to 'address' this
"dismal failure" would be completely undercut by the dishonest
endorsement of "gay marriage", which cannot be marriage at all.

Marriage is a legal contract between two people, regardless of their
gender. The problem is society has not become progressive enough to
accept it. Years ago, they were not progressive enough to accept
interracial marriage.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[Bob]

Post by shegeek72
That the majority of pedophiles are hetero males, usually a family
member, is well known. If you doubt it do a little research. The
Catholic priest pedophile scandal has been around for several years,
with hundreds of cases being reported and prosecuted.

I think you are making a possibly true, but misleading, statement.
Technically, 50.01% is a majority yet that 49.99% minority is just as
sizeable.
For example, you present the pedophile priest cases as though they are
a common occurance yet they represent less than one half of one per
cent of the priest population. Probably less common than the overall
population, yet the media makes each case known to the whole world.
You also seem to pick on us males. (because you didn't like being
one?) Yet it is becoming common for female teachers to abuse male
students. In my own little piece of the world I know several women in
prison for pedophile offenses. So I'm not buying your argument that
pedophile is a male problem.
You see no "evil" in homosexuality. Go to any Red Cross center and
try to donate blood, admitting to them that you had sex with another
male. They will not take your blood. That's not prejudice, that's
experience learned the hard way.

Bob

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by shegeek72
That the majority of pedophiles are hetero males, usually a family
member, is well known.

But it is even more well known that homosexuality is declared by God
both in Scripture and in our souls, to be opposed to His will.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Bob

Post by shegeek72
That the majority of pedophiles are hetero males, usually a family
member, is well known. If you doubt it do a little research. The
Catholic priest pedophile scandal has been around for several years,
with hundreds of cases being reported and prosecuted.

I think you are making a possibly true, but misleading, statement.
Technically, 50.01% is a majority yet that 49.99% minority is just as
sizeable.

...

Post by Bob
You see no "evil" in homosexuality. Go to any Red Cross center and
try to donate blood, admitting to them that you had sex with another
male. They will not take your blood. That's not prejudice, that's
experience learned the hard way.

B - and it's wrong Bob. NO one should be denied the right to give blood to
help others because of their sexuality.
Aids is rampant more in AFrican STRAIGHT folks than homosexuals.

Bren

[A Brown]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But it is even more well known that homosexuality is declared by God
both in Scripture and in our souls, to be opposed to His will.

But we know Divorce is opposed to his will as well.

However, we've learned to tolerate it in society...because sometimes thats
the way life works.

We don't like in a perfect society.

[A Brown]

Post by Bob
You see no "evil" in homosexuality. Go to any Red Cross center and
try to donate blood, admitting to them that you had sex with another
male. They will not take your blood.

Tell them you just traveled out of the country....they won't take your blod
that way either.

Is it evil to travel?

Tell them you have epilepsy and are on meds for it. They won't take your
blood either.

Is it "evil" to be sick?

[shegeek72]

Post by Bob
So I'm not buying your argument that
pedophile is a male problem.

All the valid stats I've seen show that the majority of pedophiles are
heterosexual males. It wouldn't take much research to find them.

Post by Bob
You see no "evil" in homosexuality. Go to any Red Cross center and
try to donate blood, admitting to them that you had sex with another
male.

AIDS is an equal opportunity disease. It doesn't matter if you're gay,
straight, bi or whatever. Indeed, the highest incidences of HIV are
among hetero males in Africa. So claiming AIDS makes homosexuality
inherently harmful doesn't hold water. It's unsafe behavior -
unprotected sex, sharing dirty needles, etc - that leads to AIDS, not
homosexuality, which is the sexual attraction to the same sex.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[shegeek72]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But it is even more well known that homosexuality is declared by God
both in Scripture and in our souls, to be opposed to His will.

The homosexuality in the Bible does not refer to the loving,
monogamous, longterm relationships of today.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by A Brown

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But it is even more well known that homosexuality is declared by God
both in Scripture and in our souls, to be opposed to His will.

But we know Divorce is opposed to his will as well.
However, we've learned to tolerate it in society...because sometimes thats
the way life works.
We don't like in a perfect society.

That's not the point. Jesus still condemned divorce. The point
is that an answer will have to be given for the deeds done in the
flesh. Why would you want to actively live a life knowing that it
was an affront to God's revealed will. Also, as noted, historically,
experientially, and scripturally homosexuality has been divinely
judged. You may scoff at this, but AID's is a judgment. There
is nothing that is outside of the providence of God.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But it is even more well known that homosexuality is declared by God
both in Scripture and in our souls, to be opposed to His will.

The homosexuality in the Bible does not refer to the loving,
monogamous, longterm relationships of today.

The weight of the burden of proof is required of you, not
me. Again, I have posted at considerable length on this
in the past and with considerable amount of reading and
references to homosexual apologist. From what you
write I doubt if you have even read one of their expositions.

John Boswell, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality"
Robin Scroggs, "The New Testament and Homosexuality"
D.S. Bailey, "Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition"

Now here are three pro-homosexual revisionist. They have
all been amply rebutted by scholarship. But you go on
believing as the JfW's do that scholarship means nothing.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But it is even more well known that homosexuality is declared by God
both in Scripture and in our souls, to be opposed to His will.

The homosexuality in the Bible does not refer to the loving,
monogamous, longterm relationships of today.

B - I agree. I believe it was talking about not being like those others
"not Hebrew" in other words it was an admonishment against doing anything
not of the supposed "hebrew way" . Pedophilia or Homosexuality ( two
totally different things) were seen in Greece and it was because it was
something that those "nasty foreigners did" that they put it down as
anti-God. People have to understand there was a lot of emphasis on keeping
the hebrew ways Pure and clean and if one could protect their children by
calling down other faiths and cultures then so be it. By the
way..pedophilia and homosexuality were also going on with the hebrew
people...you just never heard about it as much.

I.M.O

Bren

[Andy]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by A Brown

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But it is even more well known that homosexuality is declared by God
both in Scripture and in our souls, to be opposed to His will.

But we know Divorce is opposed to his will as well.
However, we've learned to tolerate it in society...because sometimes
thats
the way life works.
We don't like in a perfect society.

That's not the point. Jesus still condemned divorce. The point
is that an answer will have to be given for the deeds done in the
flesh.

It's exactly the point.

I would suspect that you don't have to worry about homosexual acts in *your*
life, It's a non-starter.

.....but what you DO have to worry about is how you TREAT homosexuals.

I would expect that you treat them the same way you would someone in your
family who divorces and remarries.

....or one of your closest friends who does the same.

[Andy]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But it is even more well known that homosexuality is declared by God
both in Scripture and in our souls, to be opposed to His will.

.....declared by God "in our souls"? Faithful people have not all come to
the same conslusion.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by shegeek72
The homosexuality in the Bible does not refer to the loving,
monogamous, longterm relationships of today.

The weight of the burden of proof is required of you, not
me.

The proof is in the pudding.

Do you really think the scripture writers at the time held the view that
homosexuals could live in loving, monogomous, comitted, holy relationships
and as responsible citizens?

Remember the writers at the time would consider someone with epilepsy to be
"posessed".

They also considered it sinful if a man had relations with his wife during
menstration.

Consider the time period they were writing...and the understanding they had
at the time.

[Andy]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You may scoff at this, but AID's is a judgment. There
is nothing that is outside of the providence of God.

Is Cancer a "judgement" too?

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But it is even more well known that homosexuality is declared by God
both in Scripture and in our souls, to be opposed to His will.

The homosexuality in the Bible does not refer to the loving,
monogamous, longterm relationships of today.

B - I agree. I believe it was talking about not being like those others
"not Hebrew" in other words it was an admonishment against doing anything
not of the supposed "hebrew way" .

"And in that day many will come to Me saying, Lord, Lord...."

The point of that passage is that many believe that what they
believe is acceptable to God but in the end, they, sadly, are
turned away and cast off into outer darkness. You are free
to believe whatever your little heart wishes to believe. How-
ever, the reality is that these things have real accountablity.
We will all be held accountable for what we have chosen to
believe. In that God is incomprehensive and therefore we
of a necessity thus requiring His revealing of Himself and
His will for our lives, He has done so in the Scriptures. His
arm is not too short to have written exactly what He desired
to be revealed and then to keep that written testimony, is
it? The question is, "How big is your God?"

But in that He has spoken and it has been written down
[an other requisite of our fallen nature] and that His truth
lives inside the written word, you would well to listen to
Him.

Heb. 2:1-4 For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what
we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For if the word spoken
through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and
disobedience received a just recompense, how shall we escape if we
neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through
the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also bearing
witness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles
and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.

The revelation of His will has been made known,

Rom. 1:18-21 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in
unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident
within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation
of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine
nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been
made, so_that_they_are_without_excuse. For even though they knew God,
they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile
in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Continue to refuse Him and you are left but one avenue, "Depart from
Me for I never knew you" [because you never actually knew Me].

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent
People have to understand there was a lot of emphasis on keeping
the hebrew ways Pure and clean and if one could protect their children by
calling down other faiths and cultures then so be it.

And thus the direct Divine declaration that ALL people of the
Promised Land were to be killed. There is NO compromise with
sin by God. Bury your head in the sand but that does not
dismiss the reality of the Predator. God is God. It is He
and He alone who is the Sovereign of the universe. Not
you. Not me. Not the highest angel of heaven nor the lowest
demon of hell. You either accept His declared will or you
accept His declared judgment. There is no third way.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Andy
.....but what you DO have to worry about is how you TREAT homosexuals.
I would expect that you treat them the same way you would someone in your
family who divorces and remarries.

Again, look at scripture. It is our guide in daily living. How did
Paul treat
the man who was having sex with in mother-in-law? He had him tossed
out of the assembly and turned him over to Satan to be rebuffed. And
what
about Paul's teaching concerning the duties of an elder. They were to
enforce doctrinal purity. False teachers were not tolerated and those
who revise the historical meaning of words in a hope to advocate (Rom
1:32)
homosexual lifestyle are just that -false teachers which Christ
Himself
warned would be throughout the Church era but especially during the
last days. Christ called them "ravenous wolves" (Mt 7:15). And how
did
He treat the religious leaders of His day who refused to leave their
traditions of men?

I'm sorry, but you present no biblical case against the pure church
separating itself from false teachers and false "christians".

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Andy

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You may scoff at this, but AID's is a judgment. There
is nothing that is outside of the providence of God.

Is Cancer a "judgement" too?

Is there anything outside of the providence of God? Sin
always unleases the law of unintended consequence. And
throughout scripture, esp Hosea, it is taught that physical
haroltry follows close on the heals of spiritual adultery.

But you objection overlooks the specivity of AIDs being
primarily a homosexual disease. Yes, it is a blood disorder
but it primarily effects the homosexual community and
primarily men. I know. I use to work in an AIDs ward
in Atlanta long before it ever gained the term "AIDs." That
was in the late 60's and at that time you couldn't walk
down Peachtree St without someone pulling over to
pursue a little activity.

Don't think I am naive on this point.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent
People have to understand there was a lot of emphasis on keeping
the hebrew ways Pure and clean and if one could protect their children by
calling down other faiths and cultures then so be it.

And thus the direct Divine declaration that ALL people of the
Promised Land were to be killed. There is NO compromise with

B - Oh pishtoosh...you have an opinion Isenders..just like I do. Maybe
yours is surrounded by an orchestra and produced and directed by C.B.
Demille ...so what? your belief is no better or stronger or "real" than
mine.

Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But it is even more well known that homosexuality is declared by God
both in Scripture and in our souls, to be opposed to His will.

The homosexuality in the Bible does not refer to the loving,
monogamous, longterm relationships of today.

B - I agree. I believe it was talking about not being like those others
"not Hebrew" in other words it was an admonishment against doing anything
not of the supposed "hebrew way" .

"And in that day many will come to Me saying, Lord, Lord...."

B- and that someone could be you Isender...but I personally don't believe
that God would turn anyone away.

Bren

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent
People have to understand there was a lot of emphasis on keeping
the hebrew ways Pure and clean and if one could protect their children by
calling down other faiths and cultures then so be it.

And thus the direct Divine declaration that ALL people of the
Promised Land were to be killed. There is NO compromise with

B - Oh pishtoosh...you have an opinion Isenders..just like I do. Maybe
yours is surrounded by an orchestra and produced and directed by C.B.
Demille ...so what? your belief is no better or stronger or "real" than
mine.

And yet again, Bren obliges us by producing another shocking incident: an
example of something where Loren and I agree;) For we both agree that Loren's
belief is a lot more 'real' than yours, even though I don't agree with Loren on
much else;)

Your opinions, Bren, are so detached from reality it always leaves me slightly
stunned to read your posts.

[Bob]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And thus the direct Divine declaration that ALL people of the
Promised Land were to be killed. There is NO compromise with

B - Oh pishtoosh...you have an opinion Isenders..just like I do. Maybe
yours is surrounded by an orchestra and produced and directed by C.B.
Demille ...so what? your belief is no better or stronger or "real" than
mine.
Bren

pishtoosh?? Do you have a biblical reference for that term?

Bob

[A Brown]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Andy

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You may scoff at this, but AID's is a judgment. There
is nothing that is outside of the providence of God.

Is Cancer a "judgement" too?

Is there anything outside of the providence of God?

You didn't answer the question....instead you went back to your little
soliloqy about gay sex.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Don't think I am naive on this point.

Not everything is about you.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Andy

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You may scoff at this, but AID's is a judgment. There
is nothing that is outside of the providence of God.

Is Cancer a "judgement" too?

Is there anything outside of the providence of God? Sin
always unleases the law of unintended consequence. And

...

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But you objection overlooks the specivity of AIDs being
primarily a homosexual disease. Yes, it is a blood disorder
but it primarily effects the homosexual community and
primarily men. I know. I use to work in an AIDs ward

...

B - aids was not in the community in the late 60's.

Bren

[A Brown]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Andy
.....but what you DO have to worry about is how you TREAT homosexuals.
I would expect that you treat them the same way you would someone in your
family who divorces and remarries.

Again, look at scripture. It is our guide in daily living. How did
Paul treat
the man who was having sex with in mother-in-law?

How did JESUS treat the woman at the well?

...or the adultress, who was about to be stoned.

He treated them both with compassion and understanding.

He didn't condemn either.

I think that the life and example if Jesus is our guide to daily living.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I'm sorry, but you present no biblical case against the pure church
separating itself from false teachers and false "christians".

See above...and drop your indignation...it impresses no one.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Bob
pishtoosh?? Do you have a biblical reference for that term?
Bob

B - I guess it depends on what bible ...

;)

Bren

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <usJDi.13225$***@trnddc01>, A Brown says...
[snip]

Post by A Brown
I think that the life and example if Jesus is our guide to daily living.

Then why aren't you following His example?

Post by A Brown

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I'm sorry, but you present no biblical case against the pure church
separating itself from false teachers and false "christians".

See above...and drop your indignation...it impresses no one.

This is a perfect example of where you do not follow His example. Christ did not
see indignation where it was not, and tell people to drop it, claiming "it
impresses no one".

How do _you_ know what "impresses no one" and what does not? Are you following
His example by claiming omniscience?

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
I think that the life and example if Jesus is our guide to daily living.

Then why aren't you following His example?

In the subject matter being discussed, I try to....not perfectly, but I do
my best.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
See above...and drop your indignation...it impresses no one.

This is a perfect example of where you do not follow His example. Christ
did not
see indignation where it was not...

Yet he saw it where it was.

Post by Matthew Johnson
How do _you_ know what "impresses no one" and what does not?

How do I know? I read the posts.

I haven't seen anyone here post that they were impressed by it.

Sometimes church people are like kids trying to impress each other with
their indignation.

I have yet to hear anyone come to the Lord based on the someone's
indignation.

I see that (as is typical) you are trying to turn this discussion/debate
into a personal one...attacking me without adding anything to the substance
of the discussion.

[shegeek72]

On Sep 10, 7:44 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
See above...and drop your indignation...it impresses no one.

This is a perfect example of where you do not follow His example. Christ did not
see indignation where it was not, and tell people to drop it, claiming "it
impresses no one".
How do _you_ know what "impresses no one" and what does not? Are you following
His example by claiming omniscience?

I love this!

People telling other people how to live like Christ. "Oh my, I'm
living like Christ, but you're not!" Amazing! I bet He's chuckling
about it!
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[Rob]

Post by Matthew Johnson
Then why aren't you following His example?
This is a perfect example of where you do not follow His example.

Matthew, you are quick to point out the wrongs of others.

Here is what the Bible says about that.
Luke 6:42
42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of
your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You
hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see
clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
Then why aren't you following His example?
This is a perfect example of where you do not follow His example.

Matthew, you are quick to point out the wrongs of others.

Hardly. There are many much quicker.

Post by Rob
Here is what the Bible says about that.

No, you have quoted Him out of context.

Post by Rob
Luke 6:42
42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of
your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You
hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see
clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

How on earth can you think this applies to me in this thread? By no means does
He mean that _everyone_ who points out the fault of another is a hypocrite. This
is an example of how you quote out of context.

Nor is it the only example. After all, even if you were right, and He meant that
everyone who points out the fault of another is a hypcrite, what would He then
say about the person _I_ was talking about, who criticized others for not
following Christ's example, while he himself was not following it?

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
I think that the life and example if Jesus is our guide to daily living.

Then why aren't you following His example?

In the subject matter being discussed, I try to....not perfectly, but I do
my best.

That 'best' was not good enough to entitle you to claim that "the life and
example of Jesus is our giude to daily living" is a reason to dismiss the
criticism of so-called "gay marriage". Yet this is exactly what you did.

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
See above...and drop your indignation...it impresses no one.

This is a perfect example of where you do not follow His example. Christ
did not
see indignation where it was not...

Yet he saw it where it was.

Where?

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
How do _you_ know what "impresses no one" and what does not?

How do I know? I read the posts.

That is a very imperfect guide. Many read posts without responding to them. It
is much more difficult to guess how _they_ were impressed or not.

Post by A Brown
I haven't seen anyone here post that they were impressed by it.

Again, a very imperfect guide.

Post by A Brown
Sometimes church people are like kids trying to impress each other with
their indignation.
I have yet to hear anyone come to the Lord based on the someone's
indignation.

So? That is quite beside the point. Loren and I do try to take whatever small
role mere humans can take in bringing people to the Lord (expect Loren and I to
disagree on how much of a role that is;), but not in these threads. There is a
time and place for different things at different times.

Post by A Brown
I see that (as is typical) you are trying to turn this discussion/debate
into a personal one...attacking me without adding anything to the substance
of the discussion.

No, you beat me to the punch. It was you who turned it personal by telling
someone else to drop his 'indignation', implying his behavior was not Christ
like.

[A Brown]

Post by Rob
Here is what the Bible says about that.
Luke 6:42
42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of
your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You
hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see
clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

How on earth can you think this applies to me in this thread? This
is an example of how you quote out of context.

The context seems to fit perfectly.

Why don't you take that scipture passage into prayer instead of instantly
dismissing it as not-applicable to you.

BTW...Your quick dismissal of it is anothe example of how it applies. ;-)

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
In the subject matter being discussed, I try to....not perfectly, but I do
my best.

That 'best' was not good enough to entitle you to claim that "the life and
example of Jesus is our giude to daily living"

Is it not? Does someone have to be "entitled" to Jesus life and lesson's?

Are you saying that the life of Jesus is NOT the "guide to our daily
living?"

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
This is a perfect example of where you do not follow His example. Christ
did not
see indignation where it was not...

Yet he saw it where it was.

Where?

The Pharisee's. The elders. The Rich

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
How do _you_ know what "impresses no one" and what does not?

How do I know? I read the posts.

That is a very imperfect guide. Many read posts without responding to
them.

Ummmm....are you claiming that people are indeed impressed by "indigantion"?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
I haven't seen anyone here post that they were impressed by it.

Again, a very imperfect guide.

In a diuscussion, thats all we have to go by.

How do _you_ know that it does?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
Sometimes church people are like kids trying to impress each other with
their indignation.
I have yet to hear anyone come to the Lord based on the someone's
indignation.

So?

Ephesians 4:29
Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an
encouragement to those who hear them.

So...

Post by Matthew Johnson
That is quite beside the point. Loren and I do try to take whatever small
role mere humans can take in bringing people to the Lord

I wonder how many people get "brought to the Lord" with your presence here.

While one can claim they are "doing the Lords work"....quite often they are
feeding their own ego by "enlightening others"!

[Rob]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
Matthew, you are quick to point out the wrongs of others.

Hardly. There are many much quicker.

and that makes it ok?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
Here is what the Bible says about that.

No, you have quoted Him out of context.

the "out of context" excuse is an easy one to grab at....but the context has
been laid out.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
Luke 6:42
42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of
your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You
hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see
clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
In the subject matter being discussed, I try to....not perfectly, but I do
my best.

That 'best' was not good enough to entitle you to claim that "the life and
example of Jesus is our giude to daily living"

Is it not?

It is not. BTW: you are dragging this thread further and further off
topic. Thanks to previous participants, this thread is already too
unruly, we do not need you compounding the problem.

So this is my last reply on this topic in this thread. If you really
want to pursue it further, I suggest you open a new thread on the
interpretation of Eph 4:29 or of Luk 6:42 (or similar passages).

But keep in mind that you have already weakened your own plausibility
on these topics with such slighting references as "Was this the post
from Worldnutdaily?". For that _is_ 'judging'; and likely in the
sense forbidden by Mat 7:1.

Post by A Brown
Does someone have to be "entitled" to Jesus life and lesson's?

Wrong question.

Post by A Brown
Are you saying that the life of Jesus is NOT the "guide to our daily
living?"

Clearly not when read as _you_ read it. But that is the problem: it is
_not_ so simple to see how His actions can be examples for life in the
modern world, which is _so_ different from 1st century Palestine.

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
This is a perfect example of where you do not follow His
example. Christ did not see indignation where it was not...

Yet he saw it where it was.

Where?

The Pharisee's. The elders. The Rich

You are still not answering the question. He did not _see_ indignation
there, he _showed_ it. And not even all the time. Look, for example,
at how he spoke to Nicodemus, who was both Pharisee and rich.

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
How do _you_ know what "impresses no one" and what does not?

How do I know? I read the posts.

That is a very imperfect guide. Many read posts without responding
to them.

Ummmm....are you claiming that people are indeed impressed by
"indigantion"?

Not only that, but that they are impressed in different ways. Some are
turned off by it (as you are), some are not.

After all: if it were true that _everyone_ was turned off by it, Loren
would have given up on the practice long ago. He has been posting in
this NG for much longer than you.

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
I haven't seen anyone here post that they were impressed by it.

Again, a very imperfect guide.

In a diuscussion, thats all we have to go by.
How do _you_ know that it does?

How do I know that what does what?

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
Sometimes church people are like kids trying to impress each other
with their indignation.
I have yet to hear anyone come to the Lord based on the someone's
indignation.

So?

Ephesians 4:29
Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an
encouragement to those who hear them.

You are quoting out of context here. There is a reason he gave these
instructions to the Ephesians, but not to (for example) the
Corinthians.

Not to mention Eph 4:29 does _not_ address the question of whether
anyone comes to the Lord based on someon's indignation.

BTW: how were _you_ "letting everything you say be good and helpful"
when you said, "Was this the post from Worldnutdaily?"

Again: you weaken your own credibility when you make comments like
this and then point at others.

Post by A Brown
So...

Post by Matthew Johnson
That is quite beside the point. Loren and I do try to take whatever small
role mere humans can take in bringing people to the Lord

I wonder how many people get "brought to the Lord" with your presence here.

What is with this obsession with "bringing to the Lord" here? We are
commanded to do many things, "bringing to the Lord" is only one of
them. And not everything we say and do has to be exclusively oriented
to that.

After all: you will find many in this NG who believe that we _cannot_
"bring people to the Lord"; they believe it is the Lord's work, not
ours.

Post by A Brown
While one can claim they are "doing the Lords work"....quite often
they are feeding their own ego by "enlightening others"!

True. And when people do this, do _you_ apply Ephesians 4:29? This
thread alone shows that you do not. So why are you expecting me to do
it?

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
Matthew, you are quick to point out the wrongs of others.

Hardly. There are many much quicker.

and that makes it ok?

'Quick' is a relative term.

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
Here is what the Bible says about that.

No, you have quoted Him out of context.

the "out of context" excuse is an easy one to grab at....but the context has
been laid out.

No, it was not.

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
Luke 6:42
42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of
your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You
hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see
clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Why on earth would _anyone_ believe that "lays out the context"? The only excuse
I can think of is that you don't even know what 'context' means.

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
Matthew, you are quick to point out the wrongs of others.

Hardly. There are many much quicker.

and that makes it ok?

'Quick' is a relative term.

And that makes it OK?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
Here is what the Bible says about that.

No, you have quoted Him out of context.

the "out of context" excuse is an easy one to grab at....but the context
has
been laid out.

No, it was not.

In case you didn't get the "context" I have printed it below.

You can find it in your own Bible at Luke 6:42.

I would hope that's enough context for you.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
Luke 6:42
42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out
of
your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You
hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see
clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
In the subject matter being discussed, I try to....not perfectly, but I
do
my best.

That 'best' was not good enough to entitle you to claim that "the life
and
example of Jesus is our giude to daily living"

Is it not?

It is not.

Thanks Matthew....that clears it up.

I guess only perfect people can claim to follow Jesus.

I must've missed that page in the Gospel. (Was it Matthew, Mark, Luke or
John?)

[Burkladies]

Post by A Brown

Post by Rob
Here is what the Bible says about that.
Luke 6:42
42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of
your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You
hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see
clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

How on earth can you think this applies to me in this thread? This
is an example of how you quote out of context.

The context seems to fit perfectly.
Why don't you take that scipture passage into prayer instead of instantly
dismissing it as not-applicable to you.
BTW...Your quick dismissal of it is anothe example of how it applies. ;-)

A nice christian sum up. And the smoke screen continues for no
apparent reason. Perhaps folks have nothing better to do than give
others a hard time. Perhaps folks do not know what else to do with
their time.

Blessings

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Burkladies

Post by A Brown

Post by Rob
Here is what the Bible says about that.
Luke 6:42
42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of
your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You
hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see
clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

How on earth can you think this applies to me in this thread? This
is an example of how you quote out of context.

The context seems to fit perfectly.
Why don't you take that scipture passage into prayer instead of instantly
dismissing it as not-applicable to you.
BTW...Your quick dismissal of it is anothe example of how it applies. ;-)

A nice christian sum up.

As is so common for this NG, a total non-christian is trying to tell the rest of
us what is a "nice christian sum up".

And yes, all of you have made it clear from your previous posts that your
'faith' is not christian at all.

Post by Burkladies
And the smoke screen continues for no
apparent reason.

Why, yes, you and 'Ther' and others are "continuing the smoke screen". Nice to
see you admit it so openly.

Oh, wait. You thought _I_ was the one continuing it. No, I am not. It is you who
applaud his out of context, off-topic citation who is "continuing the smoke
screen".

If you would stay on topic, you might not have become guilty of this. But of
course, this was too difficult for you.

Opposing the falsely so-called "gay marriage" is not "continuing a smoke
screen"; it is simply insisting on _basic_ intellectual honesty. But again, this
seems to elude you.

[Rob]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Burkladies

Post by A Brown

Post by Rob
Here is what the Bible says about that.
Luke 6:42
42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out
of
your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye?
You
hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see
clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

How on earth can you think this applies to me in this thread? This
is an example of how you quote out of context.

The context seems to fit perfectly.
Why don't you take that scipture passage into prayer instead of
instantly
dismissing it as not-applicable to you.
BTW...Your quick dismissal of it is anothe example of how it applies.
;-)

A nice christian sum up.

As is so common for this NG, a total non-christian is trying to tell the
rest of
us what is a "nice christian sum up".

Yes, when you run out of points to discuss...attack the person!

(BTW....the person who decides who is a Christian and who is not...is who?
Matthew Johnson?)

There are LOTS of people who claim to follow the teachings and life of
Christ...and many do not come to the same conclusions (i.e...all the
different Christian denominations we have.)

So unless they follow the teachings of Jesus Christ according to the
standards set by you...they are not Christian?

[Rob]

"Rob" <***@NoSpamPlease.com> wrote in message news:1j_Ji.1988$***@trnddc06...
...

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
As is so common for this NG, a total non-christian is trying to tell the
rest of
us what is a "nice christian sum up".

Yes, when you run out of points to discuss...attack the person!
(BTW....the person who decides who is a Christian and who is not...is who?
Matthew Johnson?)

Take this scripture to heart Matt,

"Everyone should be quick to hear, slow to speak"
(Jas 1, 19)

As was stated earlier, your quick dismissal says volumes...

You seem rather quick on the draw....

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Burkladies

Post by A Brown

Post by Rob
Here is what the Bible says about that.
Luke 6:42
42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out
of
your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye?
You
hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see
clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

How on earth can you think this applies to me in this thread? This
is an example of how you quote out of context.

The context seems to fit perfectly.
Why don't you take that scipture passage into prayer instead of
instantly
dismissing it as not-applicable to you.
BTW...Your quick dismissal of it is anothe example of how it applies.
;-)

A nice christian sum up.

As is so common for this NG, a total non-christian is trying to
tell the rest of us what is a "nice christian sum up".

Yes, when you run out of points to discuss...attack the person!

Pointing out the gross disingenuity of her pretending to give a
Christian when she is not evena Christian herself, and is in no
position to say what is and is not a Christian point of view is NOT
"attacking the person".

Post by Rob
(BTW....the person who decides who is a Christian and who is not...is who?
Matthew Johnson?)

I knew another Rob P. who knew better than to say something so
completely groundless, ignorant and false. No, it is not I who am
making this decision. She has denied vital points in the Nicene Creed,
so by ancient right going back to the Fourth Century, the entire
Christian Church denies her the right to call herself 'Christian'.

Post by Rob
There are LOTS of people who claim to follow the teachings and life of
Christ...and many do not come to the same conclusions (i.e...all the
different Christian denominations we have.)

And if they reject the Nicene Creed, then the Church does NOT call
them 'Christian'. It really is that simple, it has been that way for
centuries.

[snip]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Rob
...

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
As is so common for this NG, a total non-christian is trying to tell the
rest of
us what is a "nice christian sum up".

Yes, when you run out of points to discuss...attack the person!
(BTW....the person who decides who is a Christian and who is not...is who?
Matthew Johnson?)

Take this scripture to heart Matt,
"Everyone should be quick to hear, slow to speak"
(Jas 1, 19)

Practice what you preach, Rob. You were much "quicker on the draw" than I was
when you posted, "when you run out of points to discuss...attack ther person!".

Which, as I have already pointed out, is simply wrong: it is not "attack on the
person" to expose her fraud. She really is not a Christian, and knows little or
nothing about Christianity.

[A Brown]

Post by Rob

Post by A Brown

Post by Rob
Here is what the Bible says about that.
Luke 6:42
42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck
out
of
your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye?
You
hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will
see
clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

How on earth can you think this applies to me in this thread? This
is an example of how you quote out of context.

The context seems to fit perfectly.
Why don't you take that scipture passage into prayer instead of
instantly
dismissing it as not-applicable to you.
BTW...Your quick dismissal of it is anothe example of how it applies.
;-)

Yes, when you run out of points to discuss...attack the person!

she is in no
position to say what is and is not a Christian point of view...

She is not qualified to make that distiction...yet *you* have ordained
yourself in a position to do so?

Instead of wasting your spiritual energy worrying about everyone else, let's
let Jesus decide who is a Christian and who is not. After all, Jesus can
look into people hearts and know their inner-most thoughts.

Post by Rob
(BTW....the person who decides who is a Christian and who is not...is who?
Matthew Johnson?)

Do you claim the same abilities?

Post by Rob
There are LOTS of people who claim to follow the teachings and life of
Christ...and many do not come to the same conclusions (i.e...all the
different Christian denominations we have.)

And if they reject the Nicene Creed, then the Church...

What 'Church' is that? Who heads the "Christian Church"? I think Jesus
does, right?

What did Jesus say about those that sought to keep people out of the Church?

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <tgEKi.1274$***@trnddc08>, A Brown says...

[snip]

Post by A Brown
She is not qualified to make that distiction...yet *you* have ordained
yourself in a position to do so?

This is an impertinent question -- in both senses of the word 'impertinent'.
Besides: I have already answered it. Weren't you paying attention?

[snip]

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
She is not qualified to make that distiction...yet *you* have ordained
yourself in a position to do so?

This is an impertinent question -- in both senses of the word
'impertinent'.

It's a very valid question....you have raised yourself up above others in a
severe lack of humility.

And you are one to tell others who is being Christian? Humilty certainly
marks the spot.)

In any event...you have hijacked this thread....and haven't offerred
anything on the original topic.

[b***@juno.com]

Post by shegeek72
The Pope speaks of the "evil of homosexuality." Yet, I have not heard
exactly what those "evils" are? Could it be pedophilia? No. The
majority of pedophiles are married, heterosexual men and Catholic
priests. So, where is the evil?

Study history. Ancient Greece had much pedophilia, due to their
widespread acceptance of homosexuality. It is a very natural
progression from gayness to pedophilia, and vice versa.

My uncle was molested when he was young, and it made him think he
might be gay for awhile. He had a "confused sexuality" due to being
molested for many years. The deepest darkness of both gayness and
pedophilia both augment one another and cause the spread of each
other.

Gayness spreads itself by molesting young children. It has been
demonstrated over and over again throughout history. Gay people try to
act all shocked why I bring this up. I simply refer them to ancient
Greece. And the case of my uncle. QED.

Post by shegeek72
There are evils in dictators, murderers, robbers, thieves, con
artists, etc, but what harm is there in a man loving another man and
vice-versa? Some have claimed the harm of incontinence resulting from
anal sex. Yet, no one has provided figures on how many gay males
suffer from this malady.

Yes I have. I posted that medical study in which 14 out of 15 gay
males had incontinence due to anal sex.

In light of such evidence, the burden of proof is now certainly on
you. I have posted my evidence. Now how about you post YOUR evidence
about how anal sex supposedly is just fine.

Post by shegeek72
Then there's the fact that heterosexuals have
anal sex and lesbians typically don't. All of the objections to
homosexuality I've read and heard talk about males, but practically
nothing about lesbians.

Heterosexuals will have the exact same incontinence as gays. In other
words, it is anal sex which is evil.

As far as lesbians. There is a high prevalence of breast cancer in
lesbians, due to them not having children.

Post by shegeek72
their belief that homosexuality is "wrong," without even the biblical
(mis)interpretations.

The Bible is very clear that gayness is evil. For St. Paul, he
probably saw all the pedophilia and gayness swirling around him, knew
that the two augmented and spread each other around, and was led by
God to call a spade a spade: gayness is the darkest evil.

Post by shegeek72
They also claim that once gay marriage is "normalized" all sorts of
variations on marriage will appear, like bestial, pedophile marriage,
etc. Yet in the states and countries where gay marriage is allowed
none of this has taken place.

NAMBLA is already advocating to lower the age of consent. This will
lead to pedophile marriage. There is a direct connection, which I'm
sure you gay propagandists will continue to try to obscure as long as
possible.

Post by shegeek72
Instead of using so much energy in opposing gay marriage, religious
leaders and people should instead be addressing the dismal failure of
hetero marriage; that over half of all marriages end in separation and
divorce. Indeed, I think many religious groups are using their
opposition to gay marriage as a smoke screen to ignore the failure of
their own vaulted institution.

Oh, so if something fails, might as well let everything else fail as
well? Yeah, that makes so much sense.

Post by shegeek72
Perhaps, the next time you decry gay marriage, look in the mirror and
think, "Shouldn't I be addressing the failure of heterosexual marriage
first?"

I'd rather address them both. No need to have an either-or situation.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by b***@juno.com

Post by shegeek72
The Pope speaks of the "evil of homosexuality." Yet, I have not heard
exactly what those "evils" are? Could it be pedophilia? No. The
majority of pedophiles are married, heterosexual men and Catholic
priests. So, where is the evil?

Study history. Ancient Greece had much pedophilia, due to their
widespread acceptance of homosexuality. It is a very natural
progression from gayness to pedophilia, and vice versa.

B - Prove. I think boys growing up to be men is a very natural progression
to pedophilia seeing that the majority of it committed is by men period.

Post by b***@juno.com
Gayness spreads itself by molesting young children. It has been
demonstrated over and over again throughout history. Gay people try to
act all shocked why I bring this up. I simply refer them to ancient
Greece. And the case of my uncle. QED.

B - and of all those children who grew up to be gay and were not molested?
and to all those men who were homosexuals in Ancient Greece who were not
pedophiles? geez bims..you have such neatly tied up beliefs...it's
amazing.

Post by b***@juno.com
Yes I have. I posted that medical study in which 14 out of 15 gay
males had incontinence due to anal sex.

B - but strangely more anal incontinence happens to women than men as I
posted and we have no idea if they engage in anal sex or not because it
was never listed as a cause.

Post by b***@juno.com
In light of such evidence, the burden of proof is now certainly on
you. I have posted my evidence. Now how about you post YOUR evidence
about how anal sex supposedly is just fine.

B - That's evidence???????

Post by b***@juno.com

Post by shegeek72
Then there's the fact that heterosexuals have
anal sex and lesbians typically don't. All of the objections to
homosexuality I've read and heard talk about males, but practically
nothing about lesbians.

Heterosexuals will have the exact same incontinence as gays. In other
words, it is anal sex which is evil.
As far as lesbians. There is a high prevalence of breast cancer in
lesbians, due to them not having children.

B - and to any straight woman who does not have children.

Post by b***@juno.com
NAMBLA is already advocating to lower the age of consent. This will
lead to pedophile marriage. There is a direct connection, which I'm
sure you gay propagandists will continue to try to obscure as long as
possible.

B - Nambla has nothing to do with adult to adult homosexual sex.



Bren

[A Brown]

Post by b***@juno.com

Post by shegeek72
The Pope speaks of the "evil of homosexuality." Yet, I have not heard
exactly what those "evils" are? Could it be pedophilia? No. The
majority of pedophiles are married, heterosexual men and Catholic
priests. So, where is the evil?

Study history. Ancient Greece had much pedophilia, due to their
widespread acceptance of homosexuality. It is a very natural
progression from gayness to pedophilia, and vice versa.

I don't see that "progression" at all. This is a fallacy that is propagated
by ignorance.

What is your source for this?

If your point simply that many gay men like younger guys......consider that
most hetero guys like younger women too. (Finding younger people more
attractive than older people is not something limited to gayness.)

Post by b***@juno.com

Post by shegeek72
Gayness spreads itself by molesting young children. It has been

demonstrated over and over again throughout history.<<

Again....please cite a source for this definitive statement....

Post by b***@juno.com

Post by shegeek72
Yes I have. I posted that medical study in which 14 out of 15 gay

males had incontinence due to anal sex.<<

Was this the post from Worldnutdaily? Hardly credible.

Post by b***@juno.com

Post by shegeek72
Now how about you post YOUR evidence

about how anal sex supposedly is just fine<<

Do you think anal sex is only practiced by gay men?

Post by b***@juno.com

Post by shegeek72
The Bible is very clear that gayness is evil.<<

Whatever gayness was around when the bible was written was written with
whatever understanding they had at the time. This was a time when epileptic
fits were thought to be the devil.

I doubt that the writers had in mind an 2 mature adults in a comitted
blessed relationship loving and caring for each other for life.

[Hermano Lobo]

Post by b***@juno.com
Study history. Ancient Greece had much pedophilia, due to their
widespread acceptance of homosexuality. It is a very natural
progression from gayness to pedophilia, and vice versa.

---------------

And Egyptian pharaohs married their sisters, and some gypsy clans do
not consider that stealing from a non-gypsy can be taken as a sin...
Moral is a relative concept and is always relative to the society
where such moral norms prevail.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by shegeek72
The Pope speaks of the "evil of homosexuality." Yet, I have not heard
exactly what those "evils" are? Could it be pedophilia? No. The
majority of pedophiles are married, heterosexual men and Catholic
priests. So, where is the evil?

Evil is anything which opposes God's revealed will. Sodomy is
clearly judged in history and in Scripture. A history of
civilizations
will teach that toward the end of an empire, homosexuality rises
with the wealth/affluency that bears it. Scripture notes this as
well both in the OT as well as in the NT. But it is evident even
within man that such things stand waiting for the judgment of
God to befall them. Rom 1:32 attest to the fact that sinners
seek to to support their sin do so by surrounding themselves
in like mindedness. To hell with the truth. If a sinner is able
to surround himself with enough advocates, it does temporarily
insolate himself from the Truth. We all do this to one degree
or another but it plainly foolish as it is for the ostrich to hide
its head in the sand when being pursued by a predator. And
believe me, God is a predator of sin.

I will not bring railing accusations against your cause. I
don't need to. God has already made it evident to you and
you will not listen to Him so by what arogance do I suppose
that you would listen to me? Yet as a fellow human being
who like all fellow human beings struggles against the
world, the flesh and the Devil, I do encourage you to
consider the eternal cost of your rebellousness. What is
more foolish than to think we can stand against the revealed
will of the infinitely holy Sovereign of Heaven? Oh the
depth of our depravity.

Post by shegeek72
There are evils in dictators, murderers, robbers, thieves, con
artists, etc, but what harm is there in a man loving another man and
vice-versa?

Two wrongs make a right advocacy? Making oneself the
arbitrator of what is right and what is wrong? Do we know
all things such that we could actually transpectively
adjudicate on any issue? If God declares X to be against
His design, against His will, against His nature, then what
is it that drives us to yet disregard His decree? "Slaves
of sin" is the harsh reality. And the sad fact of it is, we are
also, "blind to sin," in both its reality and its consequences
either immediate or eternal.

Paul, in speaking of such a non-moral thing as eating,
that if our eating offends our brother, then we are to
refrain from it. Certainly, then, it goes without saying that
we are not to have any part in actually trying to sell
to others that which offends my brother's sensitive
spirit. Where is Christ in such callousness? You
continue to come here and advocate that which has
offended 99.999 per cent of the Church from the time
of the Apostles even up to our own lukewarm era.
If you were a sensitive Bible believing Christian, then
you would not do so any more than a RC pedophile
priest. At least they have the decency left to them
to seek a rock to hide under.

[shegeek72]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Evil is anything which opposes God's revealed will. Sodomy is
clearly judged in history and in Scripture.

If you're referring to Sodom the sin wasn't homosexuality, it was
inhospitality.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
A history of civilizations
will teach that toward the end of an empire, homosexuality rises
with the wealth/affluency that bears it.

Sorry, no. Homosexuality has always remained around 2-4% of the
population.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I do encourage you to
consider the eternal cost of your rebellousness.

The cost of my, and other's, 'rebelliousness' is usually at the hands
of bigots and nutjobs .

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Two wrongs make a right advocacy? Making oneself the
arbitrator of what is right and what is wrong?

There's nothing wrong with homosexuality, therefore your analogy is
false.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You continue to come here and advocate that which has
offended 99.999 per cent of the Church from the time
of the Apostles even up to our own lukewarm era.

Trans people have had that much effect? Wow! I didn't know we were
that important! :)

Post by l***@hotmail.com
If you were a sensitive Bible believing Christian, then
you would not do so any more than a RC pedophile
priest.

If you were a sensitive Bible believing Christian you wouldn't be
judgmental. And comparing trans people to pedophiles is disparaging
and insulting. You owe me an apology.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Evil is anything which opposes God's revealed will. Sodomy is
clearly judged in history and in Scripture.

If you're referring to Sodom the sin wasn't homosexuality, it was
inhospitality.

You are an ostrich with its head pushes far underground. This is
pure homosexual revisionism. Like there are no true Greek scholars
that accept the false Jehovah Witness's rendition of Jn 1:1, just
so there are no true Biblical scholars that hold to "inhospitality."

Jude 1:7 Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since
they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went
after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the
punishment of eternal fire.

I really feel sorry for those who are so twisted in their sin that
they twist the meaning of Scripture just to make themselves
temporarily good. More that pity, I fear for you because God
is not mocked and you are mocking Him and His clearly
expressed will concerning this.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
A history of civilizations
will teach that toward the end of an empire, homosexuality rises
with the wealth/affluency that bears it.

Sorry, no. Homosexuality has always remained around 2-4% of the
population.

Read Giddon's, "Rise and Decline of the Roman Empire." Anyone
who has done any scholarly review of historical cultures knows this
to be true. It was true in the Greek world even as in the Roman.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I do encourage you to
consider the eternal cost of your rebellousness.

The cost of my, and other's, 'rebelliousness' is usually at the hands
of bigots and nutjobs .

And why is that? Because even though the greatest part of society
is godless, it yet retains in its consciousness God's ethic to one
degree or another.

But this is of little consequence when you consider what is really
at issue....

Matt. 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable
to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul
and body in hell.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Two wrongs make a right advocacy? Making oneself the
arbitrator of what is right and what is wrong?

There's nothing wrong with homosexuality, therefore your analogy is
false.

Says you! You are making yourself the arbitrator of what is
morally right and wrong. This is the effect of the fall. You have
placed yourself as the ultimate reference point in the universe
and have dismissed God's revealed will. You may be able to
justify yourself before some sympathetic crowd, but what does
that matter when God's wrath abides on you?

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You continue to come here and advocate that which has
offended 99.999 per cent of the Church from the time
of the Apostles even up to our own lukewarm era.

Trans people have had that much effect? Wow! I didn't know we were
that important! :)

No sin is unimportant when it is committed against an
infinite holy God. Again, you can play all the games you
want but ultimately they gain you nothing but further
darkness and rejection. "He gave them over." Three
times, Rom 1:24, 26, 28 this is decreed with the final
result being that the offender goes even so far as to
enlist others in their rebellion. This leaves you on
the outer edge of God's restraint.

Post by shegeek72

Post by l***@hotmail.com
If you were a sensitive Bible believing Christian, then
you would not do so any more than a RC pedophile
priest.

If you were a sensitive Bible believing Christian you wouldn't be
judgmental.

I never judged you. You must discern the difference between
judging and evaluating. The elders of the church are called to
discern the spirits and to teach correct doctrine. I have merely
laid the revealed truth of God at your doorstep. What you
chose to do about it is your business. But because I am
sensitive, I have encouraged you to repent while there is still
the grace of God to allow you to do so.

Post by shegeek72
And comparing trans people to pedophiles is disparaging
and insulting. You owe me an apology.

I could just as well have compared you to adulterers. So
what? As I said, two wrongs cannot make a right. What
is wrong is wrong no matter how you what pair of glasses
you hang on your nose.

[shegeek72]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Jude 1:7 Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since
they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went
after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the
punishment of eternal fire.

Even if this is correct interpretation, my KJV says, "fornication,"
instead of "gross immorality"; it does not say what type of
fornication nor what "strange flesh." There is nothing specific to
homosexuality or transsexuality.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I really feel sorry for those who are so twisted in their sin that
they twist the meaning of Scripture just to make themselves
temporarily good.

<snip>

And I feel sorry for such as yourself, who've grossly misinterpreted
passages in the Bible. I'll tell you something else, that I already
said in this ng, but bears repeating. After attending my first few
services at MCC, when I got home I asked God if it was wrong to be
transgender or gay and each time I got a strong "No." God looks into
people's hearts He/She doesn't care about our exteriors or who we
love.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Read Giddon's, "Rise and Decline of the Roman Empire." Anyone
who has done any scholarly review of historical cultures knows this
to be true. It was true in the Greek world even as in the Roman.

It may have been more evident, but that doesn't mean it increased in
proportion to the population. And Rome fell due to its financial
downfall.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And why is that? Because even though the greatest part of society
is godless, it yet retains in its consciousness God's ethic to one
degree or another.

Those who discriminate against, bash, taunt, condemn and ostracize gay
and trans people obviously aren't acting on their "God ethic."

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Two wrongs make a right advocacy? Making oneself the
arbitrator of what is right and what is wrong?

Right and wrong are judgments and you say you don't judge? This is
typical hypocrisy I encounter among some so-called Christians.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Says you! You are making yourself the arbitrator of what is
morally right and wrong.

Nope, you are. There is nothing wrong in who people choose to love.
The real wrong are the effects of thinking and actions, such as
your's, that lead to much unnecessary suffering and hardships fostered
on your GLBT brothers and sisters.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
No sin is unimportant when it is committed against an
infinite holy God. Again, you can play all the games you
want but ultimately they gain you nothing but further
darkness and rejection. "He gave them over." Three
times, Rom 1:24, 26, 28 this is decreed with the final
result being that the offender goes even so far as to
enlist others in their rebellion. This leaves you on
the outer edge of God's restraint.

Show me where it addresses transsexuality.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I never judged you. You must discern the difference between
judging and evaluating.

LOL! Calling something wrong is most certainly a judgment!

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I could just as well have compared you to adulterers.

<snip>

And again you would've disparaged me and all trans people. Not
Christian-like behavior in my book.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[soc.religion.christian moderator]

***@hotmail.com writes:
Subject: Re: the smoke screen of opposing gay marrige

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by shegeek72
If you're referring to Sodom the sin wasn't homosexuality, it was
inhospitality.

You are an ostrich with its head pushes far underground. This is
pure homosexual revisionism. Like there are no true Greek scholars
that accept the false Jehovah Witness's rendition of Jn 1:1, just
so there are no true Biblical scholars that hold to "inhospitality."

huh? it is certainly revisionism to say that the Bible nowhere
condemns homosexuality. But the Sodom story is not a good example.
There are a number of things wrong with what the inhabitants were
trying to do. It was rape of a guest of the same sex (at least in
appearance -- it's less clear to me that angels actually have sex, but
presumably the inhabitants thought they were dealing with a man).

The fact that Lot offered his daughter has been taken to mean that he
prefers heterosexual to homosexual rape. However it may also indicate
that he is carrying out his obligation to protect his guests. That
implication seems fairly explicit in Gen 19:8. He doesn't say "don't
do anything to these men because that would be homosexuality", but
"don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the
protection of my roof." So Lot, at least, seemed to be concerned first
with the violation of his responsibility to a guest.

I believe everyone agrees that homosexual rape is wrong. How can
this be used to condemn consensual homosexual actions?

I just looked through a concordance. There are a number of mentions
of Sodom, but generally as a city that God destroyed for sin.
No specific sins are mentioned, except in a few passages:

Deut 29:20. they appear in a list of cities that are evil. No specific
evil for Sodom, but the one in Deut seems to be serving other gods.

Jer 23:14. The people who are compared to Sodom are guilty of adultery and
"walking in lies".

Ez 16: 47ff. Sodom had pride and ease, and did not aid the poor, did
abominable things.

3 Mac 2:5. acted arrogantly and were notorious for their vices

2 Pet 2:6. ungodly, licentious in lawlessness

Jude 1:6 sexual immorality and unnatural lust. However from the
context, the term translated unnatural lust more likely refers
to lust for someone from another species. See
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Jud&chapter=1&verse=7
for a detailed discussion.

I wouldn't say that "the sin of Sodom is inhospitality". First, rape
of guests goes beyond what one normally means by inhospitality. I'd
call it abuse of guests. But this is clearly not their only sin or
even the primary one. After all, God had already heard of their
notorious sins before the angels went to investigate. Sodom was a
cesspool of just about every possible vice.

But neither is it accurate to say that the sin of Sodom was
homosexuality.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by soc.religion.christian moderator
Subject: Re: the smoke screen of opposing gay marrige

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by shegeek72
If you're referring to Sodom the sin wasn't homosexuality, it was
inhospitality.

You are an ostrich with its head pushes far underground. This is
pure homosexual revisionism. Like there are no true Greek scholars
that accept the false Jehovah Witness's rendition of Jn 1:1, just
so there are no true Biblical scholars that hold to "inhospitality."

Jude 1:6 sexual immorality and unnatural lust. However from the
context, the term translated unnatural lust more likely refers
to lust for someone from another species. S

Rom. 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions;
for [EVEN] their women exchanged the natural function for that which
is unnatural,

"unnatural" is certainly speaking of homosexuality.

Rom. 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural
function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another,
men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own
persons the due penalty of their error.

This isn't Charles answering, who is it?

----

[Yes, it was me. The problem is that there is little resemblence
between Paul's "contrary to nature" and Jude's "strange flesh".
See http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Jud&chapter=1&verse=7
This is hardly a liberal publication. I find it quite useful
for exegetical details.

I find a tendency to defend exegetical errors when they happen to
produce the results you want. I'm *not* arguing that there
no anti-homosexual comments in the Bible. Paul is clear enough.
However I think pulling in the Sodom story is unjustified.

--clh]

[Burkladies]

The pope is of no consequence. I was raised catholic and had to
tolerate his celibate, pontificating ars. He pontificates non sense
and yet his bishop and priest boys are the very sex offenders the pope
rails against. There has never been anything wrong with marriage
between two consenting adults. That is what Jesus wanted, monogamy
between two consenting adults. Yet monogamy rarely happens with in
marriage. Usually the man has to split hairs over how to screw a
prostitute while his wife, screw toy is tending to the kids. Preists
will go against their own teachings to screw a child and mess the kid
up for life. The catholic church is nothing more than a centuries old
scandal, a church which harbors sex offenders and then lies about it.
And the lay folks are usually stupid or too crazy to find a better
faith and stick with the dogma the pope spouts. 'Gay marriage' has
always been a smoke screen. Regardless of how greedy folks try to
make laws to ban healthy, Christ guided relationships.

Blessings

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Burkladies
The pope is of no consequence.

Keep on saying that to yourself 'Burkaldies'. Maybe then you will manage to
convince yourself of this nonsense.

Post by Burkladies
I was raised catholic and had to
tolerate his celibate, pontificating ars.

Such complaints about a leader are all too often themselves proof that it it the
_complainer_ who is arrogant, even more so than the leader.

Post by Burkladies
He pontificates non sense

The word is 'nonsense', and despite his errors, his words make much more sense
than yours do.

Post by Burkladies
and yet his bishop and priest boys are the very sex offenders the pope
rails against.

Now _this_ is nonsense. As they have been pointing out from very early on during
the current crisis, it is only a very small number of them who commit these
offenses. Certainly too few to justify your sweeping slanderous accusation.

Post by Burkladies
There has never been anything wrong with marriage
between two consenting adults.

What are you talking about? 'Marriage' has been defined by both law and custom
as between a man and a woman for centuries, NOT "between two consenting adults".

Post by Burkladies
That is what Jesus wanted, monogamy
between two consenting adults.

You call the Pope 'pontificating', yet here _you_ are claiming to speak for
Christ? How arrogant is that?

[snip]

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Burkladies
and yet his bishop and priest boys are the very sex offenders the pope
rails against.

Now _this_ is nonsense. As they have been pointing out from very early on
during
the current crisis, it is only a very small number of them who commit
these
offenses. Certainly too few to justify your sweeping slanderous
accusation.

A small number of them committed these offenses...but it was the
"higher -ups" who *tolerated* and *facilitated* these offenses.

It probably deserves a generalization because the frequency of the examples
was way above what one might expect in a normal, much less a Holy culture.

The generalization stands because of the way the Church protected these
offenders and facilitated their actions.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Burkladies
and yet his bishop and priest boys are the very sex offenders the pope
rails against.

Now _this_ is nonsense. As they have been pointing out from very early on
during
the current crisis, it is only a very small number of them who commit
these
offenses. Certainly too few to justify your sweeping slanderous
accusation.

A small number of them committed these offenses...but it was the
"higher -ups" who *tolerated* and *facilitated* these offenses.

You are playing a "bait-and-switch" game. We were not talking about the
higher-ups or what they did. The claim was "his bishop and priest boys are the
very sex offenders the pope rails against.

This is not true, and nothing you have said supports this outrageous slander.

[snip]

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
Now _this_ is nonsense. As they have been pointing out from very early
on
during
the current crisis, it is only a very small number of them who commit
these
offenses. Certainly too few to justify your sweeping slanderous
accusation.

A small number of them committed these offenses...but it was the
"higher -ups" who *tolerated* and *facilitated* these offenses.

You are playing a "bait-and-switch" game. We were not talking about the
higher-ups or what they did.

It's a simple repsonse tyo your attempts to minimalize the scandal.

You tried to minimalize it by saying it was such a "small number"...however,
what makes this a major crime for the Church was that there was a concerted
effort to shield pedophile priests from prosecution and face any
reprecussions by the priests.

The people who held themselves up as "Holy" did not act as such.

Post by Matthew Johnson
The claim was "his bishop and priest boys are the
very sex offenders the pope rails against.
This is not true, and nothing you have said supports this outrageous
slander.

The Pope did not take the lead in the priest pedophile scandal. While at
time he said the right words, he took very little action. He did not remove
one Bishop who was responsible for the biggest crisis to hit the Church in
recent memory.

Talk is cheap.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
Now _this_ is nonsense. As they have been pointing out from very
early on during the current crisis, it is only a very small
number of them who commit these offenses. Certainly too few to
justify your sweeping slanderous accusation.

A small number of them committed these offenses...but it was the
"higher -ups" who *tolerated* and *facilitated* these offenses.

You are playing a "bait-and-switch" game. We were not talking about the
higher-ups or what they did.

It's a simple repsonse tyo your attempts to minimalize the scandal.

No, it is bait and switch. It is dishonest. And you are still doing
it.

Post by A Brown
You tried to minimalize it by saying it was such a "small
number"...however, what makes this a major crime for the Church was
that there was a concerted effort to shield pedophile priests from
prosecution and face any reprecussions by the priests.

This is not true. Yes, there was a concerted effort to shield them
from _civil_ prosecution, but _not_ from the prosecution under Canon
Law. Remember that this is the Church who canonized Thomas a Becket
for defending the clergy's right to be tried in ecclesiastical, not
civil courts.

Post by A Brown
The people who held themselves up as "Holy" did not act as such.

Newsflash: neither did you when you supported the slanderer who called
them "the very sex offenders". You get no brownie points for indicting
those who "held themselves up as 'Holy'" while doing such unholy things
yourself.

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
The claim was "his bishop and priest boys are the very sex
offenders the pope rails against.
This is not true, and nothing you have said supports this
outrageous slander.

The Pope did not take the lead in the priest pedophile scandal.

Well, so what? You miss the point. You supported the slanderer who
claimed the priests and bishops were "the very sex offenders" You are
still doing it.

Post by A Brown
While at time he said the right words, he took very little action.

Which is better than the evil actions you are still taking.

Post by A Brown
He did not remove one Bishop who was responsible for the biggest
crisis to hit the Church in recent memory.

What are you talking about? Cardinal Law had to resign, remember? Get
your facts straight before you level accusations at others.

Post by A Brown
Talk is cheap.

Is that why you turn to slanderous talk so quickly, Brown?

[Rob]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
Now _this_ is nonsense. As they have been pointing out from very
early on during the current crisis, it is only a very small
number of them who commit these offenses. Certainly too few to
justify your sweeping slanderous accusation.

A small number of them committed these offenses...but it was the
"higher -ups" who *tolerated* and *facilitated* these offenses.

You are playing a "bait-and-switch" game. We were not talking about the
higher-ups or what they did.

It's a simple repsonse tyo your attempts to minimalize the scandal.
You tried to minimalize it by saying it was such a "small
number"...however, what makes this a major crime for the Church was
that there was a concerted effort to shield pedophile priests from
prosecution and face any reprecussions by the priests.

This is not true.

Please don't speak from ignorance, please read:

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/

Post by Matthew Johnson
Yes, there was a concerted effort to shield them
from _civil_ prosecution..

I think that's exactly the point.

Post by Matthew Johnson
but _not_ from the prosecution under Canon
Law.

Do you think the little boys that were sodomized care about Canon law?

Ummm......the world does not run on Canon law. If you are a citizen of the
United States, you live by it's laws.

Canon law is an internal mechanism of the Church...The priest should have
been held accoutable under criminal laws that were broken. Instead, Bishops
shielded them from their legal responsibilities...and in many cases provided
more child fodder for them.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
The people who held themselves up as "Holy" did not act as such.
The Pope did not take the lead in the priest pedophile scandal.

Well, so what?

So, what? So WHAT? (Please get professional help at once.)

If children are being abused.....we are required by our faith to do
something to stop it.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
While at time he said the right words, he took very little action.

Which is better than the evil actions you are still taking.

Again, you try to minimalize the largest scandal in the Catholic Church in
recent memory

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
He did not remove one Bishop who was responsible for the biggest
crisis to hit the Church in recent memory.

What are you talking about? Cardinal Law had to resign, remember?

Cardinal Law offerred his resignation to the Vatican twice.....and it was
turned down.

It wasn't until the people of his diocese threatened to run him out of town
on a rail that he left town (begrudgingly).

The Pope never asked for his resignation. It was only accepted when it was
the only option left.

Now Cardinal LAw lives in Rome with a hosue ful of servants, a driver, nuns
who cook and clean for him and he is in Charge of one of the major basilicas
in Rome. How's that for Cannon law...not bad, eh?

Post by Matthew Johnson
Get
your facts straight before you level accusations at others.

Them the facts!

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
Talk is cheap.

Yours is even cheaper. Youa re basically blowing your won horn without a
leg to stand on.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Is that why you turn to slanderous talk so quickly, Brown?

The Truth is difficult I know matthew.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
Now _this_ is nonsense. As they have been pointing out from
very early on during the current crisis, it is only a very
small number of them who commit these offenses. Certainly too
few to justify your sweeping slanderous accusation.

A small number of them committed these offenses...but it was the
"higher -ups" who *tolerated* and *facilitated* these offenses.

You are playing a "bait-and-switch" game. We were not talking
about the higher-ups or what they did.

It's a simple repsonse tyo your attempts to minimalize the scandal.
You tried to minimalize it by saying it was such a "small
number"...however, what makes this a major crime for the Church was
that there was a concerted effort to shield pedophile priests from
prosecution and face any reprecussions by the priests.

This is not true.

I'm not speaking from ignorance. You are, especially when you use this
scandal as an excuse for avoiding the truth: the Roman Church is quite
right to condemn all forms of homosexual activity as grave sin, no
matter how badly they screwed up handling their own sexual scandal.

Post by Rob
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/

I did look at it. In the morbid fashion that curses so much of the
secular press, the reporters show a consistent failure to understand
how a church does or should run its affairs. So, for example, their
complaints about the kind and gentle language used between offending
priests and their bishops is completely unwarranted.

But far more serious is how they base their judgment of what attitude
the bishop should have had based on _alleged_ offenses, without even
bothering to take a count of how many had been substantiated at the
time. Only at the very end of one article, for example, does the
author admit, after a _torrent_ of unjustifiable criticism, that Law
changed his tone to become firm when contacted by the archdiocesan
official in charge of sexual-abuse complaints.

This is NOT how fair, objective reporting is done. So much for your
snide, "please don't speak from ignorance". Ignorance is ALL these
reporters spoke from. It is all _you_ spoke from.

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
Yes, there was a concerted effort to shield them from _civil_
prosecution..

I think that's exactly the point.

No, that is _not_ the point. Take a look at the title of this thread:
it is "Re: the smoke screen of opposing gay marrige[sic]".

It is you, not I, who is continually trying to distract from the topic
with your "red herring".

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
but _not_ from the prosecution under Canon Law.

Do you think the little boys that were sodomized care about Canon law?

Do you think that is relevant? I don't.

Post by Rob
Ummm......the world does not run on Canon law. If you are a citizen
of the United States, you live by it's laws.

Not if you are ultramontanist;)

Besides: haven't you been following the news? We can't even get the
President to live by the country's laws.

Post by Rob
Canon law is an internal mechanism of the Church...The priest should
have been held accoutable under criminal laws that were broken.

No. Your position may be consistent with that of secularists, but not
with that of the Roman Church.

[snip]

Post by Rob
So, what? So WHAT? (Please get professional help at once.)
If children are being abused.....we are required by our faith to do
something to stop it.

Such as bomb WACO? Don't you remember? The press and the government
used this as their excuse for going in with tanks at WACO, too. Yet
that turned out to be a disaster, and the accusation was even
false. Yet you would have me take the word of the press.

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
While at time he said the right words, he took very little action.

Which is better than the evil actions you are still taking.

Again, you try to minimalize the largest scandal in the Catholic Church in
recent memory

No, I am not minimizing the one, I am 'maximalizing' the _other_. What
you are doing is even more wicked than what you accuse others of.

[snip]

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
Get your facts straight before you level accusations at others.

Them the facts!

You still haven't got them straight.

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
Talk is cheap.

Yours is even cheaper. Youa re basically blowing your won horn
without a leg to stand on.

Not true. I have very firm ground to stand on for my claim that the
Roman Church is quite right to condemn all forms of homosexual
activity as grave sin. You are quite wrong to use the scandal as a
distraction from this fact.

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
Is that why you turn to slanderous talk so quickly, Brown?

The Truth is difficult I know matthew.

So is that why you are avoiding it so studiously?

[Anonymouse]

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
You tried to minimalize it by saying it was such a "small
number"...however, what makes this a major crime for the Church was
that there was a concerted effort to shield pedophile priests from
prosecution and face any reprecussions by the priests.

This is not true.

I'm not speaking from ignorance. You are....

Is theis the "I know you are but what am I"" defense you try with others?

Post by Rob
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/

I did look at it. In the morbid fashion that curses so much of the
secular press, the reporters show a consistent failure to understand
how a church does or should run its affairs.

Ignore the crime...attack the reporters who brought the scandal to light.
Good one!

How should they run their affairs? By letting priests molest? By shielding
them from criminal prosecution?

Maybe the victims (or the reporters) are not Catholic and don't care "how
the Church should run it's affairs". They simply judge it by it's
fruits...which in this case is rotten. They are seeking justice...to which
we are all entitled..>Catholic or not.

But far more serious is how they base their judgment of what attitude
the bishop should have had based on _alleged_ offenses, without even
bothering to take a count of how many had been substantiated at the
time.

More excuses...

Only at the very end of one article, for example, does the
author admit, after a _torrent_ of unjustifiable criticism...

Children were being molested. SOme are dead.

The criticism leveled was very justified.

This is NOT how fair, objective reporting is done. So much for your
snide, "please don't speak from ignorance". Ignorance is ALL these
reporters spoke from. It is all _you_ spoke from.

The reporters who reported facts are all ignorant.

Again, you claim to be the only one to see things clearly free of
ignorance...it's always somebody else, isn't it?

A recurring pattern with you.

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
Yes, there was a concerted effort to shield them from _civil_
prosecution..

I think that's exactly the point.

No, that is _not_ the point.

It's exactly the point.

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
but _not_ from the prosecution under Canon Law.

Do you think the little boys that were sodomized care about Canon law?

Do you think that is relevant? I don't.

YEs, the victims deserve justice....not verses from Canon Law.

Post by Rob
Canon law is an internal mechanism of the Church...The priest should
have been held accoutable under criminal laws that were broken.

No. Your position may be consistent with that of secularists, but not
with that of the Roman Church.

If they are citizens of this Country (which they are), then they are bound
to obey the laws of this country.

Canon law is something they choose to live by. Obeying Canon Law does not
free you from Civil Law.

No, I am not minimizing the one, I am 'maximalizing' the _other_. What
you are doing is even more wicked than what you accuse others of.

Why, what am I doing that is so "wicked"?

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
Get your facts straight before you level accusations at others.

Them the facts!

You still haven't got them straight.

Point something out where I have the facts wrong...and I'll gladly
apologize.

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
Talk is cheap.

Yours is even cheaper. Youa re basically blowing your won horn
without a leg to stand on.

Not true. I have very firm ground to stand on for my claim that the
Roman Church is quite right to condemn all forms of homosexual
activity as grave sin.

The Church can do anything it wants.

However, Christians (some not Catholic) are not required to listen.

How is the tachingon Birth Control going these days? I believe the Church
calls that a mortal sin.

You are quite wrong to use the scandal as a
distraction from this fact.

I am not suing it as a distraction. I alknowledge that they both exist on
their own plane.

However, the Church damaged it's owqn credibility and lost some moral
authority when they handled the abuse crisis so badly.

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
Is that why you turn to slanderous talk so quickly, Brown?

The Truth is difficult I know matthew.

So is that why you are avoiding it so studiously?

Maybe it's you seeing the fruits of your own ego.

[Dan the man....]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
Now _this_ is nonsense. As they have been pointing out from very
early on during the current crisis, it is only a very small
number of them who commit these offenses. Certainly too few to
justify your sweeping slanderous accusation.

A small number of them committed these offenses...but it was the
"higher -ups" who *tolerated* and *facilitated* these offenses.

You are playing a "bait-and-switch" game. We were not talking about the
higher-ups or what they did.

It's a simple repsonse tyo your attempts to minimalize the scandal.

No, it is bait and switch. It is dishonest. And you are still doing
it.

Did you or did you not try to minimalize the scandal?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
You tried to minimalize it by saying it was such a "small
number"...

This is not true.

Did you or did you not say it was only a small number? Did you ignore the
acessories to the crime, which included the Bishops and Cardinals who
allowed it to happen?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
The people who held themselves up as "Holy" did not act as such.

You get no brownie points for indicting
those who "held themselves up as 'Holy'" while doing such unholy things
yourself.

But I don't put on a collar every morning and preach. I don't have a mitre
and have not been charged with the spiritual well-being of others including
children...and then abdicated that responsibility.

Again, you minimalize the crimes for some reason I do not know.

You do not know me or my sins...yet you equate whatever my sins are with
"child abuse"?

I think Jesus singled out the sin for leading young people astray by saying
it would be better to have a millstone tied aroiund you and trhown into the
water. Little did we know that Cardinals, Bishops and Priests would be the
recipient of the "Millstone Award".

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
The claim was "his bishop and priest boys are the very sex
offenders the pope rails against.
This is not true, and nothing you have said supports this
outrageous slander.

The Pope did not take the lead in the priest pedophile scandal.

Well, so what? You miss the point. You supported the slanderer who
claimed the priests and bishops were "the very sex offenders" You are
still doing it.

Wether they were actually the one that comiitted the crime, or simply the
ones that allowed it, covered it up, provided more opportunity for abused
children, and shielded the perpetrators...all those that sat by without
taking action are complicit....even if they nver touched a child themselves.

[Burkladies]

Harboring pedophiles aids perhaps the worst crime of humanity.
Catholics need to duck on this one and stand by their pedophile pope
while brain washing continues. That is what they are taught to do.
Is that what marriage is, brain washing and a cover for sexual
immorality? Seems so. Why else would jerks continue to scream about
marriage and their fear of sexual immorality?

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dan the man....

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
Now _this_ is nonsense. As they have been pointing out from
very early on during the current crisis, it is only a very
small number of them who commit these offenses. Certainly too
few to justify your sweeping slanderous accusation.

A small number of them committed these offenses...but it was the
"higher -ups" who *tolerated* and *facilitated* these offenses.

You are playing a "bait-and-switch" game. We were not talking
about the higher-ups or what they did.

It's a simple repsonse tyo your attempts to minimalize the scandal.

No, it is bait and switch. It is dishonest. And you are still doing
it.

Did you or did you not try to minimalize the scandal?

You are still dodging the real issue of this thread. You should first
be asking yourself, "did you or did you not play a dishonest
'bait-and-switch' game?"

The answer, of course, is 'yes'.

[snip]

Post by Dan the man....
Again, you minimalize the crimes for some reason I do not know.

No, that is not what I am doing. Perhaps if you would set aside your
counterfeit indignation long enough to _read_ what you respond to, you
would have figured that out by now. But there is no point in repeating
my explanations, since you show no sign of ever having listened.

Post by Dan the man....
You do not know me or my sins...yet you equate whatever my sins are
with "child abuse"?

No, I did no such thing. Don't you _read_ before you click 'send'?
Besides: my newsreader is showing this post as the _first_ under your
name in this thread. So what are you talking about? How could I be
equating your sins to anything? Unless, of course, you are posting
under an assumed name, and made a previous post under another
(assumed) name?

But if you are posting under two different names, then what could your
motive be, if not dishonesty? Why should we take you seriously, if you
feel such a strong need to cover your tracks?

Post by Dan the man....
I think Jesus singled out the sin for leading young people astray by
saying it would be better to have a millstone tied aroiund you and
trhown into the water. Little did we know that Cardinals, Bishops
and Priests would be the recipient of the "Millstone Award".

Well, why _are_ you so surprised? Are you really that ignorant of
Church history? Did you really completely miss the point of the
Parable of the wheat and tares (Mt 13:24-30)? If the pedophile priests
are not examples of the 'tares', then who is? You, perhaps, who
slander the bulk of the hierarchy?

[snip]

Post by Dan the man....

Post by Matthew Johnson
Well, so what? You miss the point. You supported the slanderer who
claimed the priests and bishops were "the very sex offenders" You
are still doing it.

Wether they were actually the one that comiitted the crime, or simply
the ones that allowed it, covered it up, provided more opportunity
for abused children, and shielded the perpetrators...all those that
sat by without taking action are complicit....even if they nver
touched a child themselves.

You call that a sentence? No wonder you don't make any sense. Is your
desire to commit slander so strong that you not only continue to
slander the hierarchy, but even sputter while doing it?

You miss the point. You miss it so badly, it looks like a deliberate
cover up of your own sin. The point is that you have no right to use
the accusation of 'complicity' to accuse the bulk of the hierarchy of
being sex offenders. To do so is slander of the grossest kind. Yet you persist.

Get a clue: the same God who condemns impenitent sex offenders will
cast impenitent slanderers into hell, too.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Burkladies
Harboring pedophiles aids perhaps the worst crime of humanity.

By no means. Obviously committing the pedophilia is worse. But also very bad
is&#209;

Post by Burkladies
Catholics need to duck on this one and stand by their pedophile pope

slandering the Pope like this. There is absolutely no excuse for calling the
Roman Pope himself a pedophile. When you answer for your sins at the Last
Judgment, you will receive a harsher sentence than the cardinals who 'harbored'
pedophiles.

[snip]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dan the man....

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson
Now _this_ is nonsense. As they have been pointing out from
very early on during the current crisis, it is only a very
small number of them who commit these offenses. Certainly too
few to justify your sweeping slanderous accusation.

A small number of them committed these offenses...but it was the
"higher -ups" who *tolerated* and *facilitated* these offenses.

You are playing a "bait-and-switch" game. We were not talking
about the higher-ups or what they did.

It's a simple repsonse tyo your attempts to minimalize the scandal.

No, it is bait and switch. It is dishonest. And you are still doing
it.

Did you or did you not try to minimalize the scandal?

You are still dodging the real issue of this thread. You should first
be asking yourself, "did you or did you not play a dishonest
'bait-and-switch' game?"

The answer, of course, is 'yes'.

[snip]

Post by Dan the man....
Again, you minimalize the crimes for some reason I do not know.

No, that is not what I am doing. Perhaps if you would set aside your
counterfeit indignation long enough to _read_ what you respond to, you
would have figured that out by now. But there is no point in repeating
my explanations, since you show no sign of ever having listened.

Post by Dan the man....
You do not know me or my sins...yet you equate whatever my sins are with
"child abuse"?

No, I did no such thing. Don't you _read_ before you click 'send'?

Post by Dan the man....
I think Jesus singled out the sin for leading young people astray by
saying it would be better to have a millstone tied aroiund you and
trhown into the water. Little did we know that Cardinals, Bishops
and Priests would be the recipient of the "Millstone Award".

Well, why _are_ you so surprised? Are you really that ignorant of
Church history? Did you really completely miss the point of the
Parable of the wheat and tares (Mt 13:24-30)? If the pedophile priests
are not examples of the 'tares', then who is?

[snip]

Post by Dan the man....

Post by Matthew Johnson
Well, so what? You miss the point. You supported the slanderer who
claimed the priests and bishops were "the very sex offenders" You
are still doing it.

Wether they were actually the one that comiitted the crime, or simply
the ones that allowed it, covered it up, provided more opportunity
for abused children, and shielded the perpetrators...all those that
sat by without taking action are complicit....even if they nver
touched a child themselves.

You call that a sentence? No wonder you don't make any sense. Is your
desire to commit slander so strong that you not only continue to
slander the hierarchy, but even sputter while doing it?

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
You tried to minimalize it by saying it was such a "small
number"...however, what makes this a major crime for the Church was
that there was a concerted effort to shield pedophile priests from
prosecution and face any reprecussions by the priests.

This is not true.

I'm not speaking from ignorance. You are....

Is theis the "I know you are but what am I"" defense you try with others?

No, you and Rob really are speaking from ignorance. And don't think I
didn't notice how you snipped the refutation of the ignorance in your
reply. Both you and Rob are pretending that the horror of sexual child
abuse justified trampling on the law (either Canon Law or civil law)
to take revenge on the offenders. But the ends do NOT justify the
means, either in civil law or canon law. Rather, both of you are
showing your ignorance of justice even as you cry out for justice.

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Rob
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/

I did look at it. In the morbid fashion that curses so much of the
secular press, the reporters show a consistent failure to understand
how a church does or should run its affairs.

Ignore the crime...

Who says I am ignoring it? Oh, of course, you, the ignorant one, say
it. Read my reply again. I did not ignore it.

Post by Anonymouse
attack the reporters who brought the scandal to light.
Good one!

And why not? They _are_ violating the commandments in the way they
cover it (Prv 15:2). But of course, you the ignorant one, did not even
notice, did you? Why would you, when you violate them in the same
basic way?

Post by Anonymouse
How should they run their affairs? By letting priests molest? By
shielding them from criminal prosecution?
Maybe the victims (or the reporters) are not Catholic and don't care "how
the Church should run it's affairs".

And that is unjustifiable.

Post by Anonymouse
They simply judge it by it's fruits...which in this case is rotten.

You are using Scripture's words to mean something quite different from
what Scripture means. That too, is a dishonest method of making
fallacious arguments. Not that that ever stopped you before...

Post by Anonymouse
They are seeking justice...to which we are all entitled..>Catholic or
not.

You _talk_ about being "entitled to justice", but your own activity in
this thread, even in this entire NG, is a pursuit of _injustice_.

Post by Anonymouse

But far more serious is how they base their judgment of what
attitude the bishop should have had based on _alleged_ offenses,
without even bothering to take a count of how many had been
substantiated at the time.

More excuses...

It is not an excuse. You who _claim_ to be defending our right to be
"entitled to justice" should know this. It is the right to be
considered innocent until proven guilty.

Post by Anonymouse

Only at the very end of one article, for example, does the
author admit, after a _torrent_ of unjustifiable criticism...

Children were being molested. SOme are dead.

And your point is? Are you _trying_ to show how alien to Christian
faith you are? Christians put their hope in God's judgment, not
man's. Those who are already dead are judged by God alone. Those who
committed crimes will be judged by God justly, not by men.

Post by Anonymouse
The criticism leveled was very justified.

No, it was not. I already explained why. You snipped without reply.

Post by Anonymouse

This is NOT how fair, objective reporting is done. So much for your
snide, "please don't speak from ignorance". Ignorance is ALL these
reporters spoke from. It is all _you_ spoke from.

The reporters who reported facts are all ignorant.

Yes.

Post by Anonymouse
Again, you claim to be the only one to see things clearly free of
ignorance...it's always somebody else, isn't it?

No. You are simply returning to your habitual dishonesty of resorting
to fallacies to attack your interlocutor. This time, as often, it is
the fallacy of the unrepresentative sample, and that with a twisted
interpretation. No, it is NOT "always about somebody else". If you
would read what is written instead of twisting it according to your
own twisted imagination, you would have seen this for yourself by now.

Post by Anonymouse
A recurring pattern with you.

No, rather, your use of the above fallacy is the recurring pattern
with you. As is the use of several other fallacies.

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
Yes, there was a concerted effort to shield them from _civil_
prosecution..

I think that's exactly the point.

No, that is _not_ the point.

It's exactly the point.

No, it is not.

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
but _not_ from the prosecution under Canon Law.

Do you think the little boys that were sodomized care about Canon law?

Do you think that is relevant? I don't.

YEs, the victims deserve justice....not verses from Canon Law.

Again, you show your total ignorance of basic Christianity: they will
NOT get justice from men. Nobody does (Psa 146:3) Only God dispenses
true justice to all (Psa 146:7).

So yes, _everyone_, who insists on justice from men is showing a lack
of faith in God. Especially those who attack the entire Roman Church,
insisting that funds donated by sincere parishioners for charitable
purposes be spent on paying legal settlements instead. That is NOT
'justice'.

Yet this _parody_ of justice has become the order of the day in boht
the US and Canada.

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Rob
Canon law is an internal mechanism of the Church...The priest should
have been held accoutable under criminal laws that were broken.

No. Your position may be consistent with that of secularists, but not
with that of the Roman Church.

If they are citizens of this Country (which they are), then they are
bound to obey the laws of this country.

Evidently not, since the President never does, and the Supreme Court
lacks the will to even reproach him for it.

Post by Anonymouse
Canon law is something they choose to live by. Obeying Canon Law does not
free you from Civil Law.

So you say. Rome says otherwise.

Post by Anonymouse

No, I am not minimizing the one, I am 'maximalizing' the _other_. What
you are doing is even more wicked than what you accuse others of.

Why, what am I doing that is so "wicked"?

I have explained that many times. Stop pretending otherwise.

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
Get your facts straight before you level accusations at others.

Them the facts!

You still haven't got them straight.

Point something out where I have the facts wrong...and I'll gladly
apologize.

I have. Instead of apologizing as you promise, you ignored me and
returned like a dog to his vomit to your fallacies and slander.

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by A Brown
Talk is cheap.

Yours is even cheaper. Youa re basically blowing your won horn
without a leg to stand on.

Not true. I have very firm ground to stand on for my claim that the
Roman Church is quite right to condemn all forms of homosexual
activity as grave sin.

The Church can do anything it wants.
However, Christians (some not Catholic) are not required to listen.

Not true. As St. Cyprian said so long ago, you cannot have God for
your father if you do not have the Church for your mother. And when he
said that, he took it for granted that you must obey your mother.

For that matter, don't forget Mat 18:17. This is _one_ example of how
binding it is on all Christians to listen to the Church:

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he
refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile
and a tax collector. (Mat 18:17 RSVA)

Post by Anonymouse
How is the tachingon Birth Control going these days? I believe the
Church calls that a mortal sin.

The _Roman_ Church does. However, they are beginning to realize they
have to start using the Roman notion of 'dispensatio' the same way the
East uses oikonomia, which will be more practical than what they have
been doing to date.

But that is again getting off-topic for this thread.

Post by Anonymouse

You are quite wrong to use the scandal as a
distraction from this fact.

I am not suing it as a distraction.

You most certainly _are_ using it as a distraction.

Post by Anonymouse
I alknowledge that they both exist on their own plane.

What was that supposed to mean? How many 'planes' do you believe in?

Post by Anonymouse
However, the Church damaged it's owqn credibility and lost some moral
authority when they handled the abuse crisis so badly.

True. But that is off topic for this thread.

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
Is that why you turn to slanderous talk so quickly, Brown?

The Truth is difficult I know matthew.

So is that why you are avoiding it so studiously?

Maybe it's you seeing the fruits of your own ego.

No. Dream on. Better yet, get your own ego out of the way first
before you talk about other people's egos.

[Rob]

Post by Matthew Johnson
Rather, both of you are
showing your ignorance of justice even as you cry out for justice.

tell us how justice is served when priests evade prosecution....and when
bishops help them?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
Oh, of course, you, the ignorant one

in case anyone forgot...we are trying to have a discussion with matt
johnson....anyone who doesn't agree is "ignorant".

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
attack the reporters who brought the scandal to light.
Good one!

And why not?

becasue like the bishops...you appear to be more concerned with how thinks
"look" and avboiding responsibility...rather than concern for children.

Post by Matthew Johnson
They _are_ violating the commandments in the way they
cover it (Prv 15:2).

The may not be catholic...or even Christian.

Post by Matthew Johnson
But of course, you the ignorant one,

Again....

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
Maybe the victims (or the reporters) are not Catholic and don't care "how
the Church should run it's affairs".

And that is unjustifiable.

u are a peice of work matt.

Post by Matthew Johnson
You are using Scripture's words to mean something quite different from
what Scripture means.

maybe we shouldn't even look at scripture...since you are the one that keeps
correcting everryon...o enlightened one.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
But far more serious is how they base their judgment of what
attitude the bishop should have had based on _alleged_ offenses,
without even bothering to take a count of how many had been
substantiated at the time.

More excuses...

It is not an excuse.

Of course it is. If it wasn't for the media....this story would've never
been brought to light. it would have stayed burried...and the abuse would
have continued.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
Children were being molested. SOme are dead.

And your point is?

the point is that children were being molested and some are dead.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Are you _trying_ to show how alien to Christian
faith you are? Christians put their hope in God's judgment, not
man's.

One of the Christian virtues is justice.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
The criticism leveled was very justified.

No, it was not. I already explained why. You snipped without reply.

angain with the snipping etiquette....it's all there in the
archives....people can read your nonsensical answers if they want.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
The reporters who reported facts are all ignorant.

Yes.

again, everybody else is ignorant? People who disgree in theis newsgroup
with you....people who write for the papers are....im sure you have a list a
mile long

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
Again, you claim to be the only one to see things clearly free of
ignorance...it's always somebody else, isn't it?

No. You are simply returning to your habitual dishonesty of resorting
to fallacies to attack your interlocutor.

again, it alwasy someone else...just look at how ofgten you call those you
disagree with ignorant or depraved, etc.

you have thesxe knee-jerk reactions, calling people depraved, ignorant, bait
and switch, which you use instead of reason and logic.

it doesn't hold water

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
Yes, there was a concerted effort to shield them from _civil_
prosecution..

I think that's exactly the point.

No, that is _not_ the point.

It's exactly the point.

No, it is not.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
but _not_ from the prosecution under Canon Law.

Do you think the little boys that were sodomized care about Canon law?

Do you think that is relevant? I don't.

YEs, the victims deserve justice....not verses from Canon Law.

Again, you show your total ignorance of basic Christianity: they will
NOT get justice from men.

And NOT from the church apparently.

matt you are a hoot!

[Judy Keane]

let me start a food chain here. of course the first person responsible
for the civil crime of molesting children is the priest perpetrator.
next is the accessory to the crime - the clergy enablers who covered up
the crimes and sent these priests on their way to another church to
molest hundreds more. (i had one such priest in my parish.) both
perpetrator and accessory should have been prosecuted to the full extent
of the law. however, i am angry and disgusted at the people who really
could have put a stop to this abuse - THE PERSON IN THE PEW. i am sick
of catholics defending their pedophile priest "because he's nice and
came to my mother's wake". if the parishioners had stood for justice
they would have stopped giving money to the church until every last
pedophile was behind bars! the late cardinal bernardine, looked upon as
a saint, was one of the greatest protectors of pedophiles, as was the
late cardinal cody and so many others.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Judy Keane
let me start a food chain here.

Food chain?!

Post by Judy Keane
of course the first person responsible for the civil crime of
molesting children is the priest perpetrator.

I am glad _someone_ finally recognizes the importance of this distinction.

Post by Judy Keane
next is the accessory to the crime - the clergy enablers who covered
up the crimes and sent these priests on their way to another church
to molest hundreds more. (i had one such priest in my parish.) both
perpetrator and accessory should have been prosecuted to the full
extent of the law.

Not even the prosecutor's office agreed with you on this.

Post by Judy Keane
however, i am angry and disgusted at the people who really could have
put a stop to this abuse - THE PERSON IN THE PEW.

What, all of them? Including yourself? If you really do include
yourself, that too would be a welcome change from the previous posts
on this topic. After all, to date, there has been an obnoxious 'double
standard' of excoriating the bishops and cardinals, while completely
ignoring the contribution of "the person in the pew".

Post by Judy Keane
i am sick of catholics defending their pedophile priest "because he's
nice and came to my mother's wake".

I haven't heard that defense before. Perhaps I was just lucky.

Post by Judy Keane
if the parishioners had stood for justice they would have stopped
giving money to the church until every last pedophile was behind
bars!

But this isn't justice, either. Do you know what the other prisoners
do to pedophiles in prisons? It is far, far worse than anything the
pedophile ever did (with rare exception). Anyone who wishes such an
awful form of homosexual rape on another person forfeits the right to
be considered Christian at all. But to wish it on an ordained priest
is even worse.

"Lock them up and throw away the key" was never the Christian attitude
to justice in the first place. But to add to that by wishing such an
awful fate on the criminal is even worse. THAT is why the bishops
protected them from civil prosecution. Now if only they had actually
followed canon law also, I might have agreed that they did the right
thing.

[snip]

[Dan]

matt....pay attention to this.....

Post by Judy Keane
let me start a food chain here. of course the first person responsible
for the civil crime of molesting children is the priest perpetrator.
next is the accessory to the crime - the clergy enablers who covered up
the crimes and sent these priests on their way to another church to
molest hundreds more. (i had one such priest in my parish.) both
perpetrator and accessory should have been prosecuted to the full extent
of the law. however, i am angry and disgusted at the people who really
could have put a stop to this abuse - THE PERSON IN THE PEW. i am sick
of catholics defending their pedophile priest "because he's nice and
came to my mother's wake". if the parishioners had stood for justice
they would have stopped giving money to the church until every last
pedophile was behind bars! the late cardinal bernardine, looked upon as
a saint, was one of the greatest protectors of pedophiles, as was the
late cardinal cody and so many others.

[Burkladies]

And the funny thing is, none of this illogical wining and insulting
over sins of the preists has to do with marriage, gay or otherwise.
Their adultery is gravely disordered! But to confuse their sins with
marriage tells me that most folks in this group are married and still
commiting adultery anyway. No surprise there:/

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Rob

Rather, both of you are showing your ignorance of justice even as
you cry out for justice.

tell us how justice is served when priests evade prosecution....and
when bishops help them?

I already answered this question. It is God who dispenses justice, not
men. So whether they evade the prosecution of men is
irrelevant. Christians do _not_ rely on the justice of men (Psa
146:3,7).

In fact, the burden of proof lies squarely on _your_ shoulders, not on
mine: you tell _me_ how justice would be served by extorting huge sums
of money from the Roman Church, so that the parishioners collection
plates go to pay legal settlements instead of paying for the
charitable work of the Church.

But of course, you cannot answer this. No doubt you will snip it
without comment instead. This too, proves that you have no interest in
justice, that you are just a liar and a hypocrite, like your friends
in this thread who take advantage of the scandal to preach depravity.

And speaking of your 'friends', are you and "A Brown" plotting
together how to answer, or are you one person posting under two
different usernames?

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
Oh, of course, you, the ignorant one

in case anyone forgot...we are trying to have a discussion with matt
johnson....anyone who doesn't agree is "ignorant".

Stop lying to the whole news group. What you are doing is NOT "trying
to have a discussion". Far from it. You who accuse me of blocking
discussion are yourself far, far more active in blocking it. You show
this with every sarcastic remark, of which you have so many.

And no, not _anyone_ who doesn't agree. Just you, and those _few_
others who use the latest scandal among the Romans as an excuse to
preach perversion in this NG.

That is not so many people, depsite the noise and fuss you raise.

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
attack the reporters who brought the scandal to light.
Good one!

And why not?

becasue like the bishops...you appear to be more concerned with how
thinks "look" and avboiding responsibility...rather than concern for
children.

And knock off the slander too. This is yet another way you make
yourself into such a flaming hypocrite: while you whine that I am
blocking discussion, you block it yourself by slandering me saying I
am more concerned with how things 'look'.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. But you are not interested in
the truth. You are only interested in opportunities for slander. Why
else would you snip so dishonestly, without even marking where you
snip? Why else would you support people who call the bishops
themselves pedophiles? Yet you insist on doing both.

Why, this alone is enough to prove that it is you, not I, who is "more
concerned with how things 'look'. For you are clearly very concerned
with hiding the truth about what a lying hypocrite you are, hiding
this truth behind the false _appearance_ you create by snipping w/o
marking.

Post by Rob

They _are_ violating the commandments in the way they
cover it (Prv 15:2).

The may not be catholic...or even Christian.

So what? The commandments of Proverbs are not binding only on
Christians. Everyone who, like you, despises these commandments, will
pay the penalty for it:

He who despises the word brings destruction on himself, but he who
respects the commandment will be rewarded. (Pro 13:13 RSVA)

You despise the word [of the commandment]. You will not escape
judgment for this.

Post by Rob

But of course, you the ignorant one,

Again....

Well, if you don't like being called ignorant, stop acting so
ignorant. It really is that simple. While you are at it, stop acting
so dishonestly, too.

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
Maybe the victims (or the reporters) are not Catholic and don't care "how
the Church should run it's affairs".

And that is unjustifiable.

u are a peice of work matt.

Another meaningless retort, so poor, it is really an admission of
failure: you cannot say anything of substance, so you childishly quip
about "peice[sic] of work".

Post by Rob

You are using Scripture's words to mean something quite different from
what Scripture means.

maybe we shouldn't even look at scripture...since you are the one
that keeps correcting everryon...o enlightened one.

This sarcasm too, reads like an admission of incompetence and
failure. you cannot say anything of substance, so you childishly
respond with low sarcasm. I knew 6th graders who had already given up
on such low sarcasm. When will you catch up with them?

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
But far more serious is how they base their judgment of what
attitude the bishop should have had based on _alleged_ offenses,
without even bothering to take a count of how many had been
substantiated at the time.

More excuses...

It is not an excuse.

Of course it is.

Of course it is not.

Post by Rob
If it wasn't for the media....this story would've never been brought
to light. it would have stayed burried...and the abuse would have
continued.

Nonsense. This is just grandstanding on behalf of the media, which
still persists in the illusion that they are "the fourth estate". The
_real_ reason it "came to light" so recently is because of changes in
case law that made this so much easier to prosecute.

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
Children were being molested. SOme are dead.

And your point is?

the point is that children were being molested and some are dead.

That is not a point. How can it be, when none of your other claims
follow from it?

Post by Rob

Are you _trying_ to show how alien to Christian faith you are?
Christians put their hope in God's judgment, not man's.

One of the Christian virtues is justice.

Not the 'justice' _you_ support. Once again, you show your deep
ignorance. For the 'justice' you cry out for is not justice at all. It
is only bloodthirsty, short-sighted vengeance, thinly disguised as
'justice'.

The disguise may have fooled you, but it hasn't fooled me.

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
The criticism leveled was very justified.

No, it was not. I already explained why. You snipped without reply.

angain with the snipping etiquette....

Well of course 'again'. For you committed the offense again.

Post by Rob
it's all there in the archives....people can read your nonsensical
answers if they want.

It is not mine that are nonsensical. And if _you_ would ever look in
the archives yourself, you would see how hypocritical it is for you to
claim this is just a matter of "snipping etiquette".

Besides: don't you know the archives already existed when the
netiquette rule was written? Of course they were. Yet the rule was
stil made. Most other people in this NG instinctively understand why,
and in the main, they comply with it. But you do not. Instead, you
give really thin and unconvincing excuses for continuing to flout it.

But this sinful behavior of yours was already condmemned long before
the Internet in:

A bad messenger plunges men into trouble, but a faithful envoy brings
healing. (Pro 13:17 RSVA)

You are the worst of messengers, lying and deceiving in every post you
have made this year in this newsgroup. And you do plunge men into
trouble, deceiving them into sharing your guilt and punishment as you
deceive them into following into your sin.

Snipping without comment, even failing to mark where you snip,
completely changing the meaning of the quoted words when doing so, is
_certainly_ being the "bad messenger" of Pro 13:17.

If other readers look in the archives, they will see that yes, every
post you made this year contains either a lie or some other more sly
form of deceit, usually masked in childish sarcasm. Except perhaps for

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
The reporters who reported facts are all ignorant.

Yes.

again, everybody else is ignorant?

No, just the reporters, and those who make false generalizations like
this one you just made.

Post by Rob
People who disgree in theis newsgroup with you....people who write
for the papers are....im sure you have a list a mile long

No, you don't have that many people who agree with you. Besides: since
when did numbers on one side ever prove who was right? Only
demonstrative reasoned argument can do that. But you have been
avoiding that ever since you stepped into this thread -- if not for
much longer.

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
Again, you claim to be the only one to see things clearly free of
ignorance...it's always somebody else, isn't it?

No. You are simply returning to your habitual dishonesty of resorting
to fallacies to attack your interlocutor.

again, it alwasy someone else...just look at how ofgten you call
those you disagree with ignorant or depraved, etc.

This is the fallacy of the biased sample.

Post by Rob
you have thesxe knee-jerk reactions, calling people depraved,
ignorant, bait and switch, which you use instead of reason and logic.

Well, what do you expect? You _are_ acting depraved and ignorant. You
_are_ practicing bait and switch. Do you really think that you can
escape accusation for what you are doing, when you yourself insist on
accusing the bishops?

And of course, no it isn't "knee-jerk reactions". Rather, by making
this groundless claim, you once again show you have no idea what is
really going on in this thread.

Post by Rob
it doesn't hold water

How would you know? In all posts in this NG, you have shown no
comprehension of demonstrative or dialectical reasoning. Instead, you
have shown an understanding only of contentious 'reasoning' relying on
both crude and sly fallacies, such as irrelevant ad hominem, false
generalizations, bait and switch, equivocation, quoting out of
context...

Not even I have names for all the fallacies you resort to.

[snip]

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
Do you think that is relevant? I don't.

YEs, the victims deserve justice....not verses from Canon Law.

Again, you show your total ignorance of basic Christianity: they
will NOT get justice from men.

And NOT from the church apparently.

Again, if you were not so ignorant, this would not surprise you. The
Old Believers had to wait 400 years to get justice from the Church,
too. They didn't have to wait that long to get it from God.

Post by Rob
matt you are a hoot!

And sure enough, yet again, you show off your total incompetence at
carrying on a reasoned discussion with such a childish rejoinder.

[Anonymouse]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
tell us how justice is served when priests evade prosecution....and
when bishops help them?

I already answered this question. It is God who dispenses justice, not
men. So whether they evade the prosecution of men is
irrelevant. Christians do _not_ rely on the justice of men (Psa
146:3,7).

Yes, but your answer didn't suffice.

One of the basic Christian virtues is "Justice".

We cannot expect non-Christians...but from self-professed Christians...and
the leaders of our Church...we can expect them to live the basic Christian
Virtues.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
Oh, of course, you, the ignorant one

in case anyone forgot...we are trying to have a discussion with matt
johnson....anyone who doesn't agree is "ignorant".

Stop lying to the whole news group.

Well, stop calling names and labeling people as depraves and ignorant that
you disagree with.

It's childish.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
attack the reporters who brought the scandal to light.
Good one!

And why not?

becasue like the bishops...you appear to be more concerned with how
thinks "look" and avboiding responsibility...rather than concern for
children.

And knock off the slander too.

Ah, yes...another buzzword...slander.

You expect to participate in a usenet newsgroup...and not have your ideas
put to the test?

Post by Matthew Johnson
Why else would you support people who call the bishops
themselves pedophiles?

(to use Matt's words) I have already answered this.

Those that are complicit are just as guilty.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
They _are_ violating the commandments in the way they
cover it (Prv 15:2).

The may not be catholic...or even Christian.

So what? The commandments of Proverbs are not binding only on
Christians.
Everyone who, like you, despises these commandments, will

Again, another worthless slam at me?

I do not dispise the 10 commandments.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
But of course, you the ignorant one,

Again....

Well, if you don't like being called ignorant, stop acting so
ignorant. It really is that simple.

Grow up.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
u are a peice of work matt.

Another meaningless retort, so poor, it is really an admission of
failure: you cannot say anything of substance, so you childishly quip
about "peice[sic] of work".

Well if you don't like being called a "peice of work"...stop acting like
one...it's really that simple!

In spite of your insolence, you insist that your conclusions are the ones
every Christian must share.

Again, setting yourself up as the arbiter of truth/untruths only sets you up
for failure.

There are Christians all over the world, with diffenet theology, worship
styles, history....all doing their best to serve the Almighty.



If you insit on turnin the Church into a circular firing sqad...there won't
be anything left.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Burkladies
And the funny thing is, none of this illogical wining and insulting
over sins of the preists has to do with marriage, gay or otherwise.
Their adultery is gravely disordered! But to confuse their sins with
marriage tells me that most folks in this group are married and still
commiting adultery anyway. No surprise there:/

Why did the Moderator allow a post like this? Surely accusing "most folks in
this group" of adultery cannot be what is allowed by the FAQ and Charter, not
even in the most 'liberal' interpretation.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
tell us how justice is served when priests evade prosecution....and
when bishops help them?

I already answered this question. It is God who dispenses justice, not
men. So whether they evade the prosecution of men is
irrelevant. Christians do _not_ rely on the justice of men (Psa
146:3,7).

Yes, but your answer didn't suffice.

Yes, it did. You are just being obtuse. Otherwise, you would have
included the answer in _this_ post and indicated in what way it did
not 'suffice'. But you did not, since you are really only interested
in being obtuse.

Post by Anonymouse
One of the basic Christian virtues is "Justice".

But NOT the justice of this world. And as I have already pointed out,
it is _not_ just to accuse the bishops and cardinals themselves of
being pedophiles, nor to force the Church to turn the collection
plates to paying for a legal settlement.

Even the classic pagan philosophers who first classified 'justice' as
one of the cardinal virtues, knew better than to equate it with the
'justice' meted out by the courts. But you do now know better. Now why
is that?

Post by Anonymouse
We cannot expect non-Christians...but from self-professed
Christians...and the leaders of our Church...we can expect them to
live the basic Christian Virtues.

Practice it yourself. Quote accurately, do not snip without marking,
and address the issues instead of making base and groundless
accusations. And do not preach in favor of depravity. Neither
supporting nor practicing depravity is consistent with Christian
virtue. Yet you do all these things very often, and even in every post
in this thread. Why, they are not even consistent with 'justice', in
any sense of the word.

You _are_ lying to the whole NG, and you show no sign of letting up.

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
Oh, of course, you, the ignorant one

in case anyone forgot...we are trying to have a discussion with
matt johnson....anyone who doesn't agree is "ignorant".

Stop lying to the whole news group.

Well, stop calling names and labeling people as depraves and ignorant
that you disagree with.

Who started the name-calling? It wasn't me. Do you remember? It was
the person who called the bishops and cardinals "pedophiles". That is
slander and you know it. So why are you supporting it? Because you are
depraved.

Besides: there is no commandment against name-calling. On the
contrary: the Prophets all did it, when it was necessary. And it _is_
necessary to call you what you are: depraved and extremely dishonest.

Post by Anonymouse
It's childish.

Was it 'childish' for John to call the Pharisees "you brood of vipers
(Mat 3:7)"?

No, of course not. So no, you have no grounds for calling my
"name-calling" childish.

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
attack the reporters who brought the scandal to light.
Good one!

And why not?

becasue like the bishops...you appear to be more concerned with how
thinks "look" and avboiding responsibility...rather than concern for
children.

And knock off the slander too.

Ah, yes...another buzzword...slander.

Not just a 'buzzword'. You really are a slanderer.

Post by Anonymouse
You expect to participate in a usenet newsgroup...and not have your
ideas put to the test?

You never _have_ "put them to the test". You resort to fallacies and
slander instead, every single time.

In fact, it is you who avoid having your ideas "put to the test",
since you ignore the refutations and snip them from your replies
without even marking where you snip, much less including a rebuttal.

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson
Why else would you support people who call the bishops
themselves pedophiles?

(to use Matt's words) I have already answered this.

No, you have not. You are lying to the newsgroup again.

Post by Anonymouse
Those that are complicit are just as guilty.

Nonsense. First of all, as I have already explained many times in this
thread, it is sinful, gross, distortion to call the bishops's failure
'complicity'. It was not.

The bishops were trying to protect the accused as well as the
accusers, something even our civil justice system considers very
important. They failed badly, but this is very poor grounds for
excoriating them as equivalent to the pedophiles.

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
They _are_ violating the commandments in the way they
cover it (Prv 15:2).

The may not be catholic...or even Christian.

So what? The commandments of Proverbs are not binding only on
Christians.
Everyone who, like you, despises these commandments, will

Again, another worthless slam at me?

It was not worthless. It is your refusal to heed the warning before it
is too late that is 'worthless'.

Post by Anonymouse
I do not dispise the 10 commandments.

Whoever said that it was only these _10_ that we were talking about?
Not me. This is just another attempt of yours at "poisoning the well".

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
But of course, you the ignorant one,

Again....

Well, if you don't like being called ignorant, stop acting so
ignorant. It really is that simple.

Grow up.

Practice what you preach.

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob
u are a peice of work matt.

Another meaningless retort, so poor, it is really an admission of
failure: you cannot say anything of substance, so you childishly quip
about "peice[sic] of work".

Well if you don't like being called a "peice of work"...stop acting like
one...it's really that simple!

Oh, yes, let's all take your word for this, even though you have
already shown so many times that you have no clue what you are talking
about. You who fling about the false accusation and insulting label of
'Pharisee' at so many, and then whine when others call you what you
are!

Post by Anonymouse
In spite of your insolence, you insist that your conclusions are the ones
every Christian must share.

And as so often, you who accuse me of 'insolence' are in fact the real
offender. There is no greater example of insolence than what you do,
twisting the Scriptures to fool people into thinking they give
permission for your depraved way of life. Yet you do this over and
over. THAT is _REAL_ insolence.

Post by Anonymouse
Again, setting yourself up as the arbiter of truth/untruths only sets you up
for failure.

I am reluctant to repeat myself, since others have heard it often
enough, but apparently I have to. Since you are pretending you hvae
not been refuted already: I do _not_ "set myself up as the arbiter of
truth". Every truth I publish in this forum has already been
well-established elsewhere, whether by 'arbitration' or not.

If you would cease and desist from your relentless anti-Gospel
propaganda program, you just might be able to figure this out for
yourself.

Post by Anonymouse
There are Christians all over the world, with diffenet theology, worship
styles, history....all doing their best to serve the Almighty.

Well, so what? That does _not_ mean that anyone who jumps into the
thread saying, "Hey, I'm a Christian, too" really _is_ a Christian.

Post by Anonymouse
If you insit on turnin the Church into a circular firing sqad...there won't
be anything left.

I am NOT "turnin[sic] the Church into a circular firing
sqad[sic]". This is just another of your circumstantial ad hominems.

[A Brown]

Post by Anonymouse
One of the basic Christian virtues is "Justice".

But NOT the justice of this world. And as I have already pointed out...

As you have already pointed out IN-correctly.

Christians are expected and responsible to embrace the virtue of justice in
their lives...not simply waiting for the enternal judgement.

'justice' meted out by the courts.

Christians should know how to embrace justice without being reminded to do
so by the court.

Christians should do the right thing without being ordered to by the courts.

Post by Anonymouse
We cannot expect non-Christians...but from self-professed
Christians...and the leaders of our Church...we can expect them to
live the basic Christian Virtues.

Practice it yourself.

Again, you can't even discuss one topic without turning it itno a slam
against others.

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
Oh, of course, you, the ignorant one

in case anyone forgot...we are trying to have a discussion with
matt johnson....anyone who doesn't agree is "ignorant".

Stop lying to the whole news group.

Well, stop calling names and labeling people as depraves and ignorant
that you disagree with.

Who started the name-calling?
It wasn't me. Do you remember? It was
the person who called the bishops and cardinals "pedophiles".

That was one person's opinion. So you came to the rescue of the bishops and
cardinals and decided that an attack/opinion about them...is an attack on
you?

That is
slander and you know it. So why are you supporting it? Because you are
depraved.

Again....with "slander"...then "depraved"....next in line is "ignorant"?

This is why you can't discuss a topic...without it going into the toilet.

No, of course not. So no, you have no grounds for calling my
"name-calling" childish.

It is similar to what I might hear in Jr. High Schoolyard. "You did it
first", "Your ignorant", "I know you are but what am I?"

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson
And knock off the slander too.

Ah, yes...another buzzword...slander.

Not just a 'buzzword'. You really are a slanderer.

Post by Anonymouse
You expect to participate in a usenet newsgroup...and not have your
ideas put to the test?

Post by Matthew Johnson
Why else would you support people who call the bishops
themselves pedophiles?

(to use Matt's words) I have already answered this.

No, you have not. You are lying to the newsgroup again.

Post by Anonymouse
Those that are complicit are just as guilty.

Nonsense. First of all, as I have already explained many times in this
thread, it is sinful, gross, distortion to call the bishops's failure
'complicity'. It was not.

And, as others have said *many times* in this thread...it is.

Complicity in sin...is sin.

You seem to be the only one in this thread having trouble with the concept.

Then again, you have trouble deciding what a "discussion" is as well.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Anonymouse
One of the basic Christian virtues is "Justice".

But NOT the justice of this world. And as I have already pointed out...

As you have already pointed out IN-correctly.

No, I pointed it out correctly. Worldly justice is not _even_ a
Christian virtue.

Post by A Brown
Christians are expected and responsible to embrace the virtue of
justice in their lives...not simply waiting for the enternal
judgement.

But even by saying this, you are not "embracing the virtue of justice"
yourself. So you have no credibility when you bark this command at
others. Worse yet, you are still confusing the world's notion of
'justice' with the Christian one.

And yes, you really are not embracing it: you are instead doing the
very injust thing of repeating the already discredited fallacious
argument, based on the "false alternative". I said NOTHING about
waiting for "enternal[sic] judgement[sic]."

Besides: we are specifically commanded _not_ to seek 'justice' in the
courts in both Mat 5:40 and Mat 18:21. Yet you have the authority to
overturn these commands? Ha!

Post by A Brown

'justice' meted out by the courts.

Christians should know how to embrace justice without being reminded
to do so by the court.

So why aren't you _doing_ it? Instead, you are embracing injustices of
the worst kinds.

Post by A Brown
Christians should do the right thing without being ordered to by the
courts.

And this is why you should not be posting any of the posts you have
posted in this thread. For not ONE of them had anything to do with
justice. They were all injust, and even VERY injust.

Post by A Brown

Post by Anonymouse
We cannot expect non-Christians...but from self-professed
Christians...and the leaders of our Church...we can expect them to
live the basic Christian Virtues.

Practice it yourself.

Again, you can't even discuss one topic without turning it itno a slam
against others.

You still aren't practicing it. Pointing this out is not a 'slam'
against anyone.

Post by A Brown

Post by Anonymouse

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Rob

Post by Matthew Johnson
Oh, of course, you, the ignorant one

in case anyone forgot...we are trying to have a discussion with
matt johnson....anyone who doesn't agree is "ignorant".

Stop lying to the whole news group.

Well, stop calling names and labeling people as depraves and
ignorant that you disagree with.

Who started the name-calling?
It wasn't me. Do you remember? It was the person who called the
bishops and cardinals "pedophiles".

That was one person's opinion.

It was not stated as 'opinion'. It was stated as fact. Besides: do you
_really_ believe that 'opinion' can be used as a cover for making
whatever outrageous slander you wish? In that case, what right do you
have to complain about what I am doing? You could claim that all my
posts are "one person's opinion", too.

But you do not. Why? Because you do not know anything about 'justice',
you prefer a gross double-standard instead. Thus exposing yourelf as
not only ignorant of justice, but addicted to hypocrisy as well.

Post by A Brown
So you came to the rescue of the bishops and cardinals and decided
that an attack/opinion about them...is an attack on you?

Ah, at last, you remembered _something_ right about the early history
of this thread. Unfortunately, you have mixed it with other things you
do not remember correctly.

Yes, I saw it as an attack on the bishops and cardinals. And rightly
so. A seriously sinful attack at that. But no, I did _not_ see it as
an attack on me. You must have serious reading disabilities if you
think I did.

Post by A Brown

That is slander and you know it. So why are you supporting it?
Because you are depraved.

Again....with "slander"...then "depraved"....next in line is "ignorant"?

Of course. Because yet _again_ you did slander. And you are doing it
both to support your depravity and to mask your ignorance.

Post by A Brown
This is why you can't discuss a topic...without it going into the toilet.

This is patently false. Another of your slanders. If you weren't a
pathological liar, you would spend more time looking things up in an
archive before making your rash accusations. Then you would find quite
a few threads where my discussion went quite well without any "going
into the toilet".

Post by A Brown

No, of course not. So no, you have no grounds for calling my
"name-calling" childish.

It is similar to what I might hear in Jr. High Schoolyard. "You did
it first", "Your ignorant", "I know you are but what am I?"

No, it is not similar. You are simply too obtuse to see the difference.

[snip]

Post by A Brown

Nonsense. First of all, as I have already explained many times in
this thread, it is sinful, gross, distortion to call the bishops's
failure 'complicity'. It was not.

And, as others have said *many times* in this thread...it is.

No, each of these 'others' is wrong. And I have already explained why
many times. You ignore the explanation, snip without commenting, and
pretend it isn't there. Yet another proof of your habitual gross
dishonesty.

Post by A Brown
Complicity in sin...is sin.

But it is a _different_ sin. And 'complicity' is the wrong word to
describe the failure of the bishops and cardinals.

Post by A Brown
You seem to be the only one in this thread having trouble with the concept.

No, it is you and your partners in sin who have trouble understanding
it, since you insist on seeing complicity where there was none.

Post by A Brown
Then again, you have trouble deciding what a "discussion" is as well.

No, it is you and your partners in sin who have trouble understanding
it, since you insist on applying an attribute of _one_ definition of
'discussion' to _all_ definitions. But this is an elementary logic
error, a fallacy known as "the fallacy of composition".