Episcopal diocese vote favors breakaway.

10sun · Post by **10sun** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:13 pm

Narrock wrote:
arlos wrote:That's not really the question we're asking, though, Mindia. We're asking if Christ HIMSELF would have turned away open homosexuals or not. I claim no, because of the well-documented way he treated Lepers, who were viewed as even worse by the populace back then.

What's YOUR opinion on that question?

-Arlos

Homosexuality has been condemned in the bible many different times. Just because Jesus didn't "say it" directly, doesn't mean He approves of it. He did mention, however, that sexually immoral people will fall short of the glory of God, and homosexuality is very much considered "immoral" in the biblical sense. So, if a pastor wants to break away from a church who welcomes and/or embraces homosexuals, he has every right to do that. If gays started coming to my church, I would find another church, and that's how most people feel about it whether you want to admit it or not. Let them create a "Gay Church of America" so they can have their own place to "worship" a God who is accepting of their lifestyle.

If I write you a bill because I say you owe me money and there is a bill to prove that you owe me money because I just wrote it, does that make sense?

Tikker · Post by **Tikker** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:01 pm

shit atensen, you can even claim god told you to write it, therefore making it divine

it's then up to mindia to prove god didn't tell you to write that bill

10sun · Post by **10sun** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:13 pm

I LOVE CIRCULAR LOGIC BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE TOO AFRAID TO SPEAK THEIR OWN BELIEFS AND CLAIM THAT SOME BOOK FROM 2000 YEARS AGO TOLD THEM TO FOLLOW IT'S WORDS AND TEACHINGS SELECTIVELY.

-Adam

ps. Jesus was gay or he slept with whores. which was it?

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:23 am

10sun wrote:I LOVE CIRCULAR LOGIC BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE TOO AFRAID TO SPEAK THEIR OWN BELIEFS AND CLAIM THAT SOME BOOK FROM 2000 YEARS AGO TOLD THEM TO FOLLOW IT'S WORDS AND TEACHINGS SELECTIVELY.

-Adam

ps. Jesus was gay or he slept with whores. which was it?

Listen asstard, people are *generally good* who go to church and try to follow the tenets of Christianity. So what if people stumble... it's called being a human. Homosexuality does not belong in religion period. It's condemned by just about every religion out there. If you're a closet homo and are having some issues, then start your own church. You can call it the "10Sun's Church for homosexuals, bisexuals, trisexuals, cross-dressers, transvetites, transsexuals, and drag queens." Just keep that BULLSHIT out of regular churches.

p.s. Your "p.s." is completely vulgar, totally incorrect, and retarded.

Post by **Tossica** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:53 am

Look around your congregation Mindia. 10% or more of them are gay and are afraid to admit it.

Post by **Arlos** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 2:00 am

Actually, Mindia, I have to dispute your assertion about "most religions out there condemn homosexuality". It's true that most branches of Christianity have a problem with it, there are certainly branches that do NOT, such as the Unitarians, for example. Also, most of the Eastern religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, etc have no strictures against homosexuality itself. They have strictures against abusive sex of ANY kind, but consensual relationships between those of the same sex are not considered to be against the faith. Given that there's almost 1.3 hindus and buddhists in the world, you can't exactly call them minor faiths, either. Paganism CERTAINLY has no anti-homosexual statutes of any kind that I'm aware of, at least none of the various flavors that I'm familiar with.

Not arguing that your church should accept them, though from my own personal perspective, denying someone a place in a faith simply because of something that may well be a genetic disposition seems a bit, hrm, harsh.

Also, as I said in my discussion with Ganzo, I just have to look at how Jesus treated the Lepers, who were viewed FAR FAR FAR more negatively at the time than homosexuals are today, even amongst the most fundamentalist of evangelical churches, to get an idea of whether or not He would've accepted homosexuals amongst his followers. I firmly believe that He would have, if for no other reason than He never rejected ANYONE who honestly wished to follow Him. So, again, and this is my personal view on the matter, it seems a little sad to me that churches today that profess to follow His teachings would exclude a group of people He Himself would have accepted.

-Arlos

10sun · Post by **10sun** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:47 am

Narrock wrote:
10sun wrote:I LOVE CIRCULAR LOGIC BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE TOO AFRAID TO SPEAK THEIR OWN BELIEFS AND CLAIM THAT SOME BOOK FROM 2000 YEARS AGO TOLD THEM TO FOLLOW IT'S WORDS AND TEACHINGS SELECTIVELY.

-Adam

ps. Jesus was gay or he slept with whores. which was it?

Listen asstard, people are *generally good* who go to church and try to follow the tenets of Christianity. So what if people stumble... it's called being a human. Homosexuality does not belong in religion period. It's condemned by just about every religion out there. If you're a closet homo and are having some issues, then start your own church. You can call it the "10Sun's Church for homosexuals, bisexuals, trisexuals, cross-dressers, transvetites, transsexuals, and drag queens." Just keep that BULLSHIT out of regular churches.

p.s. Your "p.s." is completely vulgar, totally incorrect, and retarded.

I would argue that people were probably pretty high up there on the morality totem pole before organized religion came about.

I agree that homosexuality does not belong in religion period. It shouldn't even be an issue that people adress unless they find themselves going to church in an effort to get counseling for their day to day difficulties in being gay and also wanting to follow Christ.

You can choose to be an isolationist. That will only net in frustration on your part however.

-Adam

ps. Jesus was black. Is that more or less vulgar?

kinghooter00 · Post by **kinghooter00** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:00 pm

Narrock wrote:What's wrong with a priest, pastor, etc. wanting to keep his church traditional? A clergyman who engages in homosexual behavior is being sacreligious. Think about it.

Gay priest... That is so backwards i can't even put my finger on it...
Definitely Sacreligious.

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:26 pm

kinghooter00 wrote:
Narrock wrote:What's wrong with a priest, pastor, etc. wanting to keep his church traditional? A clergyman who engages in homosexual behavior is being sacreligious. Think about it.

Gay priest... That is so backwards i can't even put my finger on it...
Definitely Sacreligious.

At least you get it.

kinghooter00 · Post by **kinghooter00** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:02 pm

The bible should be in the new Transformers movie. Because its changing all the time. I don't know whats real and whats real and whats not. A priest suddenly saying its okay to be gay is kinda like, no no no, the just forgot to write that part in the bible.... but its okay.
Not saying i have a problem with being gay, but maybe being a priest wouldn't be the best profession.
Its like a black man wanting to join the KKK.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:08 pm

Not quite. Christianity boasts acceptance. KKK is kinda exclusive.

kinghooter00 · Post by **kinghooter00** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:42 pm

lol... that google thing on my name is so funny... :lol:

kinghooter00 · Post by **kinghooter00** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:43 pm

i wish i could see my stars on there though with that... I like it though. :google:

Harrison · Post by **Harrison** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:09 pm

He is NOT captain google, that was Rust.

kinghooter00 · Post by **kinghooter00** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:57 pm

Jay wrote:Not quite. Christianity boasts acceptance. KKK is kinda exclusive.

Well, if you are saying Christianity boasts acceptance, then why can't gays be in the church???

10sun · Post by **10sun** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:33 pm

kinghooter00 wrote:
Jay wrote:Not quite. Christianity boasts acceptance. KKK is kinda exclusive.

Well, if you are saying Christianity boasts acceptance, then why can't gays be in the church???

amazing point.

its because they boast acceptance except when other Christians try to accept others with open arms.

Post by **Lueyen** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:09 pm

10sun wrote:
kinghooter00 wrote:
Jay wrote:Not quite. Christianity boasts acceptance. KKK is kinda exclusive.

Well, if you are saying Christianity boasts acceptance, then why can't gays be in the church???

amazing point.

its because they boast acceptance except when other Christians try to accept others with open arms.

There is a difference between accepting and condoning. Most Christian faiths I've encountered would accept a homosexual but not condone acts of homosexuality, at least in word, as we all know that actions and attitude are often times in stark contrast to religious doctrine.

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:53 pm

Lueyen wrote:
10sun wrote:
kinghooter00 wrote:
Jay wrote:Not quite. Christianity boasts acceptance. KKK is kinda exclusive.

Well, if you are saying Christianity boasts acceptance, then why can't gays be in the church???

amazing point.

its because they boast acceptance except when other Christians try to accept others with open arms.

There is a difference between accepting and condoning. Most Christian faiths I've encountered would accept a homosexual but not condone acts of homosexuality, at least in word, as we all know that actions and attitude are often times in stark contrast to religious doctrine.

Nicely worded.

Tikker · Post by **Tikker** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:32 pm

that's like saying they're ok with Food, but eating they're 100% against

Post by **Lueyen** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:14 am

Tikker wrote:that's like saying they're ok with Food, but eating they're 100% against

That analogy doesn't quite fit.

"They are okay with having the urge to eat, but not okay with eating", would be closer.

Darcler · Post by **Darcler** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:31 am

Lueyen wrote:
Tikker wrote:that's like saying they're ok with Food, but eating they're 100% against

That analogy doesn't quite fit.

"They are okay with having the urge to eat, but not okay with eating", would be closer.

Correct.
I know, at least in my old church, that they would have accepted you if you were gay, it's just when you choose to act on your feelings they have a problem with it. Its ok to love a man, its just not ok to *love* a man. And whoever said that at least 10% of your congregation is a closet homo is also correct. Wouldnt be suprised if at least one of your deacons, elders or whatever other kind of higher up you have in church dreams or watched gay porn.