I shudder.....

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

This kind of thing really scares me

This Pastor's attitude stinks.

As an Adventist, I find it interesting that he is supporting a Roman Catholic politician...

Let me see ... you would prefer that he support a Morman? Personally I find the Roman Catholic beliefs much closer to mine than the Morman's teachings. We've had Catholic presidents before and I would take that over a Morman any day.

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

Public teachings and properties should be kept free of any religious reference.

Well; I like a lot of what you said here; but I have to disagree with this one. It seems pretty dramatic to try to take "religious reference" away from people who desire/need use of public teachings and properties.

Religion is part of who people are; it is just too hard, and much too impractical to try to take it away from people or to remove it from a part of where we all spend a lot of our time, infact half of our life.

Religion, per se, is not the problem, is it?

No religion is not. Its how it is used, as a power play tool. The reason I say that religion should be left out is because there is an unfair balance of it. Of course OA I come at this having grown up in our country. I to this day do not know the religion of even one of our political leaders. As you know its just not an issue here. We have very little overt religious reference to anything here. Unless one considers hockey a religion - that of course would make Wayne Gretzky the saviour and Gary Bettman the devil

[M. T. Cross]

Let me see ... you would prefer that he support a Morman? Personally I find the Roman Catholic beliefs much closer to mine than the Morman's teachings. We've had Catholic presidents before and I would take that over a Morman any day.

Both are frightening Woody...

[Naomi]

No religion is not. Its how it is used, as a power play tool. The reason I say that religion should be left out is because there is an unfair balance of it. Of course OA I come at this having grown up in our country. I to this day do not know the religion of even one of our political leaders. As you know its just not an issue here. We have very little overt religious reference to anything here. Unless one considers hockey a religion - that of course would make Wayne Gretzky the saviour and Gary Bettman the devil

I am so thankful that "This World is Not My Home"

[Overaged]

This Pastor's attitude stinks.

As an Adventist, I find it interesting that he is supporting a Roman Catholic politician...

[Overaged]

Well; I like a lot of what you said here; but I have to disagree with this one. It seems pretty dramatic to try to take "religious reference" away from people who desire/need use of public teachings and properties.

Religion is part of who people are; it is just too hard, and much too impractical to try to take it away from people or to remove it from a part of where we all spend a lot of our time, infact half of our life.

Religion, per se, is not the problem, is it?

[phkrause]

Actually, I have no political preference of any kind. Thats not something I do.I guess my post could be seen as mixed up; I didn't quite say it right. When I said that pastor's attitude stinks; I was referring to his disgusting use of his religion as an excuse to tell others not like him to "get out!" Meaning, I presumed, get out of the country? That's a disgusting example of Christianity.

Exactly OA. For me religion should have no part of politics or who gets electic. There should be a separation of church and state in my book.

[CoAspen]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Why should there be any anti-Christian teachings in public schools?

There shouldn't be. Other than historical references to understand human development over the ages theyre should be no reference to any religion in schools. Either pro or con. Simply, this group had these Gods etc. - simply for the understanding of those societies.

Quote:

Christian symbols on public properties

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Christian symbols like crosses have been markers since the days when Christian settlers founded many of the places where they're found.Since Christians founded this country and created it's Constitution why are acknowledgments of it's heritage suddenly now subversive?

The day a country opens its doors to people of different nations and different beliefs it has a decision to make. A decision to keep things fair and equal for all. That means that either your represent all peoples of your nations and all of their beliefs or you represent none with things like public markers. This one is actually a really tough one to tackle I think. You make a valid point about the heritage thing. As the Natives make points about heritage. So what it comes down to is this. Is the religious aspect of the heritage the real focus? Or is it the actions and deeds of the people that lived the focus? To be fair to all - I think the religious aspect needs to be left out of it.

Quote:

should textbooks include a negative portrayal of LGBT's?

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

textbooks should have no particular reference to anyone's sexual practices.

I totally agree!

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

What great contributions have LGBTs been noted for?

Ummm.... a great deal of music, art, film etc. Probably a lot of other things too but they were scared to admit they were gay.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

So what's the purpose except to indoctrinate children that being sexually confused is not only normal but desirable? Is that the job of the State?

Well we should just skip this part cause I think the phrase sexually confused is pretty much vulgar and ignorant. Your view obviously is not that and for the sake of not turning this into yet another pointlessly meandering thread on homosexuality lets agree to disagree on that. But no its not the job of the state. Nor did I ever say that it was.

Quote:

Public teachings and properties should be kept free of any religious reference.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

The Declaration of Independence refers to human rights as having been bestowed by a Creator God and appeals to the Divine Judge for the justification of the USA existence.. Is that a public teaching? The US Constitution is dated "In the year of our Lord". Is that public property? Teaching specific religious doctrines is one thing,teaching against specific religious doctrines is no different.

Quote:

There is the great failure of the founding fathers. I have always wondered about it. Here is a group of people that fled another nation to escape religious persecution. Then they built a gateway for it right into their constitution. Was it supposed to be religious liberty just for those that believed the same as them? Because that is not religious liberty my friend.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Why the need to call sexual confusion positive? Do you feel that abnormal sexual practices are a plus for society? Do those who practice it need to be portrayed as role models by the government (using Christian tax dollars)? Creating hate crime labels for those who call deviant sexual practices wrong is no remedy for hatred.

Don't think its sexual confusion

Don't think its abnormal nor do I think it needs to affect society one way or the other. There are good and bad straight people and there are good and bad gay people. Basically there are people.

Christian tax dollars? Seems to me that everyone regardless of religious persuasion is paying those taxes. Including gay people of various religious persuasions.

Very good statements!! Some christians want seperation only when it suits their need.

And the statement made by someone else about "Gays always being in your Face" is false. It is like saying "all Christians are mean people". I have know very few 'gays' who flout themselves and I work and have worked with a fair number of them.

[Tammy]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

This kind of thing really scares me

This Pastor's attitude stinks.

As an Adventist, I find it interesting that he is supporting a Roman Catholic politician...

I totally agree with you, Woody! I know Santorum isn't perfect....but he's much better than the rest of them...if he doesn't make, I'm not voting....I'm sick and tired of voting for "the better of two evils"!

[Tammy]

Originally Posted By: Woody

This Pastor's attitude stinks.

As an Adventist, I find it interesting that he is supporting a Roman Catholic politician...

Quote:

Let me see ... you would prefer that he support a Morman? Personally I find the Roman Catholic beliefs much closer to mine than the Morman's teachings. We've had Catholic presidents before and I would take that over a Morman any day.

Actually, I have no political preference of any kind. Thats not something I do.I guess my post could be seen as mixed up; I didn't quite say it right. When I said that pastor's attitude stinks; I was referring to his disgusting use of his religion as an excuse to tell others not like him to "get out!" Meaning, I presumed, get out of the country? That's a disgusting example of Christianity.

I don't think he is telling everyone who isn't a Christian to leave the USA...but those who want to FORCE their religion on us...they are the ones that ought to leave the USA. If you don't want to join in a prayer in school, don't join, but don't stop others who do want to pray. They all say they want religious freedom for themselves....but when they get it...they want to take it away from others....

Sad thing is, it is people like this Pastor who will be uniting the Protestants and the Catholics together....and they will push for a Sunday Law....

[phkrause]

I'm sick and tired of voting for "the better of two evils"!

As far as I can remember back, which in my case would be 46 years of being able to vote, its always been the better of two evils!

[doug yowell]

No religion is not. Its how it is used, as a power play tool. The reason I say that religion should be left out is because there is an unfair balance of it. Of course OA I come at this having grown up in our country. I to this day do not know the religion of even one of our political leaders. As you know its just not an issue here. We have very little overt religious reference to anything here. Unless one considers hockey a religion - that of course would make Wayne Gretzky the saviour and Gary Bettman the devil

Imagine if Canadians were told that they couldn't wear their Oiler hoodies to school? Talk about a religious uprising!!

[LifeHiscost]

Just as people want the posters here (this forum) to identify themselves, so too is it wrong for citizens of America to do the same. Heck, then why don't all of those who call themselves Christians leave America if they want to violate the bill of rights?

It is because of people like this is why I can't call myself a Christian any longer. I am a follower of Jesus and I seriously doubt if many people know the difference.

I don't recall Jesus voicing His displeasure of the Roman rule, nor throwing out 1/3 of the scrolls of the Word at His day while here on earth.

God blesses!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

Public teachings and properties should be kept free of any religious reference. Not Christian, not Pagan, not Muslim - not any. As for the positive portrayal of the Gay community...... Is there not enough hate in this world already?

And why not beastiality if anyone so chooses.

"And he said to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.”

“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.""Rev 22:10-12 NKJV

God blesses!

[M. T. Cross]

Quote:

Public teachings and properties should be kept free of any religious reference. Not Christian, not Pagan, not Muslim - not any. As for the positive portrayal of the Gay community...... Is there not enough hate in this world already?

And why not beastiality if anyone so chooses.

"And he said to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.”

“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.""Rev 22:10-12 NKJV

God blesses!

I am sitting here trying to wrap my head around comparing homosexuality with beastiality.............

One is the rape of an innocent animal that has no chance to consent to the act, a creature that is not even of the same species.

The other is an act of consentual sex.

How one can even put them in the same realm is mind blowing to me.

[Overaged]

I am sitting here trying to wrap my head around comparing homosexuality with beastiality.............

One is the rape of an innocent animal that has no chance to consent to the act, a creature that is not even of the same species.

The other is an act of consentual sex.

How one can even put them in the same realm is mind blowing to me.

Just thought I'd add my two cents here EC; if it's OK...When I read LHC's post; it did not hit me that he was putting those two things "in the same realm;" atleast not quite...I thought that he was just saying if anything goes; why not things like bestiality?

You probably could have said other things besides homosexuality, and his question might still apply. Know what I mean? And I believe his reference was as it would pertain to where do we draw the lines for what is allowed in our schools, and what is not. To many people, and not just Christians; it seems like there is an effort to open the floodgates to whatever people want. And obviously, not all those things would be good for children. So, perhaps we could ask the question re sexual "preferences;" for lack of a better word. Where/how would you draw the line for what is allowed in our schools? I think that's what LHC was getting at, but I could be wrong. I am sure he will let me know if I am off base there.

[M. T. Cross]

Could be OA, maybe I jumped the gun because I have had a couple people here suggest that comparison to me very clearly. If so LHC - I apologize for the assumption

[Overaged]

Could be OA, maybe I jumped the gun because I have had a couple people here suggest that comparison to me very clearly. If so LHC - I apologize for the assumption

Oh; and I agree with you. There are some who do make such assumptions...

[phkrause]

Just thought I'd add my two cents here EC; if it's OK...When I read LHC's post; it did not hit me that he was putting those two things "in the same realm;" atleast not quite...I thought that he was just saying if anything goes; why not things like bestiality?

You probably could have said other things besides homosexuality, and his question might still apply. Know what I mean? And I believe his reference was as it would pertain to where do we draw the lines for what is allowed in our schools, and what is not. To many people, and not just Christians; it seems like there is an effort to open the floodgates to whatever people want. And obviously, not all those things would be good for children. So, perhaps we could ask the question re sexual "preferences;" for lack of a better word. Where/how would you draw the line for what is allowed in our schools? I think that's what LHC was getting at, but I could be wrong. I am sure he will let me know if I am off base there.

I definitely agree OA.

[CoAspen]

What often happens in 'discussions' is called text 'splatter'. Through some texts and certain words together and the assumption is something important has been said. Much of the time texts are out of context, piled on and the whole post becomes incoherent. People often feel if they quote the Bible, they have have safety in their posting. I call it Bible abuse.

The 'slippery slope' is an argument that comes up quite readily when talking about sex practices, prayer in schools, or anything a person doesn't like. It is humans constant desire to be always 'right' and point the other way. It gets in the way of rational conversations. When the suggestion is made 'where will the line be drawn' there is a presupposition that a line hasn't been drawn already. Slippery slope again.

You have to understand the a large segment of christianity has an inherent fear of sexual activity, usually from the male gender, and wish it had never come out of the closet. It is seen as a procreation subject only and not pleasure. The subject is rather closely tied to how women are seen in the world also.

So any time sex comes up, the subject will go all over the place, losing its focus. Example, first allowing Homosexuals to be treated as any other person and accepted, then comes bestiality being accepted!! One not related to the other. Most of our arguments, er, discussions, are straw men.

(2-cents, stepping on toes, not politically correct)

[Overaged]

(2-cents, stepping on toes, not politically correct)

lol, true.

[teresaq]

I call it Bible abuse.

I could agree with the rest also.

[BobRyan]

And why not beastiality if anyone so chooses.

"And he said to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.”

“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.""Rev 22:10-12 NKJV

God blesses!

-===========================

I am sitting here trying to wrap my head around comparing homosexuality with beastiality.............

One is the rape of an innocent animal that has no chance to consent to the act, a creature that is not even of the same species.

The other is an act of consentual sex.

How one can even put them in the same realm is mind blowing to me.

hmm... your argument is with God.

Same chapter -- - and listed as abominations.

Lev 18.

in Christ,

Bob

[doug yowell]

The day a country opens its doors to people of different nations and different beliefs it has a decision to make. A decision to keep things fair and equal for all. That means that either your represent all peoples of your nations and all of their beliefs or you represent none with things like public markers. That doesn't make sense. Every country has it's own identity. Accomodating other belief systems is one thing. Abborgating one's identity in order to do so is another.When a visitor comes to your home you don't ask them how they want you to run it. When your kids grow up you don't acquese to their demands that you get rid of your rules in order to fairly represent all in the family. Would you agree to support the relegation of hockey games to private facilities only and replace it with cricket because a vocal minority of Indian/Canadian citizens had demanded it?

But that's just the point we're discussing.Homosexual activists with the support of one particular political party have been successful in forcing the public sector to validate the LBGT lifestyle and view it as normal while branding those who disagree as ignorantly or criminally bigoted.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

The Declaration of Independence refers to human rights as having been bestowed by a Creator God and appeals to the Divine Judge for the justification of the USA existence.. Is that a public teaching? The US Constitution is dated "In the year of our Lord".

Quote:

There is the great failure of the founding fathers. I have always wondered about it. Here is a group of people that fled another nation to escape religious persecution. Then they built a gateway for it right into their constitution. Was it supposed to be religious liberty just for those that believed the same as them? Because that is not religious liberty my friend.

Your answers betray the great divide between their idea of a stable and equitable society and yours. Their idea of prosperity did not portray religion as a hindrance to human development and it has resulted in creating the greatest and freest society in world history.They believed that there was a God to whom they had to eventually give an account to regarding the way they governed their country. Everyone in this country has the protection of government to practice or not practice their religion or atheism. Taking away the Divine foundation of human rights and you're left with survival of the fittest.So this "great failure" is exactly what has opened the doors for our ability to dissent.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Why the need to call sexual confusion positive? Do you feel that abnormal sexual practices are a plus for society?

Even if you believe in the evolutionary beginnings of humanity how can you say that same sex sex is not abnormal? If evolution determined (randomly, of course)that reproduction was essential to the continuance of the species then failure to act in that design is not confusion? And all the psychological studies that reveal the emotional struggles of these people are wrong?

This is because you don't believe in the Divine or His human order of things.This puts you in a position of rejecting the very premise upon which the country was founded.So now you must reassemble the society in accordance with a better idea of right/wrong/moral/immoral.And you must then force the majority who disagree with that model to accept it instead of their own system.

Quote:

Christian tax dollars? Seems to me that everyone regardless of religious persuasion is paying those taxes. Including gay people of various religious persuasions.

The great difference being that the public funds are not used to teach that those sexual behaviors are evil. They are used to teach that they are valuable. This is a specific attack on what religion teaches about human nature and it's God designed purpose.And they are using religious tax dollars to attack religious teachings.Why is this not a violation of the church/state mandate?

[doug yowell]

I totally agree with you, Woody! I know Santorum isn't perfect....but he's much better than the rest of them...if he doesn't make, I'm not voting....I'm sick and tired of voting for "the better of two evils"!

What exactly is "evil" about the probable Republican candidate? He will be against: elective abortions,same sex marriage,a social welfare state funded by huge tax increases,union preferences,ect... Where's the evil?