Thank you all for acknowledging the rudeness and pointless antagonism of Matt Kennedy's posts.
There really is no need, or worthiness, of a response to what he has said.
His idiocy speaks for itself.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:


Dave TWB has side-stepped a number of issues I have raised, the key one being the condonement of slavery in the Bible. I don't think he has addressed this (unless I overlooked it) other than to say that a Christian pro-slavery view was only predominant in the South. I think its worth looking into further, beyond the boundaries of your regional civil war. For example, a strict adherence to the Bible would mean that a slaver is able to be a good Christian and able to be married in a church, but a homosexual who truly believed that Christ died for his sins was not. This, of course, is ludicrous by our contemporary standards.
I take exception to your choice of the word "side-stepped" to describe my previous responses. Although it could have a connotation that you did not intend.
I am certainly endeavoring to answer all your inquiries clearly, and at great length, and there is no attempt on my part to avoid any detail of the questions raised.
In point of fact, I answered in such detail that Rob's board wouldn't allow me to post (it aparently exceeded the maximum post length) and I had to copy/paste it to a separate page, and then break it into 3 separate posts to get it through.

I feel I answered the issues you addressed thoroughly in my two posts responding to yours, beginning midway down page 9 of this topic.
Please re-read that section, which hopefully I've answered adequately for you.

To elaborate on the alleged Christian endorsement of slavery: I don't see that the Bible EVER endorsed slavery. At least not in a way that most Christians in any era would have agreed to.

quote:
GALATIANS 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
A religion that professes equality for all in Jesus does not seem like a religious faith that would condemn one racial/ethnic/gender group of its faithful to slavery under another.

While I'm sure there were Christians who were misled to believe the Bible endorses slavery (I already quoted the verse, GENESIS 9:verses24-27, that allegedly does this, on page 9), a vast percentage of Christians in any given time did not.

And in Civil War times in America (1860-1865, and prior), Christians worked hard in the North to legislate freedom of slaves, prevent Western territories from becoming states (because they would have strengthened slavery by also becoming slave states), and many Christians labored and even risked their lives in the abolitionist movement, and so-called "underground railroad", the network of abolitionists helping slaves escape the South, into the North and freedom.

Christianity didn't create slavery, and Christianity didn't perpetuate or dominate slavery. Slavery began thousands of years before Europeans colonized Africa, and began with African tribes selling off members of neighboring tribes, to depopulate the region for their own tribal domination. Europeans were only in the slave trade from Africa on a large scale for about 150 years.

And in any case, Christians in the modern era do NOT believe in slavery. People in the Middle Ages and prior used to 'bleed" people as a medical practice, too, but I don't think modern Christians should be held accountable for that.

Protestantism was founded because MANY of the practices of the Medeival Catholic church were not Biblical (pergutory, preists and nuns cannot marry, the Inquisition, which arguably killed many true Christians who defied Catholic practices as "heretics", a Bible that could only be read by clergy (in Latin) and thus not accessible to common Christians, etc.)

Modern Christianity should not be judged by historical crimes that were not even representative of true Christianity. Modern Catholicism, though it still has practices that are not in the Bible, is much more true to the Bible, and accessible to average Catholics.

(As Big Ol'Willie speculated,I'm not Catholic. I'm Protestant. Specifically, Presbyterian. Although I've also attended many other denominations, including Catholic church.)


quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

One of Dave[TWB]'s arguments - in fact the only one supporting the insidousness of homosexuality - is that AIDS is a gay disease.
Not the only one. As I said, other forms of insideousness of homosexuality in corrupting our culture are in creating a general sense of "anything goes" permissiveness. Gay rights kick open the door to rights, and spread, of a wide variety of sexual practices and perversions. All of which undermine family, fidelity and marriage.

And the biggest insideous affect of homosexuality is its attempt to corrupt and re-write scripture for its own purposes. Undermining the true teachings of moral behavior for Christianity.

Again, see page 9. All of this is there, although I've expanded somewhat here.

I already acknowledged that AIDS is not limited to homosexuals, and worldwide is more common among heterosexual prostitutes and from heterosexual anal sex.
And as I said, virtually all transmissions of AIDS, heterosexual or homosexual, are from indiscriminant immoral behavior.

But as I said on page 9, it is very prevalent in the U.S. among homosexuals, and the largest infected, and infecting, group in the U.S.
And transmission through a secretly bisexual husband or boyfriend is the most common method of transmission to women in the U.S. (Other major causes being prostitution and I.V. drug use)
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:


I think this is an ethnocentric view, based upon your anecdotal experience and observations. You say that you think 2% of people are gay (at best)...

That isn't attributable to a 2% population segment. Obviously I've not given you a comprehensive citation, but it leads me to believe that either there are more gays in the world than you think, or the disease is not chiefly a gay disease.
I answered most of this above.

There are many different studfies done on the ratio of homosexuality in our culture. Estimates I've seen range from 1% to 2% to 5% to 10% (the largest, of course, a study clearly done by a group sympathetic to gay rights).

I have some personal anecdotal experience, yes, but my information is mostly from various articles I've read over the last 15 years or so, from TIME magazine to the New York Times to the Sun-Sentinel (again, a major Ft. Lauderdale newspaper), to various network news programs, and to a lesser degree some Christian news sources, primarily The 700 Club, Hal Lindsey, and Coral Ridge Hour's news sections. And from a long conversation with the Center for Disease Control, and with various local doctors, when I wrote a magazine article on AIDS/HIV in 1993.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:


Even if it was a gay disease, a "disease" itself cannot be a fair example of evidence of a "corrupt" or "insidous" practice which would be capable of denying someone a Christian marriage. A leper has a terrible disease, yet a good Christian leper can be married in a church. To anticipate what you might say, the fact that the disease is capable of tranmission through anal or oral sex is not a relevant factor - anal and oral sex is also a practice amongst heterosexuals. In any event, AIDS is also capable of tranmission through vaginal sex.
Again, AIDS/HIV is transmissible almost exclusively through immoral behavior (illicit heterosexual/homosexual sex, and I.V. drug use)

I already included immoral heterosexual behavior in my earlier post, on page 9 of this topic.

This topic is specifically addressing homosexuality. But Christianity condemns both (heterosexual and homosexual extramarital sex), as much as you and several others try to allege that Christianity has a different standard for for heterosexual immorality and homosexual immorality. The point has been made abundantly by myself, Captain Sammich, Big Ol'Willie and others here that ALL sin is equal in the eyes of god.

And that all sin can be forgiven, with repentance.

Any member attending church, homosexual or heterosexual, who is having extramarital sex (hetero- or homo- ) and does not mention it, will be able to attend church. Even mentioning it, they will be able to attend.
Other Christians will tell them the behavior is wrong and they need to stop it, but they can still attend and be given the counsel of other Christians.
I don't mean that as some kind of church doctrine, I just mean you'd talk about it with your friends inside the church, and they'd be supportive. If the behavior went on long enough, I suppose it would cause them to be confronted about it, inquiring whether their attendance of church was sincerely spiritual.

But probably before it ever got to that, they would likely cease to be friends because of a difference in lifestyle and a lack of common ground.

I had a female friend who was having an affair with a married pastor, and I was supportive but in a friendly way for months said "You HAVE to know this is wrong and can only bring you both trouble."
I finally ended the friendship for different but somewhat related reasons, and told her she consistently demonstrated selfish behavior. She was what you'd term a fair-weather friend. I felt I was always there for her, and over a 4-year period, she was never there for me.

Again, form a Judao-Christian/Biblical perspective, all sexual immorality (whether heterosexual or homosexual) is viewed unfavorably.
Criticism by pastors or friends in the church is supportive, and not angry or judgemental, but it makes clear what the Biblical standard is, and advocates no other standard.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:


I am reluctant to attack you rather than your argument, but I think that your disposition against homosexual marriage is clouded by your personal revulsion of anal sex between male homosexuals.
You might also hate going to the dentist or hearing fingernails scraped along a blackboard, but none should impair your ability to objectively regard homosexuality as a behavioural choice.


Speaking personally, I regard the practice was some mild distaste, but my personal feelings simply aren't a consideration. I don't let that get in the way of my views on gay rights - the right to live a lifestyle, sexually or otherwise, as you wish. I refuse to be prejudiced against someone because of their victimless lifestyle.
YOU believe it is victimless, Dave, please respect the fact that, for the reasons I've abundantly stated, I DO NOT.

Cultural acceptance of homosexuality encourages a variety of other sexual and abberrant behaviors, as I've detailed above. The Bible teaches this (Romans, chapter 1, for example, as quoted in my posts over several pages), and I'm inclined to agree.
And most importantly, as I've said, homosexuality activists attempt to re-write the Bible, and distort the bible's meaning.

I'm not prejudiced toward gays. As recently as three weeks ago, I had lunch with a gay associate. I make it clear that I don't judge or discrriminate against gays as people, but that it's not a lifestyle I believe in. I generally don't discuss religion with gay friends, except on an occasional as-raised basis (usually when Christian-bashing remarks are made, I politely clarify the true Christian position, but don't dwell on it).
But I have plenty of other things to discuss with gay friends and co-workers: politics, shop talk, jokes, entertainment, etc.

I don't judge someone as a bad person because they're gay. Just like I don't think Democrats are bad people, just misguided [biiiig grin] .
There are characteristics of just about anyone that I like, as well as ones I dislike.


Gays have a right to their lifestyle in a democratic secular society. They do NOT have a right to re-write the Bible and its most sacred traditions (and specifically change the pre-existing 6000-plus year definition of marriage both within the Judao-Christian world, and within other religions and parts of the world). As I said, gays have a right to create their own form of gay union and spousal benefits. They don't have a right to re-write the Biblical definition of marriage, and pervert the meaning of Christianity by doing so.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:


I'm also, frankly, disappointed to think that a right-thinking Christian can want to exclude a fellow Christian from the goodwill of the Church simply because of a behavioural choice. Relying upon the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is as incorrect as relying upon the Bible for justification of slavery.
I don't want to exclude anyone from the church.

I would want to exclude a gay person who tried to re-write the Bible to endorse the gay lifestyle, but otherwise I would welcome a gay person to church. How else can they learn what Christianity truly is?
As I said, I've met several gay men at church, who were attempting to look beyond their previous gay lifestyle.