Question:
has Lakewood Ohio
I got a speeding ticket there. It didnt look like a 35 zone. RJ
Response:
THEY DO NOT CHOOSE? So… are you saying God CREATED them as homosexuals?
It’s always the same story.
It’s been proven by biologists that gays are born gay.
But , hey, if you want to be ignorant….
If they are Gay, they are NOT Christians.
Who died and made you king Do you get to decide who is a
Christian?
to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross
|the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
The ultimate in eartickling. The BEAST of RCC is really rather good at this.
But as we see. God’s Word can expose it easily.
Want me to respond quicker?
I’ld really rather you not…
Jen
Posted using Reference.COM http://WWW.Reference.COM FREE Usenet and Mailing list archive, directory and clipping service
Response:
It’s been proven by biologists that gays are born gay.
Obviously there are many biologists, and others who would disagree. At one time "biologists" were convinced that they proved that the bumps on a person’s head indicated the likelihood that they would commit crimes. Crooks, they said were "born" that way. Today we know that was complete hogwash, but many people fervently believed it back then. — | _______ |Christopher Beattie | 801 Eisenhower Dr| | /__ __ Peace |Tantalus Inc. | Key West, FL 33040| | / and |Development Div. |Phone: (305) 293-8100| | |#include <disclamer.standard.hpp |
Response:
writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – One part of the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on Homosexuality: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994. Paragraph 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. Oh, really? Not negligible? Guess whoever wrote that has been living under a rock for quite sometime and has never been to a major metropolitan city.
Actually, though some cities have ‘pocket’s’ of homosexuals (I think even "Trivial Pursuit" has Lakewood Ohio as having the largest gay community) it doesn’t translate to what many ‘think’ is the actual number of gays in the US, or the world. The ‘accepted’ number is around 10% (via a poor study done by Kinsey), but recent studies have put it at somewhere between 1% to 4%. However, those numbers aren’t as ‘politically’ significant as 10%. Pax Christi, Pat "Misere Mei, Deus" (http://members.aol.com/Padraic42/Franciscan/devotions.htm)
Response:
One part of the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on Homosexuality:
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994.
Paragraph 2358
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is
not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most
of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and
sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should
be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives
and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross
the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Oh, really? Not negligible? Guess whoever wrote that has been living under a rock for quite sometime and has never been to a major metropolitan city.
Well, that’s very nice and all. But since when is loving somebody a ‘condition’. They make it sound like a disease. Homosexuality is genetic, just like having brown eyes or blonde hair. Genetics are not ‘conditions’ When we start thinking that way, we start cloning sheep. The homosexual ‘condition’ is only a trial because of that paragraph you just read above this one. Is being black (genetics, again) considered a ‘condition that is an unfortunate trial’? I think not! And if the Catholic church were to say it was, how many of us would follow that teaching? Or would we consider it discriminitory, racist and unforgivable. I, for one, will not be led into the abys by my ‘church leaders’. Thanks anyway.
Jen
Posted using Reference.COM http://WWW.Reference.COM FREE Usenet and Mailing list archive, directory and clipping service
Response:
|One part of the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on Homosexuality: | |Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994. | |Paragraph 2358 | |The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is |not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; THEY DO NOT CHOOSE? So… are you saying God CREATED them as homosexuals? It’s always the same story. A "smoker" will find Scriptures to twist in his favor to smoke. A drunkard will do this as well. Now we see the RCC that can’t seem to keep it’s hands off of little boys http://cnn.com/US/9803/28/priest.sexual.abuse.ap/index.html Is now seeking an "OK" from the masses with this quip. for most |of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and |sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should |be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives |and, if they are Christians, AND IF THEY ARE CHRISTIANS? Jesus said… MAT 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? If they are Gay, they are NOT Christians to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross |the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. The ultimate in eartickling. The BEAST of RCC is really rather good at this. But as we see. God’s Word can expose it easily. Want me to respond quicker? EMAIL your response to me. "THE SECOND WINDOW"..Concrete evidence linking Catholicism to the Beast! "PEOPLE GET READY"…Prophecies YOU never knew were ALREADY fulfilled! All downloads are ABSOLUTELY FREE!!! & Written in a loving way. "A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city…" Pro.18:19 http://iroq.rurilnet.org/~romans/Truthpro.htm Truth is truth….Nicholas
Response:
THEY DO NOT CHOOSE? So… are you saying God CREATED them as homosexuals? It’s always the same story. A "smoker" will find Scriptures to twist in his favor to smoke. A drunkard will do this as well. Now we see the RCC that can’t seem to keep it’s hands off of little boys http://cnn.com/US/9803/28/priest.sexual.abuse.ap/index.html Is now seeking an "OK" from the masses with this quip. Jesus said…
[snip] MAT 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? If they are Gay, they are NOT Christians
Congrats Nicholas, you have succeeded in making temptations themselves sinful. Should we also condemn all heterosexuals because some of them commit the sins of rape, sexual abuse, pedophelia, and adultery? Then we can condemn all people who have ever even been tempted to commit a sin. I know I would be in that number, but maybe you are better than all of us and are free from temptation itself. Jeff Beshoner
Response:
One part of the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on Homosexuality: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994. Paragraph 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Response:
LEADERS WHO ARE RELIGIOUS I can anticipate the day when Americans will be seeking answers to questions like these: "Now, what kind of fool does it take to launch an anthrax attack on New York City? What kind of fools would it have taken to start an AIDS epidemic, intentionally?" I also anticipate what I think is the most probable answer to the question that has not yet been asked: Specifically, I think that it is most likely to take religious fools. Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn said, "To do evil a human being must first believe that what he’s doing is good…" To continue this train of thought: What is it that most makes human beings imagine that evil deeds are good? It is not merely "ideology", so often as it is specifically religion. An article of faith that is virtually unquestioned in the consensus view of America is that religion is a positive, constructive force within a society. It is a moralizing and civilizing influence, something to bring strength and comfort during life’s hardships, something to lead us to deeper truths. When there are counterexamples, these tend to be seen as instances in which religion is "misrepresented" or "misunderstood", but rarely are such counterexamples viewed as reflecting problems and tendencies that are inherent to religious thinking. An "inherent tendency" is not an "inevitability"- this observation is not intended to tar all religion. Still, an "inherent tendency" is exactly that, a serious enough of a problem to cause us to reevaluate the pedestal on which religion has so long been placed. A case in point is the recent "odd couple", uniting a church leader and a white supremacist in alleged germwar plots. The charges against Larry Wayne Harris and William Leavitt were dropped, but this should hardly be taken as proof of innocence. Harris, the white supremacist, had boasted of having enough anthrax to "wipe out the city of Las Vegas". Leavitt, the former bishop of a Mormon Church was described as "meek", "a devoted husband and father", someone who was "a dupe to Harris’s devil". It is a nauseating lie, from sheer denial. Harris had been previously arrested, his story and his biowar boasts were all over the internet, he was known to be an Aryan Nation member. I knew all about Harris, long before this news story made a splash. It is unthinkable that Leavitt could have been bankrolling Harris with such huge sums of money, without knowing exactly who he was. Why the denial? I recall how Jeff Jacoby, a religious conservative columnist, was glowing about the Mormon Church, how wholesome they were, when Mormon Mitt Romney was running against Kennedy. The CIA supposedly has a preference to hire Mormons because of this same "wholesomeness" that conservatives crave so much. Of course conservatives, in their lust for wholesomeness, look down on gays as if they are walking, talking, living, breathing pornography videos. Little do they concern themselves with how the Mormon Church preaches that gays are "possessed by demons", or still electroshock gays, or how some of their prominent clergy openly encourage for gays to be physically assaulted. What turns meek and wholesome family men into monsters? Let us consider some of the sins that are basic to the very essence of religion: * 1) Excessive self-certainty One of the most valuable assets in seeking truth is the ability to question oneself, to revise and reevaluate one’s beliefs. Religious history reveals mostly an all-out, frontal assault on this vital ability. When one has God on one’s side, one is as infallible as the Pope on a downhill roll, with a strong wind behind him. After all, if God is infallible, then God’s chosen (or self-appointed) representatives must also be infallible. * 2) Obliterating shades of gray Much of the real world exists in ambiguities, in people and things which are both good and bad, neither good nor bad, alternatively good or bad depending on circumstances and context. There are issues and ideas on which the best minds of the world could never agree as to the good or bad, in any amount of time. It is inherent to religious thinking to tend to obliterate such subtleties and ambiguities. There are two pigeonholes: you are with God and are good, or are against God, and are bad. Consequently, many evils are consecrated, much good is maligned and oppressed. * 3) Demonizing opponents Not only does religion tend to turn gray into black and white. The black is very, very black indeed, and the white is very, very pure and white indeed. When one is "against God", then one must be a serpent, a viper, a devil. Fit to be killed. The meek religious man knows that New York city is an evil place. It is not what God wants. Therefore, it is VERY evil. The meek, religious man knows that Sodom burned. Therefore, it is ok to hit New York with anthrax, no matter the millions of innocent people who actually live there. When one is "godly", then one must be wholesome, cheerful, loyal, shining, a paragon of virtue. Therefore, the meek and wholesome, religious family man could not possible be a monster who would have consorted with a man who wanted to hit New York city with anthrax. * 4) Inability to negotiate or compromise The art of compromise is what made this country possible, and that art is becoming a lost art. Why should one compromise, when one has God on one’s side? To compromise at all is to compromise with evil. * 5) Lending the cloak of respectability to primal urges As part of our evolutionary heritage, we all share an instinct for cruelty, for violence. Of course, religious fundamentalists cannot comprehend this because they will argue fiercely against evolution. In the civilized world, we long for an outlet for our primal, animal instincts. Like a cat, we wish to kill the bird, to have a mouse to bat around and to torment. A peculiarity of civilized man is the cultural inhibition that we have developed against some of our own inner instincts- a peculiarity that is vital to preserving our lives, or to prevent us from having a life as brutish as an animal’s. In order to release the tension of our unsatisfied primal urges, we need to feel a social sanction. Religion tends to provide that very dangerous sanction. That bird, that mouse, isn’t just an animal with a life, that feels pain, that deserves minimum respect as a living thing. It is a devil-bird, a dirty rodent. It is a threat to all that is good. Therefore, it is ok to purge it from the world. The religious mind does not make decisions by doing research, evaluating the pluses and minuses. The religious mind tends to send out invisible, mental questionnaires to God, by mental telepathy that we call "prayer", seeking "guidance". The religious mind fantasizes its own replies. How convenient, that God has instructed and ok’d our doing exactly what we had impulses to do, in the first place. And the first impulses that we had were the ancient impulses of our savage evolution from the animals. From the depths of the lowest, we consecrate to the highest. * 6) Contempt of rationality Shortcomings of these kinds might be plainly visible from any kind of rational analysis. Look at history, see what kinds of things have been done, then look at yourself, and see what you are doing now? See the connection? Look at other religions, see how they act, then look at yourself, see how you are similar. Think about what really makes for morality. Does a homosexual break your leg or pick your pocket, cause you any material harm? Such efforts at rationality, one of the last hopes of avoiding violent conflict, are frequently wasted on the religious mind, because rationality itself is viewed with contempt. "Heaven’s reasoning is not the same as Man’s reasoning!", I have heard TV preachers proclaim. "Send me your best debaters and philosophers- I will make mincemeat of them", they continue. There don’t have to be REASONS why something is evil. The Bible says so, that’s the end of it. And that’s the end of hope for peaceful coexistence. "Let us reason together". How bitter these words become, when the very concept of reason itself is viewed with suspicion and hostility. * 7) Superstitious blindness to risk How could someone start a biological attack that could destroy huge numbers of innocents as well as the ungodly, the heathen savages and the "depraved"? What psychological factors make a religious mind impervious to a rational analysis of risk? The religious mind believes that it has a special "destiny", has been groomed for greatness. Hitler had such a superstitious and strong belief about himself. He could only envision himself dominating in the end, not his own country in shambles. Hitler is sometimes characterized as a "pagan", but that is probably a kind of denial, a defense of the institution of religion. He had been a choirboy, attended a religious school, sometimes characterized himself as a devout Catholic. He made respectful references to religion. His notions of a "thousand year" Reich seem highly reminiscent of Christian ideas, in his own perverted form. It not so much that he was into "occult" or "Satanism", as religious apologists would prefer to believe, so that they can disown an embarrassing one of their own. It would probably be more accurate to say that he was simply making up his own religion as he went along, which is what Big Egos of Religion tend to do, little different from Hubbard, Moon, or Koresh. He probably saw himself as many Americans saw him- a good, moral, non-nonsense person. He didn’t smoke or drink, for display debauched habits. He just didn’t have much tolerance for degenerates- a minor flaw to overlook. When Hitler survived an assassination attempt, he saw it as a "sign" that he was destined to win, despite the worsening odds. Little concern do we have when people that we trust display similar patterns of thinking. … read more »
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.