Speaking of ichabod churches, the gay agenda sure knows to kill 'em. It's fine with me if a gay church folds up.

Episcopal Gay Church (http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/14804156.htm?source=rss&channel=bradenton_local)

Before you call be a biggot, let me ask you a question: Do you want to go to a gay church? When will you start attending?

BTW, outside of marriage, celebacy is a moral code that all christians are expected to abide with regardless of their sexual orientation.

Before you call be a biggot, let me ask you a question: Do you want to go to a gay church? When will you start attending?

No, but then again, I'm not gay.

Why would you have anything against gay people having a church or not? The way gay people are treated in America it's only natural they might want a church free of fascists like yourself.

Speaking of ichabod churches, the gay agenda sure knows to kill 'em. It's fine with me if a gay church folds up.

Episcopal Gay Church (http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/14804156.htm?source=rss&channel=bradenton_local)

Before you call be a biggot, let me ask you a question: Do you want to go to a gay church? When will you start attending?

BTW, outside of marriage, celebacy is a moral code that all christians are expected to abide with regardless of their sexual orientation.

who cares if there's a gay church? does it really bug you that much that a couple of guys might go to church holding hands and try to participate in the same worship of the same god that you seem to value so highly? if god is supposed to love everyone, what prevents this love from being extended to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals? plus, shouldn't christianity be happy that they can convert anyone in a time where people are so on the fence about whether they want to be associated with a church where the "heterosexual" priests molest young children and condemn scientific research on everything from global warming to stem cell therapy?

Speaking of ichabod churches, the gay agenda sure knows to kill 'em. It's fine with me if a gay church folds up.

Episcopal Gay Church (http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/14804156.htm?source=rss&channel=bradenton_local)

Before you call be a biggot, let me ask you a question: Do you want to go to a gay church? When will you start attending?

BTW, outside of marriage, celebacy is a moral code that all christians are expected to abide with regardless of their sexual orientation.


Could we go if we were neither Christian nor gay? :cool:

Could we go if we were neither Christian nor gay? :cool:


yep,

all people are welcome to come to church. Gay people are welcome too. We have a moral code that says nobody can be a member if they are having sex outside of a church-sanctioned marriage (between man and woman). Practicing drug addicts, drunks, whores, etc can not be members, but they are welcome to attend all they want.

who cares if there's a gay church? does it really bug you that much that a couple of guys might go to church holding hands and try to participate in the same worship of the same god that you seem to value so highly? if god is supposed to love everyone, what prevents this love from being extended to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals? plus, shouldn't christianity be happy that they can convert anyone in a time where people are so on the fence about whether they want to be associated with a church where the "heterosexual" priests molest young children and condemn scientific research on everything from global warming to stem cell therapy?

I don't want to attend any church that doesn't preach the bible, whether it's gay or not. I don't want to go there. Other church members feel the same way.

I don't care if there is a gay church. Let's see how long it lasts. Why do liberal churches die? Answer: they say you are ok like you are, and you're no different than anyone else, so what's the point of even going to church at all? Why not just sleep in Sunday morning? It's just a waste of time. Yeah, I see why liberal churches die -- they water down doctrine to the point where the church and the bible become totally irrelevant -- that's a dead church for you.

W originally said:

Do you want to go to a gay church? When will you start attending?

No, but then again, I'm not gay.

I agree with you, I don't want to attend a gay church either. ;)

That article says nothing about a church folding up, only that there is a split between so-called liberal episcopalians and conservative ones on this issue.

I wonder, Woody, if you are as hateful of shellfish eaters as you are of gay people.
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

I believe that conservatives use the bible to justify their cultural prejudices, not that they follow the bible to the letter.

I agree with you, I don't want to attend a gay church either.

Choose to reply to the other half of my post? Or is it another 'no comment' from a theist?

That article says nothing about a church folding up, only that there is a split between so-called liberal episcopalians and conservative ones on this issue.

I wonder, Woody, if you are as hateful of shellfish eaters as you are of gay people.
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

I believe that conservatives use the bible to justify their cultural prejudices, not that they follow the bible to the letter.

It will fold up, just give it time. The church I discussed with MW was episcopal. The female minister was gay that split it in half to remove gender from the hymn book. Now the church is in two pieces with both dead.

I really don't care if gays have a church. Like I said before -- what's the point? Atheists can have a church too if they want to, but what's the point? Maybe you can start a sex-drugs-and rock-n-roll church, but what's the point?

Your website is obviously concocted by someone that is pro-gay. They have a hard time with civil communication, and it shows their own hatred for christians. They cherry pick Leviticus about dietary laws, but then they leave out the good part -- where Leviticus commands people to stone gays to death. :eek: They aren't interested in stating someone's opinion accurately. The whole site is an obvious sock-puppet distortion.

Perhaps there should be a parody weblink: gayshatetheoppositesex.com

Nah, maybe not. Why would a civil person deal on their level?

By the way how do you define a homophobe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobe)? The word is widely used but does it really mean anything?

from the wiki:

The fact that "homophobia" contains the word "phobia" leads some people to reject the term outright, and to criticize it as an unnecessarily or even maliciously loaded term, since "clinical homophobia" is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Nevertheless, homosexual panic has been successfully used as a defense in legal cases, though this defense is no longer permissible in many jurisdictions.

How about that, the people that use it the most are uncivil, malicious, inaccurate, and irrational. That pretty well sums up my opinion too.

I think they have a right to be gay, and they should have the same rights as other american citizens, but that doesn't mean I think it is morally correct. Far from it.

Choose to reply to the other half of my post? Or is it another 'no comment' from a theist?


If I don't want to attend a gay church, does that make me a facist in your mind?

I don't want to go to a church if it doesn't hold to biblical authority, not because it is gay. A church that endorses any kind of sex outside of sanctioned marriage is a nonbiblical church, and I will not attend. I really don't see the point of attending. I am commanded not to attend. Therefore I do not attend.

If you want to have a gay church then fine, go right ahead. I won't be attending, and neither will anyone else that believes a bible. So go ahead and start a gay church, have yourself a holy spirit revival! Can't you see all the gays submitting to the will of the Lord! Not my will but thine oh Lord; thou are the potter and I am the clay -- yeah right. :bugeye:

Charles Cure said:

does it really bug you that much that a couple of guys might go to church holding hands and try to participate in the same worship of the same god that you seem to value so highly?

No it doesn't bother me a bit. As a matter of fact, a couple of gay guys came to fundamentalist baptist church I used to go to. The pastor preaches against sin a lot. They only lasted one service. After the service was over I even shook one of the guy's hands and invited them to come back. It has like a wet spaghetti noodle. He was more interested in holding my hand than shaking it. It was kind of weird man! It was like the guy thought I was a girl. and I'm thinking like, "no I'm really a guy." Totally weird.

If I don't want to attend a gay church, does that make me a facist in your mind?

No, but you are a fascist if you wish to deny gay's equal rights, rights to have their own church for example...

I don't want to go to a church if it doesn't hold to biblical authority, not because it is gay. A church that endorses any kind of sex outside of sanctioned marriage is a nonbiblical church, and I will not attend. I really don't see the point of attending. I am commanded not to attend. Therefore I do not attend.

If gays are banned from marriage or civil union in America, how else can they have sex if it is only allowed under marriage?

The church isn't an accurate representation of the Bible anyway. Since when does the church talk about slavery and murder like it often does in the Bible?

If you want to have a gay church then fine, go right ahead. I won't be attending, and neither will anyone else that believes a bible.

I assume you think slavery is wrong... How can you go against the Bible like that? You are a hypocrite.

If gays think the Bible is wrong when the bible condems gay people, then surely you have a serious case of double standards as you as a civilised person can not agree with the entire Bible... Especially that of the old testiment which would see you thrown in jail if you followed it to the letter.

yep,

all people are welcome to come to church. Gay people are welcome too. We have a moral code that says nobody can be a member if they are having sex outside of a church-sanctioned marriage (between man and woman). Practicing drug addicts, drunks, whores, etc can not be members, but they are welcome to attend all they want.

*************
M*W: If was up to me, I'd do everything I could to keep people (of all persuasions) out of churches, but let me offer you a bit of wisdom nonetheless:

Church should be a hospital for sinners and not a museum of saints.

No it doesn't bother me a bit. As a matter of fact, a couple of gay guys came to fundamentalist baptist church I used to go to. The pastor preaches against sin a lot. They only lasted one service. After the service was over I even shook one of the guy's hands and invited them to come back. It has like a wet spaghetti noodle. He was more interested in holding my hand than shaking it. It was kind of weird man! It was like the guy thought I was a girl. and I'm thinking like, "no I'm really a guy." Totally weird.

*************
M*W: Woody, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself that you are not a homophobe, the more obvious it becomes that you are. I don't think that it's your hatred for other gay men, it's the fear you have of your own homosexual tendencies. It speaks loud and clear. In fact, it screams.

About the gay guys at your church. You were being a hypocrite welcoming them to come back when you were just playing nicey nicey. You gave yourself away when you said the guy's handshake was like a "wet spaghetti noodle." That's an obvious referral to the state of your penis and your fear of losing it (as if you were "a girl!").

One of my favorite quotes is found in the epilogue of the movie Platoon when Charlie Sheen says as they're flying out of Viet Nam for the last time in a helicopter, "we're not fighting the enemy in each other, we're fighting the enemy in ourselves."

Woody, thinking that gay people need "their own church" is immoral. Does your church kick people out that cheat on their wives or have gotten a divorce?

Woody, thinking that gay people need "their own church" is immoral. Does your church kick people out that cheat on their wives or have gotten a divorce?

Absolutely not. You need to study the church bylaws. People that cheat on their wives lose their membership, but anyone can continue to attend most churches. You won't see a sign that says: "adulterer's not welcome here", "if you are gay do not enter", etc. etc.

When somebody that has a known lifestyle of sin joins our church body without repentence it hurts our church. It hurts bad. I can tell it when I walk in. It's like an ice bucket on the congregation. I don't have to know the details, I can see the results, and I'm not the only one.

*************
M*W: Woody, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself that you are not a homophobe, the more obvious it becomes that you are. I don't think that it's your hatred for other gay men, it's the fear you have of your own homosexual tendencies.

The word homophobe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobe) is a meaningless cliche. From the Wiki:

The fact that "homophobia" contains the word "phobia" leads some people to reject the term outright, and to criticize it as an unnecessarily or even maliciously loaded term, since "clinical homophobia" is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

So you begin your conversation with an uncivil and meaningless accusation. I like women by the way, I really do. I'm married to one. Women turn me on, men are just guys like I am.

It speaks loud and clear. In fact, it screams.

Actually it's just you hearing your own diatribe (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=diatribe). What's it called when you ascribe your own faults to someone else. There has to be a name for it:

it's the fear you have of your own homosexual tendencies.

See what I mean? There you go again, judging others by your own motivations.

no matter how hard you try to convince yourself that you are not a homophobe, the more obvious it becomes that you are.

Actually I think you are the homophobe, whatever that means. You certainly have an irrational fear of something. Is it your own homosexuality?

About the gay guys at your church. You were being a hypocrite welcoming them to come back when you were just playing nicey nicey. You gave yourself away when you said the guy's handshake was like a "wet spaghetti noodle." That's an obvious referral to the state of your penis and your fear of losing it (as if you were "a girl!").

You know what it's like to have a penis, do you? Do you have one too? When were you transgendered? You're fitting a pattern. :eek:

BTW, I didn't know the two guys were gay until the pastor said so the next church service. One of them called him on the phone and harrassed him half to death. They weren't being singled out but they felt like they were. That's what sin conviction does to somebody. As for the greeting experience, I thought it was weird, but I didn't know the guy was gay until later. You should know what it feels like when you are being sized up for sex -- maybe that's an ancient memory for you.


One of my favorite quotes is found in the epilogue of the movie Platoon when Charlie Sheen says as they're flying out of Viet Nam for the last time in a helicopter, "we're not fighting the enemy in each other, we're fighting the enemy in ourselves."

Maybe someday you'll have victory over yourself.

No, but you are a fascist if you wish to deny gay's equal rights, rights to have their own church for example...

They can have their own church. They do have their own church. I won't be attending.

If gays are banned from marriage or civil union in America, how else can they have sex if it is only allowed under marriage?

They're going to have it anyway, so what difference does marriage make? It's a political attempt to justify their actions on moral grounds. Fine, let them have a civil union if they want to. A biblical church won't recognize it.

The church isn't an accurate representation of the Bible anyway. Since when does the church talk about slavery and murder like it often does in the Bible?

You don't go to church, so how would you know what is preached?

I assume you think slavery is wrong... How can you go against the Bible like that? You are a hypocrite.

No I don't believe slavery is wrong. I am a slave. When I stop paying taxes I go to prison. Life isn't fair -- welcome to the real world.

If gays think the Bible is wrong when the bible condems gay people, then surely you have a serious case of double standards as you as a civilised person can not agree with the entire Bible... Especially that of the old testiment which would see you thrown in jail if you followed it to the letter.

The bible doesn't condemn gay people, it condemns sex outside of a male/female marriage relationship. It does not condemn the orientation, rather it condemns doing that which is not appropriate. Premarital sex falls in that category too.

They're going to have it anyway, so what difference does marriage make? It's a political attempt to justify their actions on moral grounds. Fine, let them have a civil union if they want to. A biblical church won't recognize it.

So you think everyone you see around you in your church was a virgin until they were married? I think not... So why your focus of gay pre-marital sex?

You don't go to church, so how would you know what is preached?

I went to church for 7 years. Yes I was forced to do it as I was a child, and I was forced into a tradition of 'confirmation' which I think means I have dedicated myself to the church. All this of course was before I was old enough to give my consent... But in all the time I was there I never heard anything about slavery or murder the way I read it in the Bible.

No I don't believe slavery is wrong. I am a slave. When I stop paying taxes I go to prison. Life isn't fair -- welcome to the real world.

You deserve a round of applause for that. This is the best way any theist has ever avoided my question on this forum. I am talking about the chattel slavery that was outlawed by Abe Lincoln in your very own country. I am also talking about the slavery which is clearly spelled out in the Bible:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Pressumably you agree that this is morally wrong by todays standards.

The bible doesn't condemn gay people, it condemns sex outside of a male/female marriage relationship. It does not condemn the orientation, rather it condemns doing that which is not appropriate. Premarital sex falls in that category too.

Again, the hideous act of sex outside of marriage applies to Christian hetrosexuals too. They have disobeyed the Bible in thousands of ways. So if a pure Christian gay couple have followed the Bible perfectly, and are then are allowed to be married (both are still virgins untill marriage), then they have only disobeyed the Bible in one count.

Their one biblical sin compared to your hundreds/thousands as far as the Bible goes.

I don't actually get what's wrong with sex before marriage..

Guess it's just me.

The word homophobe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobe) is a meaningless cliche. From the Wiki:

The fact that "homophobia" contains the word "phobia" leads some people to reject the term outright, and to criticize it as an unnecessarily or even maliciously loaded term, since "clinical homophobia" is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

So you begin your conversation with an uncivil and meaningless accusation. I like women by the way, I really do. I'm married to one. Women turn me on, men are just guys like I am.

Actually it's just you hearing your own diatribe (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=diatribe). What's it called when you ascribe your own faults to someone else. There has to be a name for it:

See what I mean? There you go again, judging others by your own motivations.

Actually I think you are the homophobe, whatever that means. You certainly have an irrational fear of something. Is it your own homosexuality?

You know what it's like to have a penis, do you? Do you have one too? When were you transgendered? You're fitting a pattern. :eek:

BTW, I didn't know the two guys were gay until the pastor said so the next church service. One of them called him on the phone and harrassed him half to death. They weren't being singled out but they felt like they were. That's what sin conviction does to somebody. As for the greeting experience, I thought it was weird, but I didn't know the guy was gay until later. You should know what it feels like when you are being sized up for sex -- maybe that's an ancient memory for you.

Maybe someday you'll have victory over yourself.

*************
M*W: When I looked at the Wiki definition of "homophobe," your picture was next to it. By the definition YOU cited from Wiki, you fit the definition to a T!

As far as homophobia not being recognized in the DSM, here's an interesting citation:

http://narth.com/docs/calpsych.html

By your even mentioning homophobia not currently in the DSM, it's pretty clear what you're trying to say. You are ADMITTING that you ARE a HOMOPHOBE, and trying to justify it by saying it's not in the DSM, so you would hope we would read into your post that you're not delusional. Hey, Woody, we're not that stupid. Maybe you forgot that this is an "intelligent community" you're trying to delude. Unfortunately, you're only deluding youself. This article decidedly describes you right down to your filthy drawers! I pity your wife.

You are obviously confused. YOU are the one who posted the Wiki definition of "homophobe." Then you go on to say in a later paragraph:

Actually I think you are the homophobe, whatever that means. You certainly have an irrational fear of something. Is it your own homosexuality?

Truth is, I don't have many fears in my life anymore. I've overcome the inane ones I had when I was young and immature. I've had a stroke and two heart attacks, and I'm not that much older than you. My fear is not seeing my grandchildren grow up. I don't fear homosexuals. I have many lesbian/homosexual friends, and they are real friends, not just PC tokens. I enjoy their company, and I am affectionate with them EVEN IN PUBLIC! (Lesbians, too, and I'm not afraid they might be copping a feel or getting sexually aroused, because they KNOW I'm a heterosexual woman, and they aren't embarrassed to be affectionate with ME in public!). Maybe that's just me, Woody, but I'm comfortable with all humanity. Believe it or not, I even have a few christian friends who know they can't reconvert me, even though they may have tried. I can even have intelligent debate with a few of them.

You might be interested to know that 25 years ago, the APA members and DSM editors took action to remove homosexuality as a psychopathology. Therefore, homosexuality is not the disease, homophobia is. After all, it's a "phobia."

http://www.psych.org/pnews/98-07-17/dsm.html

You know what it's like to have a penis, do you? Do you have one too? When were you transgendered? You're fitting a pattern. :eek:

Every human being started out with a vagina, including you and every homosexual out there. So, in essence, you are no different than they are physically constructed. It is you who is "fitting a pattern," Woody, not me.

You know, it's really nobody's business to know or assume to know what another person's sexuality is. That should only be between consenting adults in the privacy of their home.

It's pathetic that your pastor would talk about the visitors to your church. The law doesn't allow discrimination of homosexuals, and your church is tax-free. That's a travesty. The most evil people in this country don't have to pay taxes.

And you even thought you were being "sized-up for sex" with them! Woody, your phobias are just too obvious to pull over our eyes! At least it sounds like those guys were tuned into their own natural sexuality, and you're paranoid about being turned gay!!! I know how hard it must be for you to be so attractive to homosexuals but, after all, you are a walking prick!

Sex is not an "ancient memory" for me, Woody. If it weren't for sex, I wouldn't have a job. I deal with it everyday, in fact. It's the second oldest profession. I'm sure you know what the oldest profession is.

Who are you trying to convince, me or yourself, that you're attracted to women? I don't care. Obviously, you want to make sure we all know you are attracted to women.

No, I don't have a penis of my own, but I know where to find one when I need it. I just look for the remote control.

It sounds like you live in one squeaky hermetically sealed bubble, because you are so out of touch with reality. You're also very immature for a man your age. I guess we're going to have to start calling you The Bubble Boy.

Gensis 3:1

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

All you need is a woman in charge to destroy morality:

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/nm/20060619/2006_06_19t153236_330x450_us_religion_episcopals_b ishop.jpg

She is the very first female leader of the american episcopal church.

The new episcopal leader (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/mail/ts/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060619/ts_nm/religion_episcopals_bishop_dc) says gay sex isn't a sin but a gift.
Speaking of gifts, it sounds like some graffiti I saw on the bathroom stall about oral sex. The graffiti said it's better to give than recieve. I guess this is what she has in mind.

Keep your eye on the episcopal church and see what happens next.

from the news story:

It could also widen divisions with other Anglican communities, including the Church of England, which do not allow women bishops. In the worldwide Anglican church women are bishops only in Canada, the United States and New Zealand.

First came the woman, then came death. The warning is clear. Watch what happens to the episcopal membership numbers.

Right on brother!

"I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." Tim 2.

Down with women teachers, priests, company managers, etc etc etc!

Equality? Fuck that shit, jesus said so.

Next woman that speaks gets a slap.

It's so funny the things Woody comes out with in an attempt to actually prove the point.

If Woody would be a tolerant person without religion, then it shows you that with religion, his attitudes towards gay people, women and probably countless other fascist ideals commonly shared with Christianity. Rascism? Well, it's inherent in the Bible belt, so I just assume these things.

Although, I do agree with Woody in some respects. It would be nice if women were chained to the kitchen and the bedroom. GO CHRISTIANITY!! WOO!

Gensis 3:1

All you need is a woman in charge to destroy morality:

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/nm/20060619/2006_06_19t153236_330x450_us_religion_episcopals_b ishop.jpg

She is the very first female leader of the american episcopal church.

The new episcopal leader (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/mail/ts/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060619/ts_nm/religion_episcopals_bishop_dc) says gay sex isn't a sin but a gift. Speaking of gifts, it sounds like some graffiti I saw on the bathroom stall about oral sex. The graffiti said it's better to give than recieve. I guess this is what she has in mind.

Keep your eye on the episcopal church and see what happens next.

from the news story:

First came the woman, then came death. The warning is clear. Watch what happens to the episcopal membership numbers.

*************
M*W: The Episcopal Church is already broken. That's why a woman was elected -- so she could fix it. Yes, let's do watch those membership numbers.

The very fact that you posted this proves you ARE a homophobe and NOT a christian.

*************
M*W: The Episcopal Church is already broken. That's why a woman was elected -- so she could fix it. Yes, let's do watch those membership numbers.

The very fact that you posted this proves you ARE a homophobe and NOT a christian.

and how does that constitutes to being homophobe, you are just being presumtious

and how does that constitutes to being homophobe, you are just being presumtious

*************
M*W: The issue with Woody is he is a homophobe. Obviously you didn't read Woody's post or you would have caught that the new female Episcopal bishop discussed the issue of homosexuality in her electoral speech. However, your post in this regard reminded me that I was wrong about one aspect of Woody. I should have also included that not only is Woody a homophobe, he's a MCP. Do you know what that is? It's called a "male chauvinist pig." By the fact that you defended his sorry ass makes you one, too. Since you seem to have a poor command of the English language, why don't you just STFU? Know what that means???

I am pleased to say that my English Anglican Church (not in any way on the 'liberal 'end) accepts anyone through the door.

We have lots of people who live together but are not married (me included - although I am getting remarried next month - in the church). We may well have homosexuals regularly in the church. I don't know everything about everyone and have no desire to do so! We certainly had one recently when one of the (several) gay friends of my fiancee and myself came to the morning service.

The point is well made by some of the atheists that there are no perfect people in the church. Jesus was never judgemental. We should not be so either. There can be theological discussions for ever and a day about homosexuality but irrespective of that there can be no excuse for singling out homosexuals for special treatment as if they had committed some special sin. This is not 'loving your neighbour as yourself' in any form of the definition. It's also confusing morality with sex alone. Jesus spoke little about sex and when he did, it was always kindly and not judgemental e.g. the woman caught in adultery and the Samaritan woman at the well. Jesus reserved his wrath for those who misused money (perhaps some lessons for the USA there!) If you believe in a christian God you have to believe that judgement belongs to Him alone and not to us, exceedingly flawed humans.

kind regards,


Gordon.

I second that Gordon. Jesus said and enacted many times in any number of ways the message "Judge not, that you will not be judged". He said nothing about condemning homosexuality or women priests. I salute the American Episcopal church for taking a stand on both these difficult issues.

Gensis 3:1
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

All you need is a woman in charge to destroy morality:


I'm not a woman, but just feel like you missed it with the above. Hopefully it was in jest.

God gave Adam the charge to have dominion over the garden before Eve was created. Firstly, by having dominion you either allow or disallow certain things to take place. Maybe Adam should have done his job and kept the serpent out of the garden in the first place. Who knows, it could have been the most beautiful creature to observe. At the same time, maybe that creature hung around the forbidden tree just a little too much..maybe even eating the fruit. Who knows. Keep reading
It is easy to blame females, but it really wasn't her fault, it was Adams fault.
When the serpent spoke to Eve by the tree Adam was there. Adam knew the commandments. 1. Dominion over the garden. 2. not to eat the fruit of that tree.
He allowed the serpent to stay in the garden to tempt his wife to sin. He allowed it to happen. He allowed his wife to sin when he had a chance to stop her and kick the serpent out of the garden. Then when God confronted him about it, he blamed Eve instead of covering her mistakes. Love covers a multitude of sins. They may have remained in the garden if Adam would have said, God, I messed it up, it was my fault, I'm sorry. He didn't do that.


Long elaboration, but just to say, that your comment trying to connect woman as a negative thing based on scripture is just silly because it takes a knowledge of scripture to get it.

*************
M*W:
Church should be a hospital for sinners and not a museum of saints.

Why do you say that? I think the "church" for a long time has gotten it all wrong because they have tried to be a hospital for sinners and a museam at the same time, when they shouldn't be trying to do either.

Biblically, the new jerusalem talked about in Revelations, is to be considered the "church" is not a building or real place, but a people who have accepted the plan of salvation laid out by Jesus. When it speaks of the new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven. It was talking about Jesus. Who at calvary from his death birthed a bride for himself. Not a physical bride.

I think the church has gotten it wrong because Jesus spent much time studying in the temple with scholars. This would be considered his "church" It wasn't a place for the sinners, but for those that were already considered religious. When Jesus began his ministry, he was amongst the people, not in a building. Traveling, doing the work he needed to do. Preaching on the mountains, in a fishing boat, ect... The sinners don't need a place to come, but they need a people to come to them. The church as a building doesn't need to be a place of beauty or riches, or smugness, because the church buildings purpose is for saints to come together and corporately praise God and reaffirm their beliefs in his moral character and diety.

Why do you say that? I think the "church" for a long time has gotten it all wrong because they have tried to be a hospital for sinners and a museam at the same time, when they shouldn't be trying to do either.

Biblically, the new jerusalem talked about in Revelations, is to be considered the "church" is not a building or real place, but a people who have accepted the plan of salvation laid out by Jesus. When it speaks of the new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven. It was talking about Jesus. Who at calvary from his death birthed a bride for himself. Not a physical bride.

I think the church has gotten it wrong because Jesus spent much time studying in the temple with scholars. This would be considered his "church" It wasn't a place for the sinners, but for those that were already considered religious. When Jesus began his ministry, he was amongst the people, not in a building. Traveling, doing the work he needed to do. Preaching on the mountains, in a fishing boat, ect... The sinners don't need a place to come, but they need a people to come to them. The church as a building doesn't need to be a place of beauty or riches, or smugness, because the church buildings purpose is for saints to come together and corporately praise God and reaffirm their beliefs in his moral character and diety.

*************
M*W: I head that saying from a Roman Catholic priest some 25 years ago. It's not about a "building." It's a metaphor of religious purpose but not necessarily christian purpose. This could apply to any religion.

from the source (http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/025089.html):

Posted by: ponderingdude at June 21, 2006 09:58 AM:

Well, I have a story and a question about the Episcopalian Church.

Here is the story:

Me and my buddies were watching wrestling on Saturday morning and there’s this newsbreak or something that comes on the TV and, in the course of it, some goopy Eastern news-lady calls the Episcopalian Church the “gay church”, or something like that. And then she called it “tolerant”, too, and she just is beaming and simpering all over about it, like it was the Second Coming, or something.

Well, THAT gay bit sounded intriguing to us – I mean we were all hankering for a bit of JOYFUL spiritual juice and a ‘gay church’ sounded like just the ticket we needed – that, we figured, would UNDOUBTEDLY be one happening, rocking, musical, toe-tapping place where you could let your hair down and just bust loose for Jesus and be as gay as the Lord intended us to be. And the ‘tolerant’ thing – THAT was great, too, cause we done wore out our welcome in most churches in town due to our unrestrained enthusiasm for the Lord (well, except with the Pentecostals but they don’t like us any due to our chewing and Roy’s little problem that he can’t help). We KNEW there was an Episcopalian Church in the big town across the river – and we all agreed we was being directly spoke to by the Lord about a church home.

So the next morning, we loaded up our instruments and all of our speakers and amplifiers in our pickups, gave Roy some Beano, filled our pouches with the finest, and set out, as excited as a bunch of mongrel puppies with a big yellow balloon.

Well, in the interest of brevity, let me cut to the chase. That dad-burned church was the DEADEST dang place I have ever seen or been in – why the old cemetery down the road has got them beat by a MILE for being GAY. We counted fifteen folks in the pews; every man-jack of them pushing a hundred years old, give or take a year or two. The place was so full of oxygen bottles and tubes it looked like a NASA launch facility had exploded. Most of the folks were asleep, although it later turned out that four of them had actually died during the service. Or during one of the services in the past year, they weren’t sure.

The real bad thing, though, was the SMELL. It kind of reminded me of when one of the dogs got bit by a rattlesnake and crawled way up under the house where we couldn’t reach him - and he died. It was July and HOT and he started stinking REALLY bad – we had to move everybody into Mabel’s trailer for a few weeks until that dog passed his prime, so to speak. So this SMELL was what stuck with me most about this church. Sort of a DEAD smell, you see.

There was two priests, well actually one priest and a priestess. The priest was a harassed looking middle-aged guy who I happen to know runs the lingerie shop in that same town. He was nice enough to us. The woman wouldn’t speak to us, or even acknowledge our existence. The priest said that was because she believed we were “Womb-less Abominations before the Great Mother”. Roy denied that vigorously, saying that he had gotten a womb during the Vietnam War, but unfortunately at the mention of the Vietnam War she got all red in the face and passed out. I was faint from the smell and asked for the Scriptures to comfort me and the priest immediately produced the 2004 Democratic Party Platform.

We all got out pretty fast and went down to the river and just contemplated the deep mysteries of the English language the rest of the day.

Here is the question:

How come the Episcopalian Church is called “gay” and “tolerant”? It ain’t the ‘gay’ church it’s advertised as, not by a country mile. And unless I get a danged WOMB IMPLANT, it ain’t all that TOLERANT.

well I must say it's nice to come back, and still see the same old comedians, make's me get this cozy feeling all over.

hello woody, still donning the jesters crown, I see, great looking forward to a few more laughs.

[QUOTE=Quigly]Why do you say that? I think the "church" for a long time has gotten it all wrong because they have tried to be a hospital for sinners and a museam at the same time, when they shouldn't be trying to do either.[QUOTE]

We have a problem in the UK in that everyone wants to keep their nice old Saxon or Norman village church as a building but few wish to be part of the congregation. This is not necessarily their fault as, even as a committed christian, many traditional Anglican services bore me to tears. In fact I don't go to the nice Saxon church in my village but travel five miles into the nearest town. That is a nice Victorian building but I don't go there for the building, I go there because the worship is lively and fun and the teaching and (modern) music are both very good.

There is always this conflict of interests between users and non-users. This is made worse by the totally false impression most non-churchgoers in the UK have that the taxpayer pays for the upkeep of Anglican churches. It's the people who go who pay, but the rest of the community still likes to object if you wish to remove the 'original' (i.e. nineteenth century) wooden pews from a much older building so you can make the building more useful and comfortable.


I think that Christians do need fellowship. The best analogy I have heard is that of hot coals in a fire. If you put them together in the fire, they react with one another and burn fiercely. If you take one out and put it on its own, it gradually cools down and goes out. Jesus went around in a group with his followers. We are not so itinerant in the west and so buildings where you can worship together are more practical.

The building is also a 'known place' where someone searching for God or for more prosaic mundane help knows that they can go to.

I do believe (certainly in the UK) that evangelical christians tend to care less about the buildings than many other religions but it still helps not to have a leaking roof in the rain and to be able to use a loo without leaving the church premises etc.! If you are part of an Anglican church you are also required to keep it in good structural order by the diocese. The other extreme is of course a building like the Roman Catholic church of Santo Domingo de Guzmán in Oaxaca, Mexico with its vast quantity of gold leaf inside.

I fear that in the UK we shall have to live with the joint 'museum' and Christian worship centre combination as best we can.


regards,


Gordon.

Is Bestiality Next for the Episcopal Church USA? (http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/06-20-06.asp) By Gary DeMar
6/20/2006

Today’s entertainment, political, media, and religionist propagandists have, in the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “defined deviancy down” so that what was morally shocking twenty years ago is acceptable, or at least tolerated, behavior today. Robert Bork, no stranger to moral degradation, having been “Borked” on national television and entered the dictionary as a verb, explains the phenomenon: “Emile Durkheim, a founder of sociology, posited that there is a limit to the amount of deviant behavior any community can ‘afford to recognize.’ As behavior worsens, the community adjusts its standards so that conduct once thought reprehensible is no longer deemed so.”1

At the same time, these same moral retrofitters are defining their own brand of moral deviancy up. What was considered morally normal thirty years ago—two-parents of the opposite sex married and living together, participation in the Boy Scouts and being protected from homosexual predators, rejecting a pro-death culture, and stay-at-home moms—is now portrayed “as oppressive and shot through with pathologies. ‘As part of the vast social project of moral leveling,” [Charles] Krauthammer wrote, “it is not enough for the deviant to be normalized. The normal must be found to be deviant.’ This situation is thoroughly perverse. Underclass values become increasingly acceptable to the middle class, especially their young, and middle-class values become increasingly contemptible to the cultural elites.”2

Americans have become desensitized when it comes to stories about moral degeneracy. Immoral acts that were once only spoken of in hushed tones thirty years ago are now included in the curriculum of our nation’s government schools and espoused by leaders in liberal denominations. The latest ratcheting up of the moral deviancy bar has come, once again, from the Episcopal Church USA. Its new leader is Katherine Jefferts Schori, bishop of Nevada. In 2003, she voted in favor of the denomination’s openly homosexual bishop. “God welcomes all to the table. People who agree and people who disagree,” she said. “All of the marginalized are most especially welcome at the table.”3 Jesus welcomed the woman caught in adultery, the polyamorous Samaritan woman, the despised collectors, zealous religious revolutionaries, and a man ensnared by his riches. Jesus would have accepted homosexuals. But like the above mentioned group of sinners, Jesus would have required a change in lifestyle to go along with the claim of a change in heart. The woman caught in the very act of adultery was told to “go and sin no more.” Jesus would have said the same thing to the homosexual.

Trained as a biologist, Jefferts Schori says “homosexuality is ‘a given characteristic, not chosen.’”4 There are a number of people who used to engage in sodomy who would disagree. As a biologist, doesn’t Jefferts Schori know the basics of anatomy? Homosexuality (the name itself describes its unreproductive behavior) is contrary to the basics of Biology 101.

Where do we stop with the biological determinism argument? Adultery? Rape? Pedophilia? Murder? Bestiality? It used to be said that “The devil made me do it.” Now it’s “My genes made me do it.”

Homosexuals are identified not by a trait or a gene, but rather by their actions. Without the action, they would be indistinguishable from all other people. It is only when they alter their behavior that they become a group that is recognized as being different. If we were to assume momentarily that homosexuality was genetic, then the most one could conclude is that those individuals were not morally responsible for being homosexual. However, that does not mean that they are not morally responsible for homosexual actions! Merely having the gene would not force one to carry out the behavior. For instance, if scientists were able to document that a “rape gene” existed, we certainly would not blame an individual for possessing this gene, but neither would we allow him to act upon that rape disposition.5

While waiting for our breakfast at a Waffle House just north of Phoenix, Arizona, I picked up a copy of the June 2006 issue of Deer Valley magazine and began reading. An article written by Maricopa County Sherriff Joe Arpaio caught my attention. The title was striking: “Bestiality, an unsavory topic that had to be addressed.” It seems that bestiality is a problem in Maricopa County: “a public servant was caught by a young girl and her father in the act of attempting to engage in a sex act with the little girl’s young pet lamb. . . . Recently a man was sexually abusing four dogs” (29).

Is the Episcopal Church USA ready to welcome these two men if they claim that bestiality is biologically determined? Is a bishopric waiting for them in about twenty years? I can see the denomination’s slogan now: “Sodomy today, bestiality tomorrow! God welcomes all to the table.”


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

1. Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline (New York: Regan Books, 1996), 3.

2. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, 3–4.

3. Quoted in Cathy Lynn Grossman, “Episcopalians elect female leader,” USA Today (June 19, 2006), 1A.

4. Quoted in Cathy Lynn Grossman, “New Episcopal leader brings ‘open heart,’” USA Today (June 19, 2006), 5D.

5. Brad Harrub, Bert Thompson, and Dave Miller, “‘This is the Way God Made Me’: A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the ‘Gay Gene’”


http://www.americanvision.org/images2/arizona.jpg

Hmmm - Maricopa county, is that where the Skinwalker Indians live?

No, beastiality will not be next, Woody.

Secular law is pretty basic and outperforms the USA in so-called moral social-ills.. Two consenting adults are free to have sex, however people do not choose to be homosexual - they simply are.

The American conservative law is full of spin and manipulation. How can you compare rape and beastiality with homosexuality? Morals? Your morals Woody, actually make me feel sick the more I read your posts and I thank God that I don't live in your country which is full of religious fascists like yourself.

21. United Church of Christ, 1,265,786, reporting a decrease of 2.38 percent.

Another gay church denomination is biting the dust. As ususual, a woman is in charge.

Wednesday, 06/21/06

Denomination welcomes predominantly gay church (http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060621/NEWS06/606210387)
United Church of Christ offers 'home'

By ANITA WADHWANI
Staff Writer


Nashville's largest predominantly gay and lesbian church is joining a national Protestant denomination that has seen dozens of churches leave in the last year because of its support for same-sex unions.

Holy Trinity Community Church in west Nashville officially will join the United Church of Christ in an installation ceremony Sunday.

The Rev. Cynthia Andrews-Looper, pastor of Holy Trinity, said that her 250-member church was drawn to the denomination because of its "open and affirming" position on gays and lesbians, in the pews and the pulpit.

In 2005 the United Church of Christ passed a resolution in support of "equal marriage rights for all regardless of gender" and encouraged churches to adopt new wedding policies for same-sex marriages. It has long allowed the ordination of openly gay and lesbian ministers.

"We've really been longing for a home," said Andrews-Looper. "There's a huge need for any church to be involved in something larger than itself. The thing that impressed us about the (United Church of Christ) is they are issuing an extravagant welcome. They are saying in many ways, 'what would Jesus do?' "

The denomination is New England's largest Protestant group, with about 5,700 churches with 1.2 million members nationwide.

(It should not to be confused with theologically conservative Churches of Christ, which are numerous in the Nashville area.)

At least four-dozen congregations have left the United Church of Christ, or U.C.C., between July 2005 — when the resolution was passed — and last January, according to Barb Powell, a denomination spokeswoman. That has helped drive a 10.7% dip in the denomination's overall membership and 4.9% drop in its number of churches over the past five years.

But in the Bible Belt, the United Church of Christ's stance is resulting in something of a growth spurt, attracting not only churches withpredominantly gay and lesbian members, but also others leaving their denominations because of disagreements over their positions on gay and lesbian issues.

Membership is up 79% in the denomination's Southeast Conference — encompassing Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and the Florida Panhandle — where three churches have joined in the past two months and other churches have contacted the denomination to begin the process of joining, according to the Rev. Tim Downs, of the Southeast Conference of the United Church of Christ.

Powell said that one of the reasons the Bible Belt is bucking the trend is that the denomination had fewer churches here than in other parts of the country, making even a few added churches inflate membership rates.

The Rev. Dan Rosemergy, a retired adjunct professor of UCC history at Vanderbilt University Divinity School, said the denomination's growth in the South also could result from a conservative religious landscape.

"I think in the South, there's a greater consciousness and awareness of religion being often defined by the religious right," said Rosemergy, a retired UCC pastor. "So when you have a denomination that offers a place to have a faith home that moves away from that very narrow understanding — in a place where there's a higher profile of conservative religion — there's a greater response."

Andrews-Looper, the Holy Trinity pastor, says her congregation was drawn to the denomination not only because of its stance on gay and lesbian marriage, and its longstanding policy to allow the ordination of gay pastors, but because she found it accepting of her church's theology.

The church is "evangelical in its worship. We do believe in the Virgin birth, (Jesus Christ's) death and literal bodily resurrection, that the Gospel message is that of Jesus Christ and our mission is to get the word out," said Andrews-Looper.

While the church doesn't believe in a blanket literal interpretation of the Bible, it is still more theologically conservative than most UCC churches, she said.

And a key reason for joining a denomination is to be able to pool resources to do mission work, here and abroad, she said.

The 10-year-old church began in an east Nashville living room and has grown to a congregation of 250, moving to a new building in January. Most of the church members are gay or lesbian, but about 10% are not, said Andrews-Looper, who does not generally preach about gay issues from the pulpit.

Many congregation members have left other churches that did not accept their sexual orientation, she said.

Angie Smith, 36, said she had left one of Nashville's largest nondenominational churches after letting the pastor know she was gay. His response, she said: "you're welcome to worship here, but you can't be involved in church life or hold any leadership positions."

"I was looking for a place to serve," said Smith. "If I'm led into a leadership position I want to be able to do that." Smith said joining a national denomination will give her that chance.

"I always felt worse when I left church than when I went in," said Phillip Haynes, 46, who said he grew up Southern Baptist and tried the Catholic Church before turning to Holy Trinity about six years ago. "I left because of the prejudice."

"I could not be myself at church and I always thought that God hated gay people," said his life partner, Steve Deasy, who was raised in a Church of Christ. "This is the first church that's opened its arms and accepted me for who I am."

To Kenny:

I am sorry that you were forced into a religion that you did not want to follow. That is quite wrong. Parents should always let children make up their own minds at the time they are able to. This is why confirmation in the Anglican church is what it says. It is the person who is now mature enough to decide for him/herself confirming what the parents set out for them at their christening. The people concerned are normally teenagers. Of course some protestant denominations have adult baptism (the C of E does them as well as infant christenings. We have them at my church). Children who are not old enough to decide for themselves should not be confirmed. It makes the term meaningless. It is one of the many problems I have with the R.C. Church.

You have left out the rest of Leviticus 25. It is actually about the arrangements for Jubilee Year (one every 50). It sets out what must happen in regard to property and debts (the principle was that land was rented and returned on a sort of lease to this fixed point in the calendar and all debts were cancelled). It is important to understand the background of slavery.

'Historically, slaves were captured. Warfare often resulted in slavery for prisoners if one paid no ransom. It originally may have been more humane than executing those who would return to fight if they were freed.......

In many cultures, persons convicted of serious crimes could be sold into slavery. The proceeds from this sale were often used to compensate the victims, and as a consequence, the criminal might be sold only if he lacked the property to make the compensation. Other laws and other crimes might enslave the criminal regardless of his property; some called for the criminal and all his property to be handed over to his victim.

Also, persons have been sold into slavery so that the money could be used to pay off debts. This could range from a king ordering a debtor sold with all his family, to the poor selling off their own children. In times of dire need such as famine, people have offered themselves into slavery not for a purchase price, but merely so that their new master would feed them.' - Wikipedia.

Whilst I am not making excuses for this form of slavery and we may today find it very odd, this was what existed culturally before the Israelites entered the 'Promised Land'. And it may well have been better to have been a well fed slave than dying of hunger (maybe - it's very hard to relate to a completely alien time and culture). Note the Israelites were not to make slaves of Israelites in what was now their land. they were to help the poor. All this said, this was a very different form of slavery to the type of racial slavery where (black) people from one area in sub Saharan Africa were captured and exported from their native land across the world as slaves.

Whilst slave taking is generally regarded as endemic in this area of Africa between warring tribes, it was muslim arabs who built up a trade from it, taking slaves north and later trading them with others (this is one of the great ironies of the Black Muslim movement). The trade was of course greatly expanded by the European colonial powers (to our great shame) and the principles spread by them to the New World where the practice continued (to the New World's great shame).

It should be noted that whereas in earlier forms of slavery, buying your freedom was often a possibility, in the later racial form it was generally not.


When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You have not continued the passage quoted. It continues.

20-21 "If a slave owner hits a slave, male or female, with a stick and the slave dies on the spot, the slave must be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he's not to be avenged—the slave is the owner's property.

22-25 "When there's a fight and in the fight a pregnant woman is hit so that she miscarries but is not otherwise hurt, the one responsible has to pay whatever the husband demands in compensation. But if there is further damage, then you must give life for life—eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

26-27 "If a slave owner hits the eye of a slave or handmaid and ruins it, the owner must let the slave go free because of the eye. If the owner knocks out the tooth of the male or female slave, the slave must be released and go free because of the tooth. (Message Translation).

Note that if 20 -21 meant no punishment, it would be contrary to 26-27 which allows the slave to be freed for even minor injuries sustained (tooth knocked out). The clue is 'avenged'. Death is 'avenged' by another death ('eye for eye' etc.) so what 20-21 is really saying is that if the slave recovers ('survives a day or two' here is a metaphor), the death of the slave need not be avenged but if the slave dies then it must be avenged. That means the perpetrator would have to be killed just the same as if he had killed a free person (capital punishment was the norm. for murder). Sadly the meaning is confused by some translations using the word 'punished' as in the one you quote has but the original word is Strongs reference '5358 naqam naw-kam' a primitive root; to grudge, i.e. avenge or punish:--avenge(-r, self), punish, revenge (self), X surely, take vengeance'. In the context here with verses 26 -27 taken into consideration, it clearly means something more than mild punishment - 'vengeance' seems far more likely as in the Message translation.

On a different subject note that verses 22- 25 defines a different value between the life of an unborn child and that of its mother. This is what orthodox Judaism has always believed and whilst the subject of abortion is a very difficult one and I am not making any definitive statement on the subject, the statement by some 'Pro-Life' people (including the R.C. Church) that unborn children have the same rights as adult people in scripture is clearly not accurate and cannot be used to support their view.

I agree with your comments about homosexuality. If you empty the church of sinners, you empty it totally. Even if you accept the contentious intepretation of the limited scripture, you should not single out 'this sin' to be greater than any other. We are not here as christians to personally judge what we see as others' weaknesses, we are here to help and love them, whoever they are.


regards,


Gordon.

Gay people are horrible. No one should like them, they go against society, and all the basic morals that people SHOULD have. If it were possible, I would light every gay in the world on fire and then put alcohol on them, then launch them inot space, where it's ABsolute Zero temperature. Take that you gays.

Gay people are horrible. No one should like them, they go against society, and all the basic morals that people SHOULD have. If it were possible, I would light every gay in the world on fire and then put alcohol on them, then launch them inot space, where it's ABsolute Zero temperature. Take that you gays.
from that little outburst i reckon that you are more than a little insecure about your sexuality and try to hide it by professing you undying hatred for them

What are you talking about? It's you gay Atheist scum that come up with fake diseases liek "depression", and "hypoglcemea", and we could have stayed a nice world were it not for Gays, (AIDS), Drugs, and Atheists. Also, I know what my sexual orientation is... NONE. I adhere to celebacy, so take that punk.

What are you talking about? It's you gay Atheist scum that come up with fake diseases liek "depression", and "hypoglcemea", and we could have stayed a nice world were it not for Gays, (AIDS), Drugs, and Atheists. Also, I know what my sexual orientation is... NONE. I adhere to celebacy, so take that punk.
if it were not for the pope outlawing the use of condoms then the sread of AIDS would have been minimised

Sure, whatever you say, people never should have had relations in the first place. We already have enough people here on Earth, no need for more ATHEIST PUNKS. By the way, why would you mention the Pope? You are an Atheist, and are not allowed to knwo anything about religion.

Sure, whatever you say, people never should have had relations in the first place. We already have enough people here on Earth, no need for more ATHEIST PUNKS. By the way, why would you mention the Pope? You are an Atheist, and are not allowed to knwo anything about religion.
you were conceived by sexual relations kill yourself now

Idiot! can you undertand ANYTHING I just said? NO MORE ATHEIST PUNKS, we could have more Muslims, and Jews, and Christians sure, but ATHEISTS NO WAY!

We already have enough people here on Earth
we could have more Muslims, and Jews, and Christians
good contradiction

Exactly, Once we REMOVE THE ATHEISTS

Exactly, Once we REMOVE THE ATHEISTS
but you didnt say that in the first post did you

No, it had to be assumed through REAL LOGIC, which none of you have,

and without the intelligent atheists around who will then precede to turn on

To turn on what??!!??

To turn on what??!!??
its common knowledge that people always look to a certain group of people to pick on, it helps to bond groups, maybe you move onto heretics, blasphemers or maybe even the gnostics. or maybe you intelligent little muslims will continue to fight each other

Blasphemy! Blasphemy! May God/Allah STRIKE YOU DOWN! Watch the road, heathen.

your killing me dude
not literally but man im laughing at you

AH1,

No, it had to be assumed through REAL LOGIC, which none of you have,But logic can only lead to atheism. There is no logic in theism, that's why you stress faith so much, you have no choice.