Somebody Calls this Christian?

I said: woody Why is it all you xian guys, answer a question with a question?

woody said: Who told you that?

I said: You just did it now?

woody: I did?

I said: will you stop?

woody: why should I?

I said: why dont you just answer the questions?

woody: what questions are those?

I said: are you trying to fool me?

woody: why would I do that?

I said:I give up

woody: why?






just a bit of truthful humour.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Stefan:


I sir, have a wife and a daughter. I remain sexually faithful in my marriage of 15 years.

You are right. There is no excuse for a child molester. Neither is there an excuse for a homosexual or any type of fornication including pre-marital sex between male and female. It's all the same from a christian point of view -- a twisted perversion of what God intended for humanity.

Of all subjects our church sermon this morning was about homosexuality.
Interesting, objective, and unbiased facts from the psychology community:

Only 2.88% of all adult males are homosexual.
Only about 1.45% of females are homoxsexual.

There is no homosexual gene, it comes from a variety of factors, but not from genetics. The proof is that in identical twins one can be homosexual and the other heterosexual. This data was produced by a homosexual researcher trying to prove otherwise.

Of all lesbians (1.44% of all women), 2/3 of them were sexually molested as children.

Homosexual men are 1 thousand times more likely to die from aids than their heterosexual counterpart according to the department of health statistics.

None of the 144 gay couples interviewed in one study preformed by a homosexual pshycholgist remained "faithful" in their love relationship.

The average homosexual male has between 500 and 1000 different sex partners in their lifetime.

Our church is trying to reach out to these people: I dare you to call our pastor a bigot. I dare you or anyone to be this presumptuous, before hearing the FAQs.

Here is the message:

FAQs

The audio file will be available very soon, give it a couple of days.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

S/L: And you have yet to justify how homosexuality is wrong.

I'm still waiting...

Woody: Homosexual males are 1,000 times more likely to die from AIDs, just for a starter, according to the US department of health statistics.

Listen to the audio from our pastor. If you have any credence in the field of pshchology, you'll know where homosexuality comes from. It's a behavioral choice based on complicated circumstances. You being a pshycologist should know this. There is no homosexual gene.

This information comes from homosexual researchers, not from "christianpropaganda.com" as you say.

S/L said: Well then, let's use that very same book that you state is the true word of god and point out where that very same god commands that you stone your naughty son to death, stone prostitutes to death, stone fortune tellers to death.

Woody: Our pastor covered that subject very well today. There are laws that transcend grace, but the laws you mentioned have been trumped by grace. Your understanding of grace is a big fat zero. I asked you to explain grace the last time around, and I'm still waiting. Tell us all how Jesus brought grace, and what that means in the believer's life. (good luck)

S/L: Again, he commanded you to stone bad sons, prostitutes and fortune tellers to death, stated that it's ok to keep slaves, commanded women not to talk in church, because that would be a disgrace.

Woody: As I said before, explain grace. You have no concept of it. Homosexuality is a transcendent law (meaning that it is still wrong to do).

Refer to Romans 1

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yorda said: Don't you think that sex between a man and a woman is wrong if the use "protection".

Woody says: The protection isn't working.

 

Don't forget divorced people who remarry.
According to the bible they are just as bad as homosexuals.
Was that brought up today?

 

BEHERENOW: Don't forget divorced people who remarry.
According to the bible they are just as bad as homosexuals.
Was that brought up today?

Woody: Divorce was covered last week. Here is the audio on that sermon:

Sermon on Divorce

There are biblical allowances for divorce -- not so for homosexuality. Concubinage in the OT was also sexual perversion. It started with Abraham. God never said it was ok to have concubines, but it was allowed because of the hardness of their hearts, just like divorce in the OT.

 

Biblically speaking (NT), is an adulterous man, divorced woman, or homosexual, the worst sinner?
Christians use the new testament to show what conduct is expected from a Christian.
I think the Ten Commandments make it clear that adultery and homosexuality are on an equal standing. Whether you believe all sin is equal, or some sins are worse than others, these two conducts are seen to be lascivious in nature, and therefore sinful. According to a strict interpretation of the New Testament, they are both a sinful departure from the Holy Plan of one marriage union. They are both a departure from Matthew [10:7] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife.

We should all have a common understanding of homosexuality, and the Bible does not say much about it.
As for adultery, the Bible has a fair amount to say about it.
~ ~ ~

Matt. [5:32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

So any woman who is divorced, is a fornicator, or an adulteress.
Also, whoever marries a divorced woman is committing adultery. Not just committing a single act of adultery, but engaging in an adulteress life style.
~ ~ ~

Matt. [10:12] And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
A divorced woman who remarries commits adultery (lives an adulterous life style).
~ ~ ~

Luke [16:18] Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Any man who divorces and remarries commits adultery, and any man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
~ ~ ~

So any man who remarries is an adulterer, any man who marries a divorced woman is an adulterer, in other words, divorce and remarriage always results in adultery. Not just a one time occurrence of adultery, but a life style of adultery.
Also, a man who divorces a woman, causes her to be an adulterer (or she was a fornicator), so divorce itself causes or is a sure sign of adultery.
The only time divorce would be acceptable, would be if neither were fornicators, they got divorced, and neither one ever got married or had sexual relations with someone else.

Biblically (NT) speaking, any person who marries a divorced person, or is divorced and remarries, is just as sinful as a homosexual.
Can it be seen any other way?

 

Q said: Religion divides people while the lack of religion would bring those people together for a greater cause.

Woody: You will get your wish when the antichrist reigns.

 

BH&N said: I think the Ten Commandments make it clear that adultery and homosexuality are on an equal standing. Whether you believe all sin is equal, or some sins are worse than others, these two conducts are seen to be lascivious in nature, and therefore sinful.

Woody: Include fornication in the list as well.

BH&N: We should all have a common understanding of homosexuality, and the Bible does not say much about it.

Woody: It says enough about it. There is no question about it in the bible --it is clearly wrong.

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

There are two acceptible reasons for divorce and remarriage:

1) The partner is unfaithful, and can not be trusted. This is more than just sexual unfaithfulness, it also includes ongoing physical abuse by a spouse, or any other behavior that shows a continual lack of regard for the other person. Being faithful means continuing to love that person you mary. If you love them you will not commit adultery, etc, etc, etc.

2) If one person is a christian and the other person is not, then the bible allows divorce if the marriage does not allow the christian to continue their faith.

3) For any other circumstance, remarriage is adultery -- You are correct. But there is no sin God can't forgive. Members of my own family have been divorced before. The question to ask is -- where is love? Love transcends all the laws. Jesus told us this.

 

Stefan: I shall not reply again.

Woody: Good riddance. I hate it when people take quotes out of context and twist them around. I find you and pedophiles equally disgusting. :bugeye:

 

These statements are an invention of man. You have no biblical basis.

I have shown is not true by my quotes which you have not refuted.

I naturally assume that you accept practicing homosexuals as easily as practicing adulterers (divorced and remarried persons).

 

Woody: You will get your wish when the antichrist reigns.

Since the Christ is a fictional character, so is the antichrist.

You, on the other hand, will not get your wish for life eternal and everlasting after the worms have had their feast.

 

Woody: You will get your wish when the antichrist reigns.

Q: Since the Christ is a fictional character, so is the antichrist.

Woody: In the absense of religion you will not have the peace and safety you are looking for. Look at communist Russia and China for example. Religion wasn't tolerated. Is that how you want to live?

Q: You, on the other hand, will not get your wish for life eternal and everlasting after the worms have had their feast.

Woody: In Hell the worms never stop feasting. I won't feel what the worms do to my body, you on the other hand -- well let's hope not.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Woody: A justifiable reason for divorce: The partner is unfaithful, and can not be trusted. This is more than just sexual unfaithfulness, it also includes ongoing physical abuse by a spouse, or any other behavior that shows a continual lack of regard for the other person. Being faithful means continuing to love that person you marry. If you love them you will not commit adultery, etc, etc, etc.

B,H&N: These statements are an invention of man. You have no biblical basis.

Woody: So in your opinion, if a husband is a heavy drinker, beats the crap out of his wife everynight, doesn't work a job, takes everything the family has and gambles it away, sleeps around with anyone he can find, threatens to kill the wife if she goes to church, spends every other night in jail, and sexually abuses the kids, you don't think that is a just cause for a divorce? What do you suppose Jesus would say?

Any ladies here like to agree with MR. BehereNow? Anybody here want to agree with MR. BHN?

 

We are talking about what Jesus did say, according to the bible. Or Paul, or anyone else. Not about what he might say. He might say the important thing is that two persons love each other, regardless of their sexes. I do believe he would say that.

The bible does not say she can not get diviorced, it just says she can never remarry (if her first husband is still living), and she will be an adultress. We're talking about your bible, not your opinion.

Lots of truths are not supported by the bible.

 

BHN: We are talking about what Jesus did say, according to the bible.

Woody: Yes, I understand what Jesus said according to the bible. There are also other passages in the New Testament of the bible to handle the "stickier" issues:

Biblical Divorce & Remarriage

Abandonment by a spouse allows the person to be remarried. If the spouse is an infidel and you are a christian, you are allowed to divorce and remarry (I Corinthians 7:12-15). Also, failure of the husband to provide for his family. This is pretty much the scenario I presented. The article covers a lot of the scenarios.

Woody: Allowances were made for divorce and remarriage, but no such allowance was made for homosexual relations.

 

Ok so basically if a person who lives a modest life claims to have been saved, then you agree. I thought as much.

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

What does that say of you when you as a Church member sin?

By the standards you outlined, you should be cast out of your church for a sin.
--------------------------------

You didn't answer my question. What you have basically said is that Jesus said is that Jesus said a man and woman will join bla bla. But that simply does not address my inquiry.

Did Jesus say gay marriage was wrong - or are you merely reading into the text something he did not actually say.

And what about the second question I asked? Did He say the (Protestant) Bible was the inspired Word of God?

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

Since anyone who superficially looks like they dont indulge in sinful pleasures can waltz up and claim to have had a saving experience, how do you know that you yourself are no longer a sinner (assuming you have 'repented')?
--------------------------------------------

Moses instructed his men to keep "alive for yourselves" the virgins. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the context - where he further requires that the virgins shouldn't already have known a man "intimately" - to grasp the meaning.

Was Moses a sinner for instructing the men to do this?
--------------------------------------------

So you have said. But I have repeatedly pointed out that a person can live a decent modest life similar to yours and would therefore qualify to be a Christian.

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

That is false since God is omnipotent. How then can God be "inhibited"?

I am tired of harping on how whether or not someone is "in good moral standing" is meaningless when determining their salvation. So let's move on: tell me, how do you know they are believers then? Simply because they say they are?

If you say yes, then you again disqualify your claim because the presence of such a person just might 'inhibit' the spirit of God from action.

Elitism is in no way hypocritical when anyone is allowed to enter. The small gate.

 

What a screwed up cult you belong to. The first problem that is noticeable with your "unbiased" facts is the lack of a true citation of sources. Indeed, your sources are not only suspect they are absent. You only stated that the source was a "homosexual researcher" who interviewed "144 homosexual couples.

The second problem is, even if we are gullible enough to believe that this information from a cult that is adamantly opposed to homosexuality and envisions a vast homosexual agenda to rule the world, the sample size is far too small to draw any worthwhile conclusions. The data are cursory at best and anyone with a legitimate background in research would agree. Indeed, your data, if it does originate from a "psychologist," doesn't originate from the psychological community itself as I'll demonstrate.

In short: your pastor is full of shit.

This is not far from accurate. Most research concludes that 3-6 % of adult males in the United States are homosexual with females rating at slightly less than that (Fay, Turner, Klassen, & Gagnon, 1989; Lever & Kanouse, 1996; Rogers & Turner, 1991)

Here's where your pastor is full of shit. There actually is some evidence to suggest that homosexuality has genetic roots. Homosexual males have been demonstrated to be more likely than you'd expect by chance to have homosexual brothers as well as homosexual maternal uncles and cousins on the mother's side (Hamer, et al, 1993). Near the tip of the Xq28 region of the sex chromosomes, researchers have found five identical markers shared by a high percentage of homosexual brothers. The evidence of a hereditary nature to homosexuality is clear, moreover, the pattern of incidence confirms this.

Now, having said that, one cannot simply say that because one has the "markers" for homosexuality, one will be homosexual upon maturation. These markers are more analgous to a recipe than a blueprint. Give an engineer a house and he can create a blueprint of it simply by close examination and perhaps by de-constructing it. A chef, however, cannot create a recipe simply by handing him a finished pastry. The parts cannot be closely examined enough or de-constructed to do it. This is what's involved in human maturation: a recipe of parts, isntructions (DNA) and conditions. This is why twin studies don't readily show the homosexual trend.

Again: your pastor is full of shit. Since we don't have an actual citation to the statistics you quote, we can easily toss them out as invalid. Here's a real statistic compiled by an actual researcher and I'll include an actual citation. During a one-year period at the Denver Children's hospital, a researcher reviewed the medical charts of 352 sexually abused children (Jenny et al, 1994). The conclusion was that the molester was gay or lesbian in only 2 of the 269 cases in which the molester could be identified. Using the fallacious logic you've presented to us in the past, you should be able to conclude that in 269 molestations, homosexuals are 267 times less likely than heterosexuals to be the perpetrator, right?

But that isn't exactly the correlation your pastor's provenience-lacking statistic was reaching for. Your pastor was attempting to paint a negative causation for lesbianism –and thus homosexuality in general. However, the data is suspect. Of the 144 gay couples interviewed, we don't know the context that this unknown researcher was working with. Was he a psychologist with an organization that specialized in dealing with abuse victims? What demographic was his sample from? What cross-section of society? What age group? Were age groups evenly represented? Was he a counselor for victims of Christian priests?

We don't know. Because your pastor doesn't want his flock actually using their own thoughts. It's safer to have them stick with the thoughts that have already been approved by the cult center.

Dare I say it? I will: Your pastor is full of shit. The Centers for Disease Control lists (2003) 405,926 living with AIDS. I think we can all agree that AIDS is not discriminatory as to whom it kills. 77% of that 405,926 people were male. Of that 77%, the percentage of men who engaged in sex with men was only 58%. I don't see where the "1 thousand times more likely to die" figure comes from and neither do you.

Again, we have to consider the provenience of the quoted statistic and the lack of context and basically throw it out. It is as much an anecdote as the rest. But since we are on the subject of faithfulness, lets consider the actual and cited statistics of divorce in the United States. The U.S. Census Bureau reports (2002) that 50% of all marriages will end in divorce based on past census data collected. The Barna Research Group (1999) concluded that divorce rates among conservative Christians was much higher than among other faith and non-faith based groups, including atheists and agnostics.

Dubious statistics. Are we still talking about the 144 couple sample size? From this we are drawing conclusions of the "average homosexual male?" Even you aren't that ignorant, Woody. Give us a citation to this statistic or withdraw it.

I will. I say your pastor is not only a bigot, he's full of shit.

The tactics he uses is that which creates an "other" designed to maintain the integrity of the cult which he leads. The homosexual is demonized and made out to be an "abomination" of a supernatural being that the cult worships, creating a common enemy. This, my friend, is hatred. A very subtle form that has plausible deniability ("hate the sin, not the sinner," etc.), but hatred nonetheless. Homosexuals are effectively excluded and not loved by your cult, indeed misinformation is passed about as if it were scientific in order to give the bigot-pastor / cult leader credibility while simultaneously painting an negative picture of the homosexual. That picture is misinformed and inaccurate, therefore deception is at work, a deception that creates a sentiment of hatred among the cult following that, when challenged about this hatred, presents a very hypocritical display of piety and answers: "I don't hate the homosexual, I hate the homosexual lifestyle."

You are obviously well-indoctrinated and brainwashed into the cult itself. It's really a shame that you don't actually think for yourself, but instead accept the words of your cult leader without question.

What sources did your pastor list? Rather than require everyone to listen to a sermon (your real goal, by the way), why not simply cite these and let us read the original work. Many of us are in academia and have access to wonderful libraries and peer-reviewed journals and would love to read the original sources in their original contexts rather than the biased contexts of bigoted cult leaders. Especially one that begins his sermon trying to sell tapes from the cult's bookstore.

It says far more about adultery, yet this remains a far more common practice than homosexuality. That fact is indicative of the true nature of the hypocritical Christian cult. If they really wanted to promote family values and be paragons of virtue, why don't Christians focus on adultery with the same fervor and energy that they do homosexuality? Adultery has clear problems that can be created within societies where polygamous relationships are taboo, homosexuality, however, does not.

There is absolutely no reason that you can give that can demonstrate homosexuality is bad for society without quoting cult documents from societies that still stoned to death women for adultery, children for being impertinent, and those who failed to keep the Sabbath.

I'm not as forgiving as Stefan. I believe that cult activism needs to be countered by free-thinking people in order to save society from their ignorance. Your words above are indicative of your hypocrisy, since you've done your share of context removal and word-twisting in this forum. That you would characterize and compare someone who was irritated at that practice to a pedophile says more about you than they. Indeed, your credibility may have reached depths from which recovery is not possible.

References

Avert.org (2003). United States HIV and AIDS Statistics: U.S. Summary. found at: http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm

Barna Research Group, (1999) "Christians are more likely to experience divorce than are non-Christians," DEC-21

Fay, R.E., Turner, C.F., Klassen, A.D., & Gagnon, J.H. (1989). Prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men. Science, 243, 338-348.

Hamer, D.H., et al (1993) A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261, 321-327.

Jenny, C., Roesler, T. A., & Poyer, K. L. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94(1), 41-44.

Lever, J., & Kanouse, D.E. (1996). Sexual orientation and proscribed sexual behaviors. In G. Herek, J. Jobe, & R. Carney (Eds.), Out in force: Sexual orientation and the military (pp. 15-38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rogers, S.M., & Turner, C.F. (1991). Male-male sexual contact in the USA: Findings from five sample surveys, 1970-1990. The Journal of Sex Research, 28, 491-519.

United States (2002). 2002 Census Bureau Report On Marriage And Divorce. found at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-80.pdf

 

S/W: What a screwed up cult you belong to. The first problem that is noticeable with your "unbiased" facts is the lack of a true citation of sources. Indeed, your sources are not only suspect they are absent. You only stated that the source was a "homosexual researcher" who interviewed "144 homosexual couples.

Woody: There you go on your presumptuous stereotypical atheist bandwagon -- talk about biased -- WOW!. The sources are forthcoming. I explained that. I quoted the statistics on memory. Our pastor has been working on this sermon for 11 months. He has been to many seminars, both for and against homosexual leadership in churches. He has counseled with numerous homosexuals, their families, with spouses that had their husbands leave them for a man, and many, many other life tragedies.

S/W: The second problem is, even if we are gullible enough to believe that this information from a cult that is adamantly opposed to homosexuality and envisions a vast homosexual agenda to rule the world.

Woody: Our church is not fundamentalist, and it makes NO political endorsements. It refused to endorse the Kentucky gay marriage amendment in the last election. There you go again -- JUST ASSUMING -- Now aren't you making a fool out of yourself?

S/W: The data are cursory at best and anyone with a legitimate background in research would agree. Indeed, your data, if it does originate from a "psychologist," doesn't originate from the psychological community itself as I'll demonstrate.

In short: your pastor is full of shit.

Woody: No actually you are, and your references are old. I noticed one of them is a University of Chicago study. Good, so is one of his.

S/W: This is not far from accurate. Most research concludes that 3-6 % of adult males in the United States are homosexual with females rating at slightly less than that (Fay, Turner, Klassen, & Gagnon, 1989; Lever & Kanouse, 1996; Rogers & Turner, 1991)

Woody: Our study was performed in the USA where we live.

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

Originally Posted by Woody
There is no homosexual gene, it comes from a variety of factors, but not from genetics. The proof is that in identical twins one can be homosexual and the other heterosexual. This data was produced by a homosexual researcher trying to prove otherwise. ”


S/W: Here's where your pastor is full of shit. There actually is some evidence to suggest that homosexuality has genetic roots. Homosexual males have been demonstrated to be more likely than you'd expect by chance to have homosexual brothers as well as homosexual maternal uncles and cousins on the mother's side (Hamer, et al, 1993). Near the tip of the Xq28 region of the sex chromosomes, researchers have found five identical markers shared by a high percentage of homosexual brothers. The evidence of a hereditary nature to homosexuality is clear, moreover, the pattern of incidence confirms this.

Woody: Actually you are full of it. Your reference is 12 years old. It has been further evaluated. If homosexuality was genetic then ALL identical twins would be either heterosexual or homosexual. I'm sorry S/W but you odviously don't understand genetics. Your genetic myth is just that. Our pastor has counseled with many homosexuals. THey all admit it is a leaning they give into -- there is choice involved. 66% of all male homosexuals that want to become heterosexual are successful.

There is no effective way of predicting who will be homosexual based on genetics. This again was concluded by homosexuals who performed the study.

S/W: Again: your pastor is full of shit. Since we don't have an actual citation to the statistics you quote, we can easily toss them out as invalid. Here's a real statistic compiled by an actual researcher and I'll include an actual citation. During a one-year period at the Denver Children's hospital, a researcher reviewed the medical charts of 352 sexually abused children (Jenny et al, 1994). The conclusion was that the molester was gay or lesbian in only 2 of the 269 cases in which the molester could be identified. Using the fallacious logic you've presented to us in the past, you should be able to conclude that in 269 molestations, homosexuals are 267 times less likely than heterosexuals to be the perpetrator, right?

Woody: You got this one turned around backwards. The statement is that 2/3 of all lesbians were sexually molested as a child. I personally know 2 people that were molested as children. One of them, a boy, was molested by his housemaid, and he became a homosexual pedophile. The other, a female, was molested by her babysitter, and she became a bisexual.

How many homosexuals have you counseled with S/W?

S/W: But that isn't exactly the correlation your pastor's provenience-lacking statistic was reaching for. Your pastor was attempting to paint a negative causation for lesbianism –and thus homosexuality in general. However, the data is suspect. Of the 144 gay couples interviewed, we don't know the context that this unknown researcher was working with. Was he a psychologist with an organization that specialized in dealing with abuse victims? What demographic was his sample from? What cross-section of society? What age group? Were age groups evenly represented? Was he a counselor for victims of Christian priests?

Woody: The research sources are forthcoming. I will get them for you personally if they aren't posted on the church web site.

S/W: Dare I say it? I will: Your pastor is full of shit. The Centers for Disease Control lists (2003) 405,926 living with AIDS. I think we can all agree that AIDS is not discriminatory as to whom it kills. 77% of that 405,926 people were male. Of that 77%, the percentage of men who engaged in sex with men was only 58%. I don't see where the "1 thousand times more likely to die" figure comes from and neither do you.

Woody: There you go making a fool of yourself again. The source is forthcoming. By the way my sister worked in the AIDS ward as a counselor in Greensboro, NC. There were roughly 14 to 28 AIDS victims at any given time. Half of the AIDS victims were homosexual men, the other half were IV drug users or both. There weren't any that were heterosexuals in her AIDS ward. I know you really would like to believe otherwise. You must have a personal stake in this agenda.

S/W: The Barna Research Group (1999) concluded that divorce rates among conservative Christians was much higher than among other faith and non-faith based groups, including atheists and agnostics.

Woody: And a monogamous gay couple is almost unheard of.

S/W: Dubious statistics. Are we still talking about the 144 couple sample size? From this we are drawing conclusions of the "average homosexual male?" Even you aren't that ignorant, Woody. Give us a citation to this statistic or withdraw it.

Woody: I watched the presentation, and I am much better with numbers than memorizing all the references. But the statistics are forthcoming, give him a chance.

S/W: I will. I say your pastor is not only a bigot, he's full of shit.

Woody: NO actually you are the bigot here, you never gave him a chance. He is working with homosexual problems in our own congregation. Our congregation is almost ten thousand members. You have put on your atheist blinders and stereotyped before listening. You are the bigot. Anyone can see this.


S/W: The homosexual is demonized and made out to be an "abomination" of a supernatural being that the cult worships, creating a common enemy. This, my friend, is hatred. A very subtle form that has plausible deniability ("hate the sin, not the sinner," etc.), but hatred nonetheless. Homosexuals are effectively excluded and not loved by your cult, indeed misinformation is passed about as if it were scientific in order to give the bigot-pastor / cult leader credibility while simultaneously painting an negative picture of the homosexual. That picture is misinformed and inaccurate, therefore deception is at work, a deception that creates a sentiment of hatred among the cult following that, when challenged about this hatred, presents a very hypocritical display of piety and answers: "I don't hate the homosexual, I hate the homosexual lifestyle."

Woody: There you go stereotyping the pastor. You never met him. He is not trying to drive a wedge. He is trying with all his heart to reach these people and help them. He has a heart for homosexuals, where is yours?

S/W: You are obviously well-indoctrinated and brainwashed into the cult itself. It's really a shame that you don't actually think for yourself, but instead accept the words of your cult leader without question.

What sources did your pastor list? Rather than require everyone to listen to a sermon (your real goal, by the way), why not simply cite these and let us read the original work. Many of us are in academia and have access to wonderful libraries and peer-reviewed journals and would love to read the original sources in their original contexts rather than the biased contexts of bigoted cult leaders. Especially one that begins his sermon trying to sell tapes from the cult's bookstore.

Woody: Actually most of his resources were secular. S/W I think you have brainwashed yourself. You odviously have a dog in this fight.

S/W: I'm not as forgiving as Stefan. I believe that cult activism needs to be countered by free-thinking people in order to save society from their ignorance. Your words above are indicative of your hypocrisy, since you've done your share of context removal and word-twisting in this forum.

Woody: Stefan accused me repeatedly of being a child molestor, based on a couple of quotes he took out of context. I assure you I am not. Unfortunately, he would not accept my explanation, and do you approve of this mentality? If so then you are a poor communicator as well.

 

S/S said: I am tired of harping on how whether or not someone is "in good moral standing" is meaningless when determining their salvation. So let's move on: tell me, how do you know they are believers then? Simply because they say they are?

If you say yes, then you again disqualify your claim because the presence of such a person just might 'inhibit' the spirit of God from action.

Woody says: Churches operate on the honor system. What other way could we operate, besides taking a person's word for their faith?

You also seem to be confusing two issues: on the one hand all people commit sin (1st John 1:9). As a christian I am supposed to confess my sins on a daily basis. On the otherhand, you consider this equivalent to a lifestyle of sin, but It is not the same thing. Sin lifestyles include alchoholicism, drug addiction, prostitution, homosexuality, habitual adultery, sleeping around with various sex partners, etc. etc.

I'll have to answer the rest later.