Nothing Surprises Me Anymore...

[tatmanfish]

i guees i did, i was wrong and im sorry for that mistake.

why do so many of your examples involve church heads and children. seems like the hatred may lie there with your own personal experiences.

you also need to look up the word deviant. Crime is a deviant behavior along with pedophilia(which is a crime). Saying Gay=pedophilia is the exact same as saying Black=crime.  there are people that perpetuate the stereotype(hence why they exist) but lumping an entire group of peole based on sexual preference is the same as grouping a bunch of people together based on skin color. so your saying that gay are a product of their environment(pedophilia)? and your also saying that criminals arent a product of theirs?  

Oh yeah, did i mention pedophilia is a crime?  

you are using the same logic as racists use to explain their bigotry....products of the environment and actions backed by the wrong doings of a minority of the group.

[tatmanfish]

For someone who's so against homosexuality, BucsGuru sure does know a lot about homosexual sex toys, ads in homosexual newspapers, and where in Southeast Asia to find young tail.

latent homosexual tendencies?  sounds pretty gay to me. 

[ufojoe]

[
http://www.snapnetwork.org/female_victims/kelley_abused_dozens.htm

Rev. Kelley says he abused dozens of young girls

By Kathleen A. Shaw, Telegram & Gazette - Saturday, May 11, 2002

The Rev. Robert E. Kelley admitted in a sworn deposition that he sexually molested “50 to 100� young girls while he was an associate pastor to St. Cecilia's parish in Leominster from 1976 to 1983.

Rev. Kelley, who on Monday was charged with rape for the second time, also said under oath that he had molested several other girls during his tenure at parishes in Southbridge, Lunenburg and Gardner.

[ufojoe]

According to this study of 10667 cases of alleged sexual abuse at the hands of a Priest, 20% of the victims were young females.

This study was probably carried out by gays, too.

http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/incident3.pdf

Instead, we have to wait for a liberal judge or judges, who probably are gay themselves, to step forward and aprove the marriage of two gays.

Now the judges are probably gay? LOL! You're so delusional it's not even funny any more.

[DailyRich68]

For someone who's so against homosexuality, BucsGuru sure does know a lot about homosexual sex toys, ads in homosexual newspapers, and where in Southeast Asia to find young tail.

[ufojoe]

Like I said, the evidence supports that the majority of homosexuals aren't in a monogomous relationship desiring to raise children they adopt, but just the opposite. Most are younger, single, and giving into the lust of the flesh...and they prey on the young.

So, according to your psychotic logic, the majority of homosexuals prey on the young? Do you avoid gays because they're going to prey on your kids? You're a poor example to your kids if you're teaching them this bulls**t.

Care to follow up on your claim that I am angry with God and explain what you meant?

[tatmanfish]

Is it possible to sum this thread up in one sentence?

incoherent babbling with tons of people dodging the obvious, questions, and answers; sprinkles with truths and tons illogical ideals.


Guru- never once said you feared gays...in fact i think you have some gay in you. So you started a whole thread to state being gay is a sin. Are you yourself free from sin? i think not. im willing to bet youve sinned in your life along with everyone else. So your saying your sins arent as bad because you present yourself as straight? Not sure what your point was other than to play tattle tale to someone who doent decide the sinners fate then.....if in fact you were just stating that gay=sin.

im sure gays are going to change their sexual preference because you or your God stated it was a sin. i guess calling someone a sinner when you yourself are one, couldnt possible be hypocritical.

tiger- Native Americans were christians? what are you talking aout man? Im not talking about settlers or anything....native freaking americans....you know, indians. maybe i should read the only book in the world that states christians beliaved in jesus christ before the settlers ever came along.

Our founding fathers were as native as the Americans you describe...but your fathers may not be our fathers. And although the other guys were here when we got here, we don't know who they took it from.

Were you aware of the influence of The Great Awakening (1730's - 1770's) on political thought in America for the 40 years prior to the Revolution? How about The Second Great Awakening?

Have you ever read Thomas Paines "Common Sense"? It illustrates a cool mix of religious and political thought that is uniquely American.

While I do not hold entirely with the author (Christine Heyrman, PhD/American Studies Yale) of the essay linked below - it might possibly be more acceptable to you as it was written by a secular scholar and makes some of the same points I am referring to:

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/erelrev.htm

what are you talking about man? ive asked and you reply with more stuff completly unrelated to my original statement of native americans(indians that where here before settlers) where not christian. They were forced to become christian when europeans started settling here and thought the savages needed to abandon their beliefs and adopt their christian views. The europeans did this forcefully and killed many "savages" because they couldnt understand what they were saying, let alone abandon their heritage and religous beliefs for someone elses. hence my whole arugment on ethnocentrism.

i have taken several polital science classes and theology classes and am fairly aware thomas paines "common sense" as well as the "great awakening." you seem to be talking about the settlers that came here, when im talking about the people that were here before them. Native americans as a race and their religion were almost completely demolished and erradicated off the face of the earth for their lands and religion.

all of that was to make my point of following the guidelines laid out in the different religious books, not neccessarily the litteral meaning of the word within. this was a normal practice of that time, and through out much of religions history dating back to the crusades and even back to times where greek "mythologoy" and norse "mythology" were the main religions of society.

as someone else pointed out, people that work on sabbath are to be stoned. We as a civilization have decided thts probably not as Godly as it was say 2000 years ago. So do we selectively choose what information the bible(or other religions) present us? No doubt in my mind. so when that information gets "outdated" its discarded and often forgotten or its not taken litterally.

IMO, society is still picking and choosing what words of the bible they going to live by literally, and what others they are going to dismiss to an act of the times. I find it hypocritical. thats why i think the messages most religions convey are great building blocks for morals. If you want to believe in a higher power, great, more power to you. I als think however if you hold the words in these books to the a very literal sense, your just ignorant to your own hypocricy.

im not trying to change anyones religion or make them doubt their religion. Im just presentin different points of view for people to hopefully take a bigger look at how they interpet the words of those books and what they have meant throughout history, not just in our lifetime.

But because i dont believe in God, im the bad guy destined to the eternal pits of hell. Thats what some religions or religious people would have me labeled regardless of the fact that 99% of my moral values coincide with those of most religions.

[The White Tiger]

Just for clarification sake am I to assume that tolerance of homosexuals would be no different than tolerance of torture and murder, pedophilia, beastiality, rape? Is this your belief BG, OBD, WT?

Tolerance is a bad choice of words. It is the acceptance as a society that makes it wrong. We don't accept pedophiles in our society do we? We don't accept murder in our society? Although they exist and commit such acts means we have to tolerate them, doesn't mean we have to accept them. There is no doubt homosexuals exist and we have to tolerate that, but to accept the deviant behavior as normal is not. Clearly we live in an age where men lock up daughters in dungeons and children with them just to fulfill lustful desires, and we have to tolerate that...not accept it.

What are you talking about? Since when have we "tolerated" murder and pedophilia?

Since when have we - as a country - voted to put homosexuality on the "tolerate" list?

(By the way - who's the keeper of the "tolerate"/"non-tolerate" list?)

You may not realize it, but sodomy is illegal - it's a way to illustrate the behavior we won't tolerate in our society.

The states where it isnot illegal - figured it wasn't necessary to make a law describing what no one in society accepted.

For a long time there was a tradition in New England to send homosexual children into the priesthood and church ministry where celebacy was part of the religious credo. It was assumed that this would  allow those that could not control their deviant desires a way to still be productive members of society...only to discover that ta vow of celibacy was not enough to distract them from their desires...

And one more thing - if Homosexuals are "born" why would it be so hard to imagine that social deviants (like violent sociopaths and pedophiles) aren't, too?

As we corrupt our morality - why there's potentially no end to the deviant behavior we could mine for political power!

[ufojoe]

what are you talking about man? ive asked and you reply with more stuff completly unrelated to my original statement

LOL. That's why you see less and less people responding WT's rambling posts. He has a tendency to ignore what you post and you'll be forced to
make your point over and over before he addresses it. Best advice to you: don't bother.

[tatmanfish]

what are you talking about man? ive asked and you reply with more stuff completly unrelated to my original statement

LOL. That's why you see less and less people responding WT's rambling posts. He has a tendency to ignore what you post and you'll be forced to
make your point over and over before he addresses it. Best advice to you: don't bother.

white tigers are a result of consistent inbreeding....lol.

it doesnt really matter to me if he does or not. thanks for the heads up though.

[BucsGuru]

Let it go Joe, let it go.  It is obvious we will not agree on the issue of homosexuality, so the discussion needs to end.  Let's just say we both know where we stand on the issue.  

[GameTime]

Let it go Joe, let it go.  It is obvious we will not agree on the issue of homosexuality, so the discussion needs to end.

so lock your thread.

[BucsGuru]

Great Idea GameTime!

[The White Tiger]

what are you talking about man? ive asked and you reply with more stuff completly unrelated to my original statement of native americans(indians that where here before settlers) where not christian. They were forced to become christian when europeans started settling here and thought the savages needed to abandon their beliefs and adopt their christian views. The europeans did this forcefully and killed many "savages" because they couldnt understand what they were saying, let alone abandon their heritage and religous beliefs for someone elses. hence my whole arugment on ethnocentrism.

i have taken several polital science classes and theology classes and am fairly aware thomas paines "common sense" as well as the "great awakening." you seem to be talking about the settlers that came here, when im talking about the people that were here before them. Native americans as a race and their religion were almost completely demolished and erradicated off the face of the earth for their lands and religion.

I know this is a bit old - but I'm just now getting through the thickett of web-site updates - thus the reason for the lateness of my response.

First - whatever political science classes and/or religious studies classes you took - may have had ulterior motives, atheism (a belief in disbelief) does not share power with theism - it is hostile to it.

Regardless, they did not tell you the truth about American protestant missionaries[/b]. From my education and experience I can share a couple of things about Christian evangelism. The founder of our faith commanded us to evangelize (share the good news of Christ and the things I have done for you) with the whole world. Evangelism is done persuasively, NOT by coersion (using some type of leverage to gain converts). While there certainly are religions/sects that use coercive proselytizing...but protestant Christianity is NOT one of them. There is a big difference between attempting to persuade and commanding someone to convert - the pilgrims and protestants in America came here due to religious persecution. The King of England AND the Pope persecuted them. American protestant missionaries to the natives did not evangelize in order to exploit them - the Christian protestants were called to persuade by meeting the needs that the natives would allow them to, educating them in English, etc. It is due to the relationship that developed between the pilgrims and the natives that we have the American tradition of Thanksgiving. I'm sure there are instances where men put their goals in front of God's - but in this country that is the exception, not the rule.

So that is the reason for the reference to the Thomas Paine (Protestant) and the (Protestant) Great Awakening - because our religious traditions were NOT in keeping with the Church of England, nor the European Catholics. We understand religious persecution first person, personal. It would be a bit ironic to have seen Christian Protestants attempt to forcibly coerce anyone into converting to their beliefs (especially threatening death if they didn't convert) because THAT (coercive proselytizing) had already culminated in the persecution of the Spanish Inquisition (Catholic persecution of non-Catholic heresy, that became protestant Christianity). Persecution of anyone deemed a non-Catholic heretic and basic corruption in the Catholic church led first to an attempt to reform the church - and later protestors completely broke with Catholocism - now known as the birth of Protestant Christianity.

So, perhaps from this perspective you can see why I am dubious as to the teaching you recieved, by men invested in discrediting any God.

all of that was to make my point of following the guidelines laid out in the different religious books, not neccessarily the litteral meaning of the word within. this was a normal practice of that time, and through out much of religions history dating back to the crusades and even back to times where greek "mythologoy" and norse "mythology" were the main religions of society.

As I have hopefully illustrated - persecution and coersive proselytizing are NOT tools Christ gave his people in order to accomplish HIS final commandment. He asks us to persuade...

as someone else pointed out, people that work on sabbath are to be stoned. We as a civilization have decided thts probably not as Godly as it was say 2000 years ago. So do we selectively choose what information the bible(or other religions) present us? No doubt in my mind. so when that information gets "outdated" its discarded and often forgotten or its not taken litterally.

NO, you see, selectively choosing what to believe and what to ignore - leads to tyrants. If you understood Christianity, you would know that the Old Testament is used to illustrate the expectations of a perfect being. Man rebelled from God and implied that he was AS God - so God held him accountable for this. Man could not be perfect so God provided a solution.

IMO, society is still picking and choosing what words of the bible they going to live by literally, and what others they are going to dismiss to an act of the times. I find it hypocritical. thats why i think the messages most religions convey are great building blocks for morals. If you want to believe in a higher power, great, more power to you. I als think however if you hold the words in these books to the a very literal sense, your just ignorant to your own hypocricy.

Each translation is from the original text. No one has changed the original essence.

May I remind that eliminating Christianity (or ANY religion) led to hundreds of millions of death - in the several societies founded upon Atheistic concepts.

The problem is man makes a poor deity. It is obvious that man needs a deity - because he has proven to be a beastly God - even when he makes his own rules - he decides to break THOSE...

im not trying to change anyones religion or make them doubt their religion. Im just presentin different points of view for people to hopefully take a bigger look at how they interpet the words of those books and what they have meant throughout history, not just in our lifetime.

At least some have books that require them to reign in their desires and perform to a standard - that have not changed - others would have you believe that man makes his own rules. What we learned from that experience is if man does not have a deity, then any man that has a will to power takes it and becomes a brutal beast...so any argument attempting to assert that their is no God and there shouldn't be - can't support their own argument. We don't have to point back hundreds of years to disprove that...we only have to look back to 1917, 1933, 1948, 1949, 1958....

But because i dont believe in God, im the bad guy destined to the eternal pits of hell. Thats what some religions or religious people would have me labeled regardless of the fact that 99% of my moral values coincide with those of most religions.

No, that is what the founder of our religion - Jesus - states. We're all sinners, some have accepted a gift of graceful salvation from our own tendencies...but the gift is open to all...it is only exclusionary by the rejecting party.

One might even say, rejection is judgemental...almost seems like judging and judgmental people...are the norm.

Some like taking mock offense to the judgements of others - while ignoring their own...judgemental behaviour...

Some ...present company excluded...I'm sure...

I enjoy the dialectic, more than debate...even though some would have you believe I'm an adherent of rheotric...rather than a sudden shift, I'm hoping for a set of gradual turns...aren't you?