Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: Christian Fellowship
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 22:38:21 +0200
Organization: www.usenetposts.com
Lines: 266
Message-ID: <c57224$s3s$0@pita.alt.net>
References: <ZCa5c.28628$4o3.12279@twister.socal.rr.com> <FSe5c.28651$4o3.2345@twister.socal.rr.com> <105b2ocr9mco27b@corp.supernews.com> <ybr5c.32507$4o3.24275@twister.socal.rr.com> <7f288f0.0403200544.2cdfb81e@posting.google.com> <a95611ff.0404070947.1f316607@posting.google.com> <c51usg$8su$0@pita.alt.net> <dc55e47f.0404081000.12e22453@posting.google.com> <c548sa$bg6$0@pita.alt.net> <dc55e47f.0404090512.e0e5056@posting.google.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:3091
Uzytkownik "Frank Pericope" <frank.pericope@oneimage.com> napisal w
wiadomosci news:dc55e47f.0404090512.e0e5056@posting.google.com...
> "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:<c548sa$bg6$0@pita.alt.net>...
> > Uzytkownik "Frank Pericope" <frank.pericope@oneimage.com> napisal w
> > wiadomosci news:dc55e47f.0404081000.12e22453@posting.google.com...
> > > "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
> > news:<c51usg$8su$0@pita.alt.net>...
> > > > Uzytkownik "Livid" <barthfv@telus.net> napisal w wiadomosci
> > > > news:a95611ff.0404070947.1f316607@posting.google.com...
>
> <snip for brevity>
>
> > > > >
> > > > > As a gay man who has seen endless atrocities at the hands of
> > > > > innumerable right-wing christians, I couldn't agree more.Those who
> > > > > claim to have the one and only truth, are the terrorists we see
today
> > > > > , be they muslim or christian.
> > > > > I fiercely defend religious liberty.But the very pinnacle of
hypocrisy
> > > > > is to "cherry pick" items out of the Old Testament and attempt to
> > > > > foist them on others.Believe what you will,but do not attempt to
> > > > > incorporate your beliefs into law. Then there is the phenomenon of
> > > > > creating perpetually,the negative mindset that leads directly to
> > > > > anti-gay violence & murder.The mother of a young college student
who
> > > > > was murdered in Laramie,Wyoming,said afterward, that she didn't
blame
> > > > > the young men who killed her son so much as society for giving
them
> > > > > permission to do so .Guess which segment of the population that
would
> > > > > be ?
> > > > > Livid
> > > >
> > > > Not us, that's for sure, so maybe she should make like OJ and go
after
> > the
> > > > real killers.
> > > >
> > > > Uncle Davey
> > >
> > > Unlike OJ, she didn't kill the victim. Unlike OJ, Matthew Shepards'
> > > killers have been caught.
> > >
> > > But unlike Livid, you don't have a clue, do you?
> > >
> > > Gee, Davey, tell me: how do you feel about gays and lesbians? Do you
> > > think they should be allowed to marry? Do you think they are sinners
> > > of a different nature than you or I?
> >
> >
> > I think my sins are no better than theirs, but I do feel that marriage
is
> > ordained between men and women.
>
> Why? 1 Timothy 4:1-5 specifically admonishes us against forbidding
> marriage or foods based on the laws of Moses. Or don't you like those
> verses?
I don't forbid marriage, I just don't redefine it to suit whatever people
think they need either.
>
> I know Paul is said to have ranted about gays. But he also said single
> Christians should not marry. Would you support laws that forbid them
> from marrying, too? If not, why the inconsistency, other than your
> personal preference?
He said they shouldn't marry if they have the gift of celibacy.
That doesn't apply in my case as you will appreciate from your copious
research into my chequered past.
>
> I have no objections to the same tax and
> > inheritance law priviledges being applied to their partnerships as to
ours
> > in democratic society, but I feel that they should look for another word
> > other than marriage to describe their civil unions.
>
> Ah, they should use the 'colored' restrooms, eh?
>
> I feel that they are
> > stealing from us when they apply the term marriage to their unions.
>
> Are hetero folks outside of Christianity 'stealing' from us when they
> call their unions marriage? Or by "us" do you mean all heteros? I feel
> *no* loss at extending marriage to cover homosexuals. In fact, I will
> feel a huge gain if our 'club' stops being so exclusive.
God didn't limit marriage to Christians, it was a Creation ordinance.
Of course, for people who don't believe in Creation, then marriage is just
something that can socially evolve as people see fit.
But I don't see it that way.
>
> If we
> > allow that, then why not three person marriages with bi-sexuals, or even
> > group marriages? Where's the cut-off?
>
> The cut-off is consenting adults.
Why should it be there? Why not include other species, if we're free to
redefine marriage as we see fit?
>
> As far as I am concerned civil society
> > can even recognise some of these less orthodox three way unions as well
and
> > give them tax and inheritance breaks, but please don't use the Biblical
term
> > for them, use another term.
>
> If you permit non-Christians to call their hetero unions 'marriage',
> why not homosexuals--unless it's just your personal predjudice?
>
All human beings that descend from Adam and Eve are able to join together as
man and woman and become one flesh.
There is no indication that same sex relationships have any such claim, in
fact there are counterindications in scripture to sexual activity between
people of the same sex. There is nothing wrong with people living together
who are friends but don't have sex, but I don't see that they need marriage.
If people have sex with people of the same gender, then want to live with
them in the way they see heterosexual people do in a single relationship,
then there is actually nothing to stop them doing it, but I take exception
when something which God gave to be used between men and women is applied to
them. Let them use their imaginations and come up with something else for
themselves, instead of aping the hetero way of doing things.
> How is your position different from allegedly 'Christian' positions
> that were held in opposition to interracial marriage? Google "Loving
> vs. Virginia" to see how a Virginia judge projected his personal
> predjudice onto the will of God to support his decision to uphold the
> law forbidding a white mand from marrying a black woman. It's
> sickening, and only removed from your position by degrees.
>
There is no scriptural ban on interracial marriages so that man set up his
own mind against scripture, and is on the same side of the divide as those
who want to administer marriage to smae sex couples now. He is closer to
your side than the fuindamentalist side. There is no room for racism in our
theology. That doesn't mean people don't try to be, but it is not in fact
supportable from a Christian perspective.
> > I also am not in favour of allowing adoption of kids by homosexual
couples.
> > If they can do deals amongst themselves with the lesbians and obtain
> > children through these deals, then I would not reduce their freedom to
keep
> > those children, but I would not put them in the adoption system.
>
> Why not? On what basis do your presume a 'homosexual' home would be no
> better than a foster home or orphanage? There are far more children
> awaiting adoption than hetero couples willing to adopt. You would
> condemn those children to further misery. Are you afraid homosexuality
> is contagious?
>
I cannot debate the situation in the states but in Europe the reverse is
true, and so we have to try to get babies for the people who want to adopt
them from places like Romania and Belarus, and from Asia.
If there is a problem with unwanted children in the US, then someone ought
to make a common US/UK agency. Not long ago a UK woman was forced to give
back the US child she adopted because she broke procedure and also social
services considered her an unfit mother. This was in the UK press a few
years ago.
> >
> > That's probably not toleration enough for your liking, but it's all the
> > compromise I am comfortable with, and already enough to make some
believers
> > wince at me for going too far.
>
> I have no doubt Jason Gastrich would disagree with even your smidgen
> of "separate but equal" tolerance.
>
Jason is more tolerant than many fundamentalists anyway.
> >
> > > Do you think making a joke about a murder committed by folks using
> > > your religions' morals as justification is funny?
> >
> > I think my reaction to Livid's post was justified. He says that a gay
was
> > killed, which was obviously not by evangelical christians as we are not
> > called to go killing gays, but his mother blames another group, guess
who,
> > rather than the boys killers.
>
> You cleary do not have a clue.
>
When he finishes with the leading question "guess which section of society
that would be?" whom do you suppose he had in mind? Especially after his
remarks from the previous paragraph about cherry picking in the old
testament.
I think I picked up the intention of his post loud and clear.
> Matthew's mother blames all who foster or accept intolerance for gays.
> It is not, despite your martyr complex, limited to ECs.
>
> >
> > If the gay guys own mother wanted to use his death as propaganda against
> > christians rather than blame the ones who actually did it, then I truly
feel
> > sorry for that dead guy, I really do.
>
> So a society which accepts predudice and bigotry and thereby
> reinforces the repression of homosexuality plays no role? He wasn't
> just a murder victim who happened to be gay. He was murdered *because*
> he was gay, Davey.
I know that. But Bible believers don't support murder of homosexuals.
>
> In a society where Christians are considered sub-human and are not
> given equal treatment by the majority of citizens or the government of
> that society, do only their killers deserve blame when one of those
> Christians is martyred for his faith? Or might the killers expect that
> they were doing society a favor?
>
The one and the other is true, but we are a force in society for justice and
not mob rule.
> > I find it insulting that we should be somehow smeared with a murder that
is
> > nothing to do with us. I thought it was a low tactic, and I felt free to
> > ridicule it. I'm not ridiculing the dead man. If everyone were like me,
he
> > would not be dead.
> >
> > Uncle Davey
>
> "We" are not smeared. Not you and I, and not all Christians. On the
> other hand, your unwillingness to accept homosexuals as fully human
> and your desire to force them to drink from a different fountain, as
> it were, does mean you share some of the blame, whether you like it or
> not. It's just a matter of degree.
>
They are fully human, and as such ought to have marriage on the same basis
as it is offered to all other human beings, namely, between people of the
opposite sex.
> And God help us if everyone were like you, Davey.
Don't forget to end on an ad hominem.
Uncle Davey
|
|