digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Homosexual "nuns" mock Christianity

worldnetdaily.com — A San Francisco-based homosexual organization that has run "Revival Bingo" and whose members have taken communion in a Catholic church in full costume regalia chose Resurrection Sunday to stage its 2008 "hunky Jesus" competition.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • moolaismyfriend, on 03/26/2008, -19/+14That's hilarious. Much better than molesting defenseless children in the name of Jesus.
    • mcrunch2, on 03/26/2008, -4/+8yes, better that the NAMBLA, '8 is to late', crowd do this. However, they are not doing it in the name of Jesus.
      • CryRightardCry, on 03/26/2008, -5/+5LOL
        Just going to ignore the paedophila and pretend NAMBLA somehow has anything to do with it.
        So the above comment mentions paedos, and you immediately think of updating your NAMBLA contact info.
        The sad part is children WERE molested in the name of Jesus by a corrupt church.
        The sooner you accept and fight to end the corruption you'll actually be on the path to being a Christian.
    • LadyAmerica, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1Moolaismyfriend, your comment "Much better than molesting defenseless children in the name of Jesus."

      I assume you are referring to the problem of priests molesting boys. That happens/happened because of homosexuals in the priesthood. Homosexuals, sodomites, anus lovers, and other such perverts should never be allowed around children!!!
  • 10QGZus, on 03/26/2008, -11/+18Only Christianity can be mocked, blasphemed and ridiculed without retribution. If these homosexuals were to attack Islam, there would be an outcry so loud and a demand for an apology.

    If Christians choose to disagree with homosexuality, they are branded "haters". But homosexuals can take the Christian holy day of Easter and defame it and no one bats an eye.

    Once again, the double standard in this country is abominable. Those who choose to treat Jesus Christ in this manner are sad, sorry individuals. They are threatened by Him, His Word and His Church, so they must be on the attack at all times. It's the only way they can justify their lifestyle choice. Deep down inside, they KNOW their lifestyle is wrong, so by blaspheming and defaming Jesus Christ is the only way they can feel better about their choices. It's sad, because they only way to know true peace and contentment in your life is through a relationship with Jesus.
    • moolaismyfriend, on 03/26/2008, -15/+5lol, ***** retards. ha ha ha ha.

      Man you are so ***** clueless. What a ***** retard.

      You are a disgrace to the history mankind.
    • ThoughtfulWi, on 03/26/2008, -4/+6Who are you to say these people DON'T have a relationship with Jesus. And yes, nothing says more about Christianity, and the American way, than that this can go on, and nobody gets beheaded for it. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
      • gdscjs, on 03/26/2008, -1/+8Jesus said "you will know them by their fruit [deeds]". One thing's absolutely sure - you would NEVER see Jesus acting this way in God's temple or in the Garden of Gethsemane. Why was He crucified? By only SAYING He was God! Can you imagine how the religious community would have responded to Him if He had acted like these blasphemous God haters? Someday we'll see the truth and I would hate to be standing before God in the shoes of these people!
        • ThoughtfulWi, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2Jesus did not spend his entire time on this planet in the temple and in Gethsemane. He seemed to enjoy having a good time to the point that he was accused of being a gluttonous man and a drunkard. I understand he also made an excellent wine. Hey, I'll take a hunky Jesus concept any day over the typical lugubrious, morose , brooding Jesus portrayed to look like Charles Manson, which is how he has been presented. The pale Galileean. Yuk. HUNKY JESUS RULES!
    • Phrag, on 03/26/2008, -4/+7"If these homosexuals were to attack Islam, there would be an outcry so loud and a demand for an apology."
      Actually homosexuals regularly speak out against the poor treatment of other homosexuals in some predominantly Islamic countries. If you call homosexuality a sin or a crime, expect them to speak out against you, regardless of your religion.
      • readwriteblue, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Such protest can only happen in Denmark or Israel.
    • izackcarson, on 03/26/2008, -2/+6Since most people in this country who have been negatively affected by religion have been affected by christianity, and since christianity is the most dominant religion in this nation it only stands to reason that people have more of a vested interest in fighting back against christianity than in fighting back against any other. Numbers always rule.
    • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4And if they did "blaspheme" against Islam, Islam would of course be correct to seek vengeance against them, right.

      Don't you hold to what Christ said about turning the other cheek? I should think you would take such recommendations seriously. Blaspheming against your God, who can presumably look after himself, doesn't harm you in any way. After all, you know the "truth", and the unbelievers are only damning themselves. Or are you really concerned for their souls...
      • readwriteblue, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Meeting violence with violence is not WJWD. But sadly, is all too common in this world.
    • rootneg2, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4"the *only* way to know true peace and contentment in your life is through a relationship with Jesus."?

      There are many paths to happiness, well-being, and satisfaction with life, the universe, and everything.
  • ThoughtfulWi, on 03/26/2008, -12/+6Why assume Jesus would not think this is pretty funny? And all in good fun? What I think might really piss Jesus off, is this god awful contemporary "christian" music. Now that is an enormity of staggering proportions. And keep in mind, WND is a publication which thinks it indecent to print the word, penis. Oops,I meant p----.
    • spinningplates2, on 03/26/2008, -4/+9World Net Daily has many problems but they can't be at fault here. If you think Jesus would think this is funny, wait till you see Him in judgment. You won't be so flippant then.
      • ThoughtfulWi, on 03/26/2008, -4/+4Sure I'll be flippant; it's one of my most lovable qualities. And Jesus loves me.
        • lorrie4dad, on 03/26/2008, -3/+5To ThoughtfulWi, I will pray that Jesus touch your life and bless you with a very real knowledge of His saving grace. Yes Jesus does love you just as He loves all sinners, but He desires your love and acceptance in return.
          Matthew 7:21-23 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
        • Nannybell, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4TW, your comment was disgusting. I'm sorry your thinking is in the gutter. You lack respect for other human beings.
  • spinningplates2, on 03/26/2008, -6/+14Laugh it up while you can because you are going to be judged by Jesus and if you think he is going to excuse you because some other people sinned by molesting kids you are in for a big surprise, God will not be mocked, He will have the Final say.
    • oregonguy, on 03/26/2008, -3/+4You're absolutely right.
    • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -4/+4Wouldn't God have a correspondingly large sense of humor, and still love the sinner, since they really aren't hurting anyone?

      I mean if you really think people get damned for being annoying, you're all in a hell of a lot of trouble.
      • karishore, on 03/27/2008, -3/+3If you are a believer in Christ (def of Christian = "Christ-like"), you will be like Christ. A believer has a personal relationship with Christ. .. And God. God is not mocked. There will be judgment. "so as in the days of Noah, will the last days be." This is NOT funny. It is mocking God. You won't be damned for being annoying, you'll be damned for your unbelief. Revelation 20:11:15 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
        • readwriteblue, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2I would not myself be so sure I know the mind of God.

          But...

          Isn't Satan suposed to be able to quote scripture to lead people astray?
          Aren't we not suposed to judge lest we be judged?
          Isn't there great joy in Heaven over the reformation of one sinner?
          So why aren't you spreading God's love by forgiving these sinners and tring to make a place for them at the table?

  • DOGODSWILL, on 03/26/2008, -7/+7 I just wrote a comment stating that this NUN , like all *****'S , will BURN in HELL , if they refuse to REPENT of such ACTIONS before they die .----------------and DIGG refuse to except it as the TRUTH of the BIBLE . Have any of you had this to happen to you .This is like the thinking of a MUSLIM (don,t speak the truth you might upset the ones that don,t want to here it .
    • Phrag, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3What did it actually say when you hit the submit button? Digg has a ton of bugs. Don't take it personally.
  • Taquoshi, on 03/26/2008, -6/+14It's really quite simple and straight forward.

    The light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:5) No more need be said.
  • Kaffir, on 03/26/2008, -6/+18Notice how we have the Sodomite police on here, undigging anything that might present homosexuality in a bad light? Yes, the article is right on.
    I'm not Catholic, but I think it rude to mock someone's religion, simply because you don't agree on all points. I most certainly don't, but I will defend their rights as Americans to believe, teach, and practice what they deeply hold to be the truth. It's sad when people, in the name of freedom, use these God-given freedoms for licensciousness and libertinism, the antithesis of what America is all about! (Freedom is not free, and yes, it's still true: God is NOT mocked! Yes, laugh now - pay later...
    • Lutrasimilis, on 03/27/2008, -4/+6"Notice how we have the Sodomite police on here, undigging anything that might present homosexuality in a bad light? "

      No, you just have some people who find the posts obnoxious and self-righteous, that's all.
      • Nannybell, on 03/27/2008, -3/+6You say THAT'S obnoxious, but the "homosexual nuns" mocking Christ are not? What a skewed view of life.
        • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4... the "homosexual nuns" mocking Christ's FOLLOWERS are not?

          FIFY.
  • denniswalters, on 03/26/2008, -3/+14Would they have dared to do this, or even been allowed to, if the religion in question had been Islam?
    • gdscjs, on 03/26/2008, -3/+9We all know the answer to that one! We can expect more persecution of Christians as the end draws near - it's just a further sign that Christ is coming back soon. And these people will bow their knee as will all humanity. What seems to be a moment of "freedom of expression/speech" to some mockers will one day throw them into an ETERNITY of bondage and despair. When you stand back and logically survey the odds, any rational thinking human being would align themselves with Jesus and His righteousness! What take the chance? What do you have to loose - other than eternal bondage and despair?
      • Lutrasimilis, on 03/27/2008, -4/+4"We all know the answer to that one! We can expect more persecution of Christians as the end draws near - it's just a further sign that Christ is coming back soon."

        Well see, this doesn't make sense to me then. If this is a sign of Christ's return you should be overjoyed to endure this perceived persecution. You should feel vindicated, and confident that the people you're so upset with right now will soon be enduring the worst possible agony for the rest of time. Strangely, that conviction is absent. It seems so very much more like human pride, and not faith, and -certainly- not God. Just more angry humans.
        • Nannybell, on 03/27/2008, -3/+5The behavior of these "homosexual nuns" is repugnant. It's intended to make fun of Christians. Repulsion at that is what you're hearing. I don't feel happy that people will lose their souls, but yes, I will be overjoyed if Christ is soon to return.
      • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3What Lutrasimilis said.

        @denniswalters: Irrelevant. Just because Islam is wrong doesn't mean that Christianity should join it in seeking vengeance for every slight. Nor does it make this behavior somehow worse than it is.
        • Nannybell, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4He meant that they wouldn't dare do this toward Islam because they would fear retribution.
        • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Still irrelevant. Its not Islam. Wouldn'ts and couldn'ts don't change anything. Or does might make right?

          If Islam wouldn't seek retribution, they'd make fun of it too. So what. You wish Christianity was like Islam?
          • Nannybell, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1If you have something intelligent, meaningful and relevant to say, I will respond.
  • gdscjs, on 03/26/2008, -3/+11Jesus said "you will know them by their fruit [deeds]". One thing's absolutely sure - you would NEVER see Jesus acting this way in God's temple or in the Garden of Gethsemane. Why was He crucified? By only SAYING He was God! Can you imagine how the religious community would have responded to Him if He had acted like these blasphemous God haters? Someday we'll see the truth and I would hate to be standing before God in the shoes of these people!
    • shanson13, on 03/26/2008, -2/+81 Corinthians 1:18-20 (New Living Translation)
      New Living Translation (NLT)

      The Wisdom of God
      18 The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God. 19 As the Scriptures say,
      “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
      and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.”[a]

      20 So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish.
  • mcrunch2, on 03/26/2008, -4/+11I am sorry to see these guys get so much press. But then, the press is all for promoting this kind of stuff.
    • Phrag, on 03/26/2008, -3/+7I know I would have attended church more often if they had clowns.
      • Nannybell, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4Hell will be full of such clowns. How tragic.
        • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -4/+3Its funny how Hell gets all the cool people that are probably interesting to talk to, and Heaven all the boring, preachy ones.
        • Nannybell, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3In eternity, we will not see things as we see them now. There won't be any interesting conversations in hell. In hell, there will be no concept such as "interesting." It will be a place that is totally devoid of anything that gives comfort on any level in even the smallest way. It is God's maintaining of this world in which we live that affords any comfort to anyone. Once a person becomes eternally separated from God, all comfort will be gone.
          • VogonPoetry, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Will there be interesting conversations in heaven? What else will there be to do there?
          • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Right, and there will be noone worth talking to in heaven. I get it. Damned either way, really.
          • Nannybell, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1ST, that's precisely the reason you most likely won't be in heaven, i.e., you don't find God interesting. Now, I say that based on your past comments leading me to believe you do not believe in God or in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

            VP, I assume that is a smart alecky question. I'll answer it by saying that I have no idea what we will do in heaven, but we won't be floating on clouds playing harps all day. If you find spending eternity with the Creator of the Universe a boring prospect, then it's really tough to entertain you, isn't it.
  • oceanrain, on 03/26/2008, -5/+12Just more disgusting behavior from people that have no respect for others' beliefs. And ***** always cry that they do not get respect?
    • lorrie4dad, on 03/26/2008, -3/+6Exactly! And how can they expect respect when they behave like this.
      • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -3/+3What you might not realize, is that one of these nuns could be a respected pastor of a major congregation in drag.

        .... just sayin ...
        • these3remain, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1And if he was, he is apostate and should be brought before his congregation and disciplined.
  • sexydarin, on 03/26/2008, -6/+7Time to drag a fag through a public square and mock *****.
    • Lutrasimilis, on 03/27/2008, -4/+5Time to grow up, son.
    • Nannybell, on 03/27/2008, -2/+6There is no need to stoop to the same level as these "homosexual nuns" in the remarks you make.
      • ThoughtfulWi, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Stooping to the same level? Did these" nuns" advocate dragging a heterosexual through a public square to be mocked?
        • Nannybell, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2What those so-called "homosexual nuns" did is low life done intentionally to incite anger, and the comment by SD above is equally so. It is not Christians who advocate such things, TW. If they do, they are apostate.
    • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -3/+5I dugg you up, not because I agree, but because I have a keen sense of irony.
    • Nannybell, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2Irony about what? I don't think people should be calling others tacky names like that.
      • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Well, theres the "its time to drag a cigarette through a public square and mock bundles of sticks."

        But I was thinking more along the lines of Mathew Shephard and what a Christian act it was. Sometimes the best way I can illustrate what is wrong with people is to give them more publicity. +1 Digg.
        • Nannybell, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2What are you talking about? I didn't make any comment like that.

          As to Matthew Shephard, why on earth are you saying that has any connection to Christianity? The people who committed that crime are in no way presented as Christians. And please don't point to the Fred Phelps character, because that man is not a Christian... he claims to be, but the majority of Christians want nothing to do with his evil and do not claim him as a fellow Christian. So, where is the valid connection between actual Christians and the perpetrators of this murder? There are millions of Christians worldwide who spend their lives quietly doing good for others, and you defame them by connecting them to the murder of Matthew Shephard.
        • StaticThunder, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1I didn't claim all Christians hate gays.

          I am not even sure this person is a Christian. But if he does not style himself one, then why would he be offended? Was what happened to Shephard Christian? No. But this person is calling for it to be repeated.
  • michael4lsu, on 03/26/2008, -5/+6This type of despicable behavior is all too common with the vile homosexual community. It seems every other day we see a new report about something abhorrent that the queers have done to mock others or force their (im)morality on the rest of us or display their intolerance and hate. Queers can get away with this and more, while Christians get arrested and convicted for praying in a park?
    • oregonguy, on 03/26/2008, -2/+4It's the times we live in. Hang on, it's going to get worse!
    • barandon0D9, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5Someone was arrested for praying in a park?
      • Nannybell, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Yes indeed. They were arrested for supposedly disrupting either a homosexual parade or an abortion event...(don't recall which... probably the parade) by praying.
      • Taquoshi, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Yeah. Google "Elmira, New York" and it should come up. The Christians weren't allowed to cross the public street to the park or enter the city park for the festival which was supposedly open to all, and then were arrested for praying silently on the sidewalk and supposedly causing a "distribuance". They were also told they could not share their faith with anyone. The judge in the case upheld the ruling and fined four people $100 each. It's since been appealed and is going back to court.
  • Look4Truth, on 03/26/2008, -3/+10See, it's "ok" to do things like this but if a pastor preaches about homosexuality in church, they want to burn down the building. And for those of you who don't believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, ask yourselves why any religion or idol is acceptable EXCEPT for Him.

    Consider it. Ponder it. Believe it.

    John 3
    • keithgplayer, on 03/26/2008, -3/+10Have you noticed that nothing about Christianity can be taught or practiced in schools, but children today are taught about gay lifestyles and atheism. I also noticed that no one discusses this hypocrisy, and to do so makes the person who brought it up intolerant. Talk about your double standards.
      • Look4Truth, on 03/26/2008, -3/+8Yep, more signs of the times. The problem is that sin corrupts people and they don't want ANYTHING telling them to stop. If they only knew, and as I found out four years ago, the ONLY thing that is going to fill that empty void that everyone feels is Jesus Christ. That empty spot is reserved for HIM and ONLY Him. It took me most of my life to figure that one out. I tried all kinds of things to fill that void, my sins were vast. But I could NEVER, EVER fill that void...until June 12th, 2004 by the grace of God.

        But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! - 2 Timothy 3:1-5
      • Phrag, on 03/26/2008, -5/+9Where are kids taught about atheism? The reason religion can't be taught in public schools is because they are publicly funded and controlled by a secular committee. Homosexuality is a kind of sexuality and thus should be taught in sex ed. They don't attach morals to it so the kids are free to think it is wrong if they want.
        • keithgplayer, on 03/26/2008, -7/+5When God is taken out of schools, all that is left is atheism. Disagree all you want, but that is a fact. So you say schools are publicly funded eh. Where does that money come from? Tax paying citizens, who a majority of are Christians. It's nice to know that a secular committee knows best for the majority of citizens. It seems like to me, that the minority is always allowed a voice in what is taught to kids, but the majority is shunned for being intolerant.
          • Phrag, on 03/26/2008, -3/+9No. Atheism is the distinct belief that there is no god. Kids are not taught that there is no god. God, or the lack there of, is left out of it. A lack of religion is not atheism, its secularism. The minority gets no more leeway in this than the majority. Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and Judaism are not taught in schools either. Just because you are the majority, doesn't mean that your religious beliefs get special rights that others don't get. That was one of the very essential freedoms that was the basis of the constitution.
          • keithgplayer, on 03/26/2008, -3/+6"Kids are not taught that there is no god."

            Kids are also not allowed to express there belief in a God. There is a godless aura in schools. Am I saying that religion should be taught in schools? No, but if a child wants to pray in school, that child should not be deterred from doing what that child wants. As well, PC societal training should not be taught in schools. Sex education is the responsibility of the parents to teach there child, not the school, so in other words sex ed should not be taught in schools. If you want a true, fair teaching of children in schools, that offends nobody, then all that should be taught is reading, writing, arithmetic, history, science and the arts, with extra-curricular activities offered as well. Leave PC out of it.
          • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4Kids are not allowed to proselytize a captive audience of other students. They still have their first amendment rights, and no one is going to bother them about silent prayer. Maybe just not vocal prayer when its disruptive of the primary function of the school. This stuff HAS been through the courts, debated to death, and if there is something that egregious of the Constitution, maybe you should take it up again instead of being hyperbolic on digg.

          • keithgplayer, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4I see you love to say the issue is dead because it fits what you believe, so anyone else who disagrees be damned, right? To let you know there is nothing a school can do to stop a child from "legally" proselytizing in a school. If the school did stop a student that wanted to do that, then the school would be in violation of the first amendment. In the bible it is the duty of a Christian to spread the word of Christ, and if a student was in a conversation with another non-believing student talking about Christ on school property the school has no right to interfere.
          • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4The courts don't agree with you Keith. I never said the issue was dead, because people like you seem to think that instead of being a place where children go to learn, its a place where children go to exercise their first ammendment rights. But the courts don't hold that children have unabridged first amendment rights, especially when it interferes with the function of the school. If the school was truly public property, anyone could walk into it, unchallenged, whether student or not, and make a case that they be allowed to be there. This is obviously ridiculous.

            If a child wants to get a soap box and stand on a street corner spreading the word, he can, but the school has a public function to perform, and giving children free speech isn't part of it. And if it was merely a conversation with another student, it would never have made it to the courts in the first place. There is a fine line between "having a discussion at recess" and "distracting from schoolwork".

            What the Bible says is irrelevant. Just because you think you have a duty, doesn't mean the law is going to always agree with you. If you want to proselytize, there are places you can go to do it where you won't be bothering a captive audience.

            Go look up the cases.
          • keithgplayer, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3"What the Bible says is irrelevant. Just because you think you have a duty, doesn't mean the law is going to always agree with you."

            OK, read this. It's called the first amendment.

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

            Where in there does it say the bible is irrelevant. What part of "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" do you not understand. If it is a religious belief to tell those around you about Christ, then "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" should not be infringed. What are we teaching children if we say they have no constitutional rights in school? I don't care what a judge says if he/she is wrong. They are held to uphold the constitution as anyone else, and they are human and can get it wrong. Also it says in the bible that if a person refuses the message, for you to move on. So there is no harm for anyone to be talked to by a Christian trying to spread the word, because the person receiving the word has the right to refuse the word.
          • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Again, free exercise is prohibited in lots of places where the very function of the place is in jeopardy. You are not allowed to disrupt the function of a public institution because you want to speak there. Free speach doesn't mean you get to speak wherever you want. It just means that you must be allowed to speak. Yelling fire in a theater comes to mind. You don't get to abridge the rights of other students to assemble to learn because you insist on proselytizing.

            Likewise, if you can proselytize in a school, it means so can I. Is that what you want?

            You can't walk into my house either to proselytize, and thats not an abridgement. I'm not going to repeat myself again.
          • keithgplayer, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3"You are not allowed to disrupt the function of a public institution because you want to speak there."

            I'm talking about a child (who attends said school) in a "public" school during recess, or other free time given like lunch time, or in the halls in between classes, that is hurting no one or disrupting class, while speaking there mind. Tell me where the problem is there.

            "Likewise, if you can proselytize in a school, it means so can I. Is that what you want?"

            As long as it falls into what I said above, I can't see the harm.
          • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2And as I said, if children restricted themselves to those activities that don't disrupt the function of a school, it would never make it to the courts. But walking the fine line between your right to speak, and their right to study is apparently difficult. And now I'm repeating myself again. Good day.
          • tech42er, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4Static and keith, I think I agree with you. I've always held that the First Amendment means students should be allowed to ray if they are allowed to speak freely. So, in a class, they can't say whatever they want, but in recess or free time, they should be able to pray. There are some schools that do not allow students to pray AT ALL and this is a violation of their First Amendment rights. But schools don't really give a damn about First Amendment rights: look at the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. Regarding "yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater", isn't a theater private property? So they can certainly throw you out for yelling fire.
          • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3@tech42er The courts argue (IIRC) that schools aren't purely public property as they are purposed with a specific task, and the schools are the stand-in legal guardians for the students while they are on the property, so the students don't have the full protections of the bill of rights. Much like parents can abridge a minor's free association rights and not let them go out to the party, the schools can abridge the free speech rights (and right against unlawful search and seizure) when they are on school property "within reason". At least thats what the courts have held in cases I've heard of where lockers and backpacks are searched by school officials, and for dress codes and the like. I mean a dress code violates the 1st amendment too, strictly speaking. Some rights you give up in return for being allowed on school property.

            As an adult with no business there, I'm not allowed on at all. Makes sense to me. Public property doesn't mean I get to do with it whatever I want.

            As I said, if somebody wants to proselytize, they are free to do it on a street corner. At a public school, you have a captive audience. 1st amendment doesn't compel people to listen to what you have to say.

            The supreme court has said on several occasions that rights need to be balanced, and thus the argument will keep happening as each side vies for a little more.
          • tech42er, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3Well, I know the SC has said that "students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate". It obviously makes sense not to allow students to limit speech during class, but I see a larger issue when schools limit speech on students' free time at the school. And I don't just mean prayer; there is a lot of speech schools prohibit. Obviously, it happens, but I'm not sure it's right. As for myself, I was lucky enough to attend a fairly permissive (Jesuit) private high school, so I don't have much personal experience with the state-run school system.
          • eir574, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3tech42er: You're correct about the supreme court quote, of course, but StaticThunder is also right, and I courts have upheld limits on free speech in schools. In the case you're referring to, the supreme court didn't say that rights can never be abridged in schools, but just that they must be balanced against other considerations. When you send your kids to a public school, you're relying on the adults there to stand in your place and provide supervision.

            For example, when I was about 13 I had a friend who was a devout catholic. One day at lunch she asked people at our table if they were for or against abortion rights, and when some people said yes, she showed them pictures of aborted fetuses. That's free speech, but a teacher stopped her even though she was doing it during lunch instead of class. It was deemed inappropriate for our age group.

            The problem is that we ask teachers and administrators to find the line between freedom of speech and their mission to maintain an atmosphere in which the school can function. To be sure, some stand on the wrong side of that line from time to time. Proselytizing might sound harmless, but what if kids take it too far and start telling other students that they're going to hell? You can say that on a street corner if you want, but some schools may deem it inappropriate to say it to children. It's not a straightforward issue, and each situation has to be evaluated on its own merits. Because teachers and administrators can't be everywhere at once (and because they're very busy dealing with the educational mission of the school), sometimes they have to set down rules that may seem unnecessarily restrictive, but which they've decided are necessary based on their experience in their particular schools.
          • StaticThunder, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3"SC has said that "students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate".

            No, they don't. And if a school starts strip searching students when they walk in the door, locking them in cages, keeping them from contacting their parents or guardians, you can bet the constitutionality of it will be opposed. Its just a question of where the line is drawn. I have no problem with people praying outside of class, but I would with disseminating anti-abortion literature, or Jack Chick tracts to random other students, and many parents DEFINITELY would.

            If somebody wants to talk to their friend about the Kingdom of God during recess, I don't think its the schools job to monitor it, and they can't anyway.
        • Look4Truth, on 03/26/2008, -7/+5Evolution taught in schools IS atheism. There is no God, we're all made from magic space goo. And as far as homosexuality goes, people are not born with it, it is a product of a sinful lifestyle. If there were such a thing as a homosexual gene, it would have never survived evolution which atheists propose.
          • Phrag, on 03/26/2008, -3/+8Evolution is a scientific theory. It has nothing to do with atheism. They can believe that god created evolution if they want. How the hell would you know about where homosexuality comes from given that you are not one? You apparently know little to nothing about evolution, so you can believe what ever you want I suppose. Just don't expect many people to take you seriously.
          • Look4Truth, on 03/26/2008, -7/+4Evolution teaches that a big bang happened and there is no God, that by default IS atheism. You believe in a big bang and I believe in a big God. I believe the Bible when it says that homosexuality is a sin and you believe that we're descendants from monkeys and goo so it's ok to act like one.

            And as far as anyone taking me seriously about God, Jesus, and the Bible, I don't expect you or many people to take me seriously because that's how it is in the time we live...

            For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. - 1 Corinthians 1:18

            But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! - 2 Timothy 3:1-5

            Surprised? No. Sad? Yes.
          • Phrag, on 03/26/2008, -6/+8Evolution teaches that there was a big bang, it never said that god didn't create the big bang. Its secular science, not atheism. I don't believe in the big bang. I am agnostic and I believe that all you people who think you know everything are talking out your asses and saying stuff that can never be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

            Do you also take the parts of the Bible where they say not to cut your hair, eat shellfish or wear mixed fabric literally? I bet you don't.

            Do you always talk to yourself in your posts?
          • Nannybell, on 03/27/2008, -4/+3There goes another uinformed secular humanist with no knowledge of Christianity yet again talking about shellfish and mixed fabric as though that has something to do with Christian practice.

            God will be proven to you when you meet Him face to face, but that will be too late. Belief in God is completely rational and is in fact the only sane explanation for our existence.
          • eir574, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6Look4Truth:

            "Evolution teaches that a big bang happened and there is no God, that by default IS atheism."
            Evolution teaches neither of those things. Evolution is silent on how the universe came into existence. If you don't like the big bang theory, which is separate from evolution, then substitute any other explanation for the existence of the universe (religious, scientific, or otherwise). Whatever the truth is about how the the universe came into existence, it has no impact on the validity of evolutionary theory.

            As for whether evolution and god are incompatible, perhaps you can look at it this way: The theory of evolution, like all scientific theories, is a model that explains existing observations and predicts new ones. It does not purport to know some absolute truth, but only to approximate the natural laws that are part of that truth. If people choose to believe that evolution is an absolute truth rather than a model, that's a philosophical choice that they're making.

            If there is a god and there are also laws that describe the natural universe, science seeks to uncover those laws. The question of whether there is a deity in addition to the natural laws that we seek to discover is not within the realm of science. Again, those people who choose to apply scientific standards of evidence to the question of whether there is a god make a philosophical choice to do so, as the pursuit of science does not require it.
          • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5The new covenant didn't throw out the Levitical dietary prohibitions, at least not according to some scholars, Nannybell. http://www.abcog.org/food.htm

            I mean, yes, the prohibitions ARE ridiculous (speaking as an apostate), and yes, most Christians don't follow them (speaking as an informed person), but no, its not because the New Testament did away with them -- or at least there is some controversy on the matter. I don't think you can claim that just because someone cites them they know nothing about Christianity.
          • Nannybell, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2ST: You stated elsewhere that it irritates you when people talk to you about Jesus, so why are you arguing the Bible here? As to the dietary laws, the vast majority of sensible Christian theologians (not fringe elements) will tell you that Christ completely fulfilled the law of Moses, nailed it to the cross, and we are now under the law of Grace, not the Law of Moses. There are fringe elements who believe otherwise. If you are actually interested, you can easily do a study of it. I was addressing the fact that atheists often post comments saying things like "So, why don't you eat shellfish, then" -- which DOES disclose their lack of knowledge that the vast majority, as much as 99% probably, of Christianity believes what I have said regarding the Law of Moses, based on scores of passages in the New Testament that teach Christians are not to be caught up in trying to fulfill the Law of Moses.
          • Phrag, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5"There goes another uinformed secular humanist with no knowledge of Christianity yet again talking about shellfish and mixed fabric as though that has something to do with Christian practice." Actually, I have quite a bit of knowledge about Christianity. If you proclaim to live by the laws of the Bible (like the 'law' that says no homosexuality) then you should also live by the law that says no mixed fabrics. If you don't, then you really aren't following the Bible and are just cherry picking from it to justify your homophobia. Christian practice is following he Christian holy book, both old and new testament.
          • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6It also irritates me when people say "you don't know Christians like I know Christians". The only way to argue against that call to authority is to say, well, these people style themselves Christians and they disagree with you.

            If I don't cite scripture, people inevitably start going on about Biblical infallibility and use it like a sledgehammer to support their case, so what would you have me do. Be a good atheist and shut up? Either you believe these things or you don't, or there is dispute. It looks to me that there is dispute.
          • tech42er, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4Static, there's a good deal of controversy over dietary restrictions and circumcision. Many believe that since Christianity (originally, of course, a subset of Judaism) allowed Gentiles into the fold, and then was kicked out of Judaism, the requirements of circumcision and dietary restrictions no longer apply. They were certainly not followed by the early "Gentile" Christian communities. of course, unless you're a biblical scholar or theologian, this doesn't matter. Hell, many Reformed Jews (the most popular sect of Judaism in the US) don't even follow all the dietary laws. And no one still sacrifices at the Jewish Temple (since it was destroyed in 70 AD by the Romans).

            The idea that the Old and New Testaments are to be interpreted literally is ludicrous. I can understand if some people think homosexuality is immoral in some way (though I can never agree or sympathize with them) but basing that belief on Leviticus is crazy. The most important part of a religion is the theology, not the ritual, and the idea that the Roman Catholic Church never changes the latter is laughable. Beforeit became the official religion of the Roman Empire and Christendom dominated the post-Roman "Dark Ages", Christianity looked very different than it did today. And look at the popes throughout the Middle Ages and even in the 19th (and early 20th century). Pius IX, responsible for the doctrine of papal infallibility, believed refrigeration was too modern and unnatural! Eventually, the Church will have to deal with the idea of homosexuality, contraception, and other 2st century problems. Right now, they're being reactionary (just as they were 100 years ago) but we'll see what happens as the century progresses.

            /Catholic
            //preparing to be flamed
          • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4But you don't understand Phrag, when Christ is sacrificed, all the old rules were thrown out in spite of what Christ said about what he was doing, atoning for sin through a sacrifice in accordance WITH Levitical law.
          • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6@tech42er
            Well you're better informed than me, but you agree that these things are still being debated, even among Christians. One can't just say "don't presume to tell me the Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible they follow while declaring other parts really really important" when its clear that they do.

            /recovering Catholic
            //walks into fires
          • tech42er, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2@Static
            Well, I agree with you. Good luck. I'm going to retreat to non-religious/scientific flamewar threads. ;)
        • Nannybell, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4E:
          "Whatever the truth is about how the the universe came into existence, it has no impact on the validity of evolutionary theory."

          If God created the Universe and created us and all other life, then that definitely would have an impact on the validity of evolutionary theory. It would raise the question of the validity of how scientists are interpreting the *evidence* they are looking at.
          • eir574, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6I was referring to people who say evolution can't be valid unless the big bang theory is correct, or more generally unless there's some naturalistic explanation for the universe's existence. That's entirely untrue. If a deity created the universe and the very first life forms, then evolution can pick up from there. I've known people who believe that god created all life on the planet, but that natural selection was the mechanism by which he did it.
          • ThoughtfulWi, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3The great Jesuit thinker, Teilhard de Chardin, espoused a belief like this.
    • Phrag, on 03/26/2008, -4/+6When have homosexuals ever burned down a church?
      • Phrag, on 03/26/2008, -3/+4So that would be a 'never', am I right?
        • Look4Truth, on 03/26/2008, -5/+4No, I didn't respond because you can't comprehend what I wrote and I don't want to waste time with you.
          • Phrag, on 03/26/2008, -3/+6"but if a pastor preaches about homosexuality in church, they want to burn down the building."

            What about that did I apparently not understand by asking when a church was burned down because it preached about homosexuality? You made a claim that you can not back up so now you are 'wasting time' by trying to produce proof of something that doesn't exist. You are just full of hot air and will never answer a very simple question like all the other meaningless wind bags.
          • Look4Truth, on 03/26/2008, -4/+4You skipped over the word "WANT"...as in I WANT to do something verses I WILL do something. Ever heard of emotion? If you're going to get all hot and bothered by what posters say, please take the time to actually read what they say. Please don't waste any more of our time, I have no desire to respond on something further I didn't say and I don't appreciate words being put in my mouth, thanks.
          • Phrag, on 03/26/2008, -5/+5So why don't you respond to what you did say, like the direct quote from your comment about homosexuals burning down churches? Oh, wait. Thats a waste of time and you don't 'want' to waste time by backing up baseless claims that you wasted time post in the first place, but only because you wanted to.
          • Look4Truth, on 03/26/2008, -5/+4I just did! READ IT AGAIN! Oh man...this is my last post responding, you obviously have a hard time comprehending English or reality. If you can't figure out what I just said then that's your problem, not mine.
      • KCLorelei39, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4hey phrag, a quick google search revealed this tidbit:

        http://www.newsbusters.org/node/11750

        Elton John Showed Image of Burning Church at Big Birthday Bash and Media Ignore It
        By Lynn Davidson | April 1, 2007 - 09:51 ET

        (Updated) Saturday, CNN Headline News ran a repeat of Glenn Beck’s March 27 show, which showed footage of some of the images that ran behind Elton John during his elaborate 60th birthday bash at Madison Square Garden that included a burning church. This is the same man who said that religion promotes hatred and “it’s not very compassionate.” Beck discussed the very tolerant and “compassionate” concert:

        On Sunday, he performed -- it`s the lord`s day -- at Madison Square Garden with this image running behind him. Yes, that would be a burning church. Now, I know you`re at home thinking, "Gee, Glenn, isn`t Elton John the guy who said he`d ban all religion because it turns people into hateful lemmings?" Yes, same guy.

        Beck discussed the images with Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, who called the act a “hate crime.”

        BECK: Tell me about the burning of the church on stage.

        LAFFERTY: Well, you know, that`s against the law in America. That is a hate crime, a so-called hate crime. And, you know, although they want to use this upcoming hate crime law to silence pastors and Christians, but Elton doesn`t get it.

        (CROSSTALK)

        BECK: Hang on. There has got to be an attorney out there that says, "Oh, I`d like to file that as a hate crime." There`s got to be somebody out there that wants to take that on.

        LAFFERTY: It`s hateful. But, you know, Glenn, a lot of us grew up liking Elton John.

        BECK: I love him.

        LAFFERTY: He`s no longer the Elton John that we knew. He`s a guy who has a personal agenda, who hates God, who hates Christians, who hates people of faith, and he`s going to use his money to spout this.

        The traditional media that insist on selecting speech and images to label as intolerant, should at least be even-handed. Why haven’t they covered this example of religious intolerance or “hate speech,” particularly when it is perpetrated by a celebrity who frequently “speaks out” against hate speech and who is a vocal supporter of self-described anti-bigotry groups like Human Rights Campaign?

        Ok, this is not an actual church burning by a homosexual, but the implications are quite clear. How long will it be before homosexuals (and others that hate Christ) go from burning a church in effigy, to burning churches in reality?

        • tech42er, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3There are certainly anti-Christian radicals who destroy churches, anti-Jewish radicals who destroy synagogues, anti-Muslim radicals who destroy mosques, anti-abortion radicals who destroy PP clinics, and anti-government radicals who destroy government buildings. But not all atheists want to burn down religious buildings, not all Christians want to bomb abortion clinics, and not all anarchists want to destroy government buildings. Not all homosexuals are even anti-Christian! They're just homosexual. Some crazy anti-Christians (who happen to be homosexual) *might* want to burn down a Church, but you can't generalize! I'm Catholic, does that mean I'll bomb a Planned Parenthood clinic? I hope not.
        • ThoughtfulWi, on 03/27/2008, -3/+3Could this possibly have been in conjunction with his song, Burn Down The Mission? There were a number, maybe 40 or 50 African American churches burned down in the late90s. Maybe this video was of one of them. It is absurd for you to imply that homosexuals hate Christ. I am a homosexual, and I am a Christian; there are many of us. It is also ridiculous for you to imply that we as an organized group are, at any time, going to advocate the burning of churches. Though some would see that as just retribution for all the gays and lesbians burned at the stake by Christians through the ages.
          • KCLorelei39, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2you can't unilaterally deny that there are some homosexuals who hate Christ, and would relish burning down a church, any more than I can deny that there are some claiming to follow Christ, that wouldn't hesitate to burn a homosexual and think they were doing God a favor.

            Have you ever studied the book of Revelation?
          • StaticThunder, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1That being the case, I'm not sure what you are arguing. It sounds like guilt by association to me.
  • shanson13, on 03/26/2008, -5/+9I think God is very sad to see this awful display...I know it saddens me, and I'm not even the Creator of the Universe. But God let us know in the Bible that stuff like this would happen before Jesus comes again...
    2 Timothy 3
    The Dangers of the Last Days
    1 You should know this, Timothy, that in the last days there will be very difficult times. 2 For people will love only themselves and their money. They will be boastful and proud, scoffing at God, disobedient to their parents, and ungrateful. They will consider nothing sacred. 3 They will be unloving and unforgiving; they will slander others and have no self-control. They will be cruel and hate what is good. 4 They will betray their friends, be reckless, be puffed up with pride, and love pleasure rather than God. 5 They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!

    I pray for these poor lost souls, that God would change their hearts and minds and allow them to see that He is a loving God who wants a personal relationship with each of us. God bless America
    • Lutrasimilis, on 03/26/2008, -4/+5It saddens me to think that the Creator of the Universe has to watch His flock focus on homosexuality, while thousands upon thousands of His children starve to death every day. And I'm sure he's noticed a lot of fat waistlines around here, too, like say two thirds of them. By biblical standards, you're ALL finished.
      • Nannybell, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4God can think about more than one thing at a time. And so can we. Your implication is that because we focus on the sin of homosexuality, we are not equally focused on caring for the unfortunate of this world. You have no basis for making that assertion.
  • KCLorelei39, on 03/26/2008, -4/+8I almost pity these people; however, the Catholic church that they attend ought not to make way for them in their church, that is simply wrong. Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do /sadness
    • Lutrasimilis, on 03/26/2008, -5/+6Hey, I pity all the people who didn't choose the correct Christian denomination, don't you? I mean, they had to live with all the same religious restraint, and yet they're -still- going to hell. Don't you find that sort of sad?
      • KCLorelei39, on 03/26/2008, -4/+4my, aren't you the bitter one? I find it sad when people call wickedness a good thing, no matter what that wickedness might be. And especially sad when it's presented as being approved by God. by the way, I don't 'do' a denomination, do you?
    • blessedwith6, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1The priest allowing these people to receive communion is an outrage and I for one, as a faithful Catholic, am disgusted that this happened.
      Many in the Catholic Church believe you can't judge the condition of one's soul, but there is a growing outcry over public sinners (including pro-abortion politicians) receiving communion when they are persisting in defying the Church. I believe stories like this will only help strenthen the case for denying communion to public heretics.
  • chickenbig, on 03/26/2008, -8/+3This just further confirms my belief that self-hatred is the foundation of homosexuality.
    • Lutrasimilis, on 03/26/2008, -1/+8Some homosexuals are self-hating, it's true. Ted Haggard is a good example. Then again, plenty of Christians are self-hating, too. I think self-hatred it more of a human condition. Some smokers hate themselves. Plenty of alcoholics hate themselves. I hated myself for buying a stereo I probably didn't need. It's humanity, not homosexuality.
      • Nannybell, on 03/27/2008, -6/+3It's DEGREES of self-loathing in humanity. Personally, I believe homosexuals are filled with rage.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4I've had a few friends come out of the closet since graduating college years ago, and they said that they hated themselves only until they came to accept themselves as they are (ie. they learned to disregard the old social mores about their orientation being "icky"). Once they had that part straightened out, they were happy again.
  • Lutrasimilis, on 03/26/2008, -7/+7I think what's really sad is how Christianity has become utterly obsessed with homosexuality. Greed, gluttony, sloth, wrath...every one of these things is featured proudly in WND. Retire tomorrow. Get rich in 24 hours. Lose weight without exercise. Buy gold. And of course, buy the site owner's books. If you missed that, go back and look. Every second headline. You're all being had.
    That's not Christianity, that's just another cult fad. THAT is the real threat to this faith. Bury away.
    • KCLorelei39, on 03/26/2008, -7/+5perhaps if you presented your opinions in a less incendiary way, you would not get buried as much as you anticipate.

      oh, I get what you're saying, all right, and I do agree with some of it. Last time I checked, all of us are flawed, and have a few logs of our own to remove before pointing out the splinter in another's eye.

      I also think most folks can see past the hype as WND tries to pay its bills and remain in business, to get to the heart of the matter in their articles. but, just because you perceive sin in the conduct of others, doesn't relieve you or anyone else calling themselves a Christian, of the responsibility to NOT sin. hope that makes sense.
      • ThoughtfulWi, on 03/27/2008, -4/+6I see nothing incendiary about Lutra's posts. Some of you people should consider growing beyond the notion that a disagreement constitutes a violent, hateful attack. It's just a differing point of view.
        • KCLorelei39, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4she only comments to take jabs at Christians, while never quite sharing her own beliefs, slapping the gantlet down and dancing out of reach, never quite actually entering into a conversation to discuss anything. I didn't accuse her of a 'violent, hateful attack', I just pointed out her methods that incite people to digg her down, in a somewhat self-fulfilling prophecy kind of way ; )

          and I reminded her that we all are flawed and in need of self-inspection; yet I get dugg down for pointing out the obvious /shrugs

        • these3remain, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Her comment wasn't hateful, as you stated. But it did paint Christians with a broad-brush, i.e., assuming that they are all lock-step followers of WND. I personally find it extremely annoying whenever non-believers try to force all believers into a stereo-type - it's just as annoying when people attempt to stereo-type gays.
  • Lutrasimilis, on 03/26/2008, -3/+1You make a good point. It angers me because I know plenty of fine examples of Christianity personally. It would be dishonest of me to claim I'm the same, but I see their good, honest, hard-working lives belittled by this hobby-horse version of negative Christianity. The kind that's interlaced (literally!) with moneygrubbing. If they need to pay the bills for this site, it should be Non-Profit and accept donations. Or they should apply a little faith - I run a website and pay for it myself, like most people, with money from my job.

    Even the unfaithful can take honest offense at the cheapening of faith. Does that make sense?

    • KCLorelei39, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3I would go even further, and challenge the church to give up the non-profit status that directly conflicts with faith, and go back to a purer faith that meets in homes and stops selling Christ to win political offices.
  • CryRightardCry, on 03/26/2008, -9/+9LOL
    They aren't mocking CHRISTIANITY you dumb *****, they are mocking the tiny minded morons like YOU.
    They are mocking the hubris of you right wing ***** who think you OWN God.
    They are mocking the hypocrisy of your tiny minded intolerance toward them despite Christ's teachings.
    They are mocking YOU because you are deluded you do the work of Satan and abuse God's children.
    I'm not sure what rationalization you people are using to pervert the teachings of Jesus into this intolerant crap, but it's evil.
    I think you know it, too, which is why you get so bent out of shape.
    • oregonguy, on 03/26/2008, -7/+5If only you had but a small clue.
    • farmerjohn48pan, on 03/26/2008, -7/+6Me thinks the ***** doth protest too much! What are you compensating for with all your expletives and wild assertions? Do you hate God and Christians in general because you know you are not a righteous man?
    • lorrie4dad, on 03/26/2008, -6/+5What do you know about Jesus. I see you know about satan's work through the language you choose to use. Very sad. Jesus would remove that anger from you if you would let him.
    • DOGODSWILL, on 03/27/2008, -6/+4A question to CryRightardCry,s also------are you a FAGOT and who is geting bent out of shape
      • ApokalypseNow, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4I suspect that he is not a cigarette or a bundle of wood, due to his ability to type.
    • Taquoshi, on 03/27/2008, -4/+4Dugg down for language and attitude.
  • farmerjohn48pan, on 03/26/2008, -7/+5What do you expect from a bunch of evil Godless men that like to play in other men's doo doo? Do not fret, when Judgment Day comes each will recieve what he or she deserves.
  • Truthlover23, on 03/26/2008, -5/+8God wanted us Christians to call sin, sin. He didn't want us to sugar coat it. He didn't want us to be afraid to offend the sinner, but to warn them that they are transgressing. Call it what it is. Homosexuality is an abomination to God, man and nature. It is a sin of the lowest kind, but we Christians know sin is sin, without levels. If you are a homosexual and you are offended when told that what you choose to do sexually is a sin, answer to God. The homosexual cannot change what God's word says. All sinners have to answer to God. There is a way out of your sin, and it is called Jesus. But... He wants you to come to Him His way, not your way. If you choose to reject Him and the truth of the Bible, you are only sending yourself to a place of everlasting death. If you don't like the truth that is written here, I pray God removes your blinders and opens your eyes for one second of what hell is like. Because if you only knew where you are sending yourself, you would see you couldn't run fast enough to Jesus. God knows what got you into the sin that you are in, and He can help you to get out. No amount of mocking God, the Bible and the Christian will change the Truth. The homosexual cannot change the fact that homosexuality is as much of a sin as lying, stealing and murdering.
    • Lutrasimilis, on 03/27/2008, -5/+5"Homosexuality is an abomination to God, man and nature. It is a sin of the lowest kind, but we Christians know sin is sin, without levels. If you are a homosexual and you are offended when told that what you choose to do sexually is a sin, answer to God."

      Eating shellfish is also an abomination to God - the same word in Hebrew. They changed it in the KJV to 'unclean' vs. 'abomination', but the original writing uses the exact same word: unclean. So the logic is simple. Unless you're willing to apply the same condemnation to people who eat shellfish, and to people who don't stone their children to death for disrespect, and to women who speak in church, your condemnation of homosexuality is -worthless-. Let me repeat that: worthless. You might as well be a thief accusing someone else of being a liar. This isn't Christianity, my friend, and people are starting to realize that.

      • KCLorelei39, on 03/27/2008, -4/+3you keep saying what Christianity isn't; please, enlighten us as to what you think Christianity is all about. you dance around, taking pokes here and there, but you don't actually come right out and say what you do really believe - what's up with that?

        what I find interesting is that you do the same thing that you accuse others of doing - condemning and judging another, based on your own interpretation of Christianity.
        • ThoughtfulWi, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5Not everyone feels the need to have a precise theology and cosmology all tied up in a neat little package. Some of us our comfortable saying, "I Don't know."
          • Nannybell, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1Your attitude permits you to live your life exactly as you please. It lets you be king of the hill, with no rivals to your throne, such as a pesky God who might insist you follow Him rather than yourself. Might cut into your fun? Might cut into your lifestyle?
          • eir574, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Nanny, are you getting that just from TW's couple of sentences here, or from something he's said elsewhere? I don't read this particular comment that way at all. I don't want to put words in TW's mouth, but I recognize in his second sentence a response that I've given to people who ask me how I answer certain questions to which science has not yet provided answers in the absence of religion. I'm comfortable with "I don't know," and I think TW is saying something similar here. I'd also like to point out (again) that not believing in god doesn't necessarily mean that one feels accountable to no one and just does what feels good at any particular moment in time. We live in a society, and the vast majority of people recognize that as being beneficial. Hence, there are rules we must follow. TW may not feel that he's accountable to a deity, but that does not imply that he follows no rules and recognizes no authority other than his own.

            TW, if I'm way off base here, please tell me so.
          • Nannybell, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1E, no, my comment is based on numerous other comments and replies from TW, and thus discerning a general attitude of mind. I could be wrong, but he can answer if it's true or not. The Bible says that certain persons who do not believe in God do so because they don't want to, they don't wish to have Him in their consciousness, that they wish to do whatever they please without constraint. I realize that neither you nor TW believes the Bible, but I do think that you might concede there is accuracy in that passage regarding some.
          • eir574, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2While some people probably do choose not to believe in a deity because that would put some constraints on their behavior, I doubt that's a general statement that can be made about most atheists. However, I frequently see the accusation on digg that all or most atheists don't believe in god because they're immoral people (or at least people whose morality can't be trusted from day to day) who don't want to be accountable to anyone else. Without other information about a specific person, that's a complete non sequitur.
          • StaticThunder, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2This line of inquiry about atheists just "not wanting to recognize authority" is about as justifiable as me saying that atheists are more moral than Christians, because they aren't just being nice to people out of fear.

            Many atheists aren't atheists because they rebel, they are atheists because they honestly can not believe that God exists. They would love to think that there was some amazing purpose to their lives, that they wouldn't cease to exist on death, but they want to see the universe as it is, without some glaze built on shaky intellectual foundations just because of their own personal desires.

            You really would get farther realizing that many atheists are actively denying their desires because of a deep seated commitment to honesty. Of COURSE we might be happier if we could believe in a comfortable lie. But it is more important TO THEM to act based on well-supported knowledge of reality. You can't BE ethical if you get your mandates from a book that recommends stoning children for disobedience, or requires you to guess which parts are good and bad -- you need a rationale that derives from some moral authority we actually have access to -- not a deity that gives a different answer to everyone, if he answers at all.
      • Nannybell, on 03/27/2008, -3/+3L, Christians do not observe the Mosaic Law, so eating shellfish is not a sin for a Christian. There is a whole long explanation of how the Old Covenant was fulfilled by Christ, and we are now under the New Covenant. Homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament several times in clear terms, but people are attempting to distort and twist that so they do not have to believe it. That's done to their eternal peril. Repeat: The New Testament clearly condemns homosexuality. Jesus said that all sexual immorality/fornication is sin. He also affirmed God's original plan for marriage as being a man and a woman only. Anything outside of that is fornication. Homosexuality is outside of that and is fornication, thus is sin. It's that simple. If people are telling you otherwise, they are deluded or lying or both.
      • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4Again, nowhere does it say that the dietary restrictions are lifted with the new covenant, thats just one interpretation of Acts 10:9-16.
      • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, ***until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law*** until all is accomplished."
        • Nannybell, on 03/27/2008, -3/+3ST: On another thread you admitted you are an atheist who gets irritated when people talk to you about Jesus. Here you are arguing the Bible. Your argument is incorrect, as I have stated in reply to all those Mosaic Law people elsewhere, and I went into depth as to why. Go read those comments. Not going to argue that here, especially with someone who is arguing for the sake of arguing, not because you actually believe any of it.
        • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Well Nannybell, if its all *****, then its all ***** and homosexuality is just peachy then isn't it. I don't have any ethical reason to think that Christ can't be mocked, or that homosexuality is morally wrong. I can't prove to you that they are any more than I can the opposite.

          If Christianity is not all ***** though, than you need to at least show us that its consistent in its teachings. It doesn't appear to be. It appears that within your own circle, you don't necessarily even agree on whether Levitical law where the strongest prohibitions against homosexuality appear, even holds.

          The New Testament being against it is sort of debatable. The sin of Onan is not something most people take seriously.
        • StaticThunder, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4Also, might I add the irony in that here, you are getting irritated because I am proselytizing to you .... the same way I said I dislike when others do it to me -- when I can't simply leave the forum. You said I should just ignore them, because they aren't hurting me. I don't understand why on earth you could be taking offense.
        • ThoughtfulWi, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4Nannybell, you LOVE arguing for the sake of arguing; and there's nothing wrong with that.
          • Nannybell, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1No, TW, you're wrong. I never argue for the sake of arguing, because I actually believe the things I say, all of them, and have a reason for saying them.
        • Nannybell, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1ST, you are trying to proselytize me? To what?

          What did I take offense at? Many assumptions being made here. I pointed out that you are not engaging me in sincere debate regarding the Bible. It appears to me you are just following me around making comments, I suppose trying to annoy me. If you were sincere in desiring to discuss the Bible, I would discuss it with you. But I don't believe you are, and I would have no reason to believe you if you say you are, based on your past comments regarding Christianity.
        • StaticThunder, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Oh, and SampleX debates honestly? Come on. You will never convince me *I* should take it seriously, but what is insincere about me pointing out what it actually says? Or how other people have chosen to interpret it?

          "Christians do not observe the Mosaic Law, so eating shellfish is not a sin for a Christian. There is a whole long explanation of how the Old Covenant was fulfilled by Christ, and we are now under the New Covenant. Homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament several times in clear terms, but people are attempting to distort and twist that so they do not have to believe it."

          No, all Christians do not believe this, many think the New Testament says little or nothing about homosexuality. There is debate about the new covenant and what it means, which runs the range from "it only means we don't have to sacrifice animals to be absolved of sin" to "it means every law in the old testament is null and void"

          You just don't want to listen to an atheist. Which is of course your choice. I'm not a source of valid information to you. So I could say " so and so claims the sun rises in the west", and you would say "you're not debating honestly, because you personally believe the sun rises in the east"

          So? It doesn't invalidate what I said. As I said, you are getting uncomfortable because I am pointing out uncomfortable ideas. I am merely telling you about what I think here. You don't have to read it. It shouldn't bother you that I think you are misguided, just as its not supposed to bother me that you think I'm going to hell.
        • these3remain, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1The New Testament does address the lifting of the dietary restrictions. After the crucifixion of Christ and His resurrection, there was an entire paradigm shift which is a consensus held by the majority of Bible scholars - it is also described as a new dispensation. Yes, you will always be able to find a fringe element that claims to be Christian that may dispute a topic like this but that is all that it is - a fringe element. As far as homosexuality in the New Testament, it is mentioned numerous times and, as in the Old Testament, is still a sin. There is a big difference between the levitical dietary codes that were designed to make a distinction between God's people and their surrounding pagan nations and the moral laws that pertain to offending a Holy God. Jesus did come to fulfill the law - not the dietary codes which formed part of the basis of God's chosen people. The levitical codes were no longer required after the Cross because the way was made for ALL people to come to God through Christ - not just the Jews.
          BTW, the ones who are making the "seamless vestments" today are making them for the Jewish Rabbis in order to fulfill prophecy and in anticipation of worship on the Temple Mount - in which case, I would assume animal sacrifice would resume, too, since they do not believe that Messiah has come. But that is for the Jews, not for Christians.
      • Truthlover23, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1To Lutrasimilis: Please refer to my response to you at the bottom of this digg list.
  • ivanvivian, on 03/27/2008, -5/+6Those involved in the homosexual agenda, it appears have an extremely aggressive determination to infiltrate nearly every sphere of life. They attempt to call Christians to be like a pacifist Jesus. However, Jesus rained fire and brimstone on the homosexuals as the LORD. LORD=Jahweh. The One and the same as the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Gen 19:24 Then the LORD [on earth] rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens.

    Jesus Christ, in His pre-incarnate state, destroyed the dwelling of the homosexuals. He was on earth in His pre-incarnate state as the LORD (Jahweh) raining fire and brimstone on Sodaom from the LORD (Jahweh) in heaven.

    Also when Pompeii, a Roman city that was destroyed by volcanic ashes in 79 A.D, they found murals portraying homosexual scenes: A recent history Sodom story.

    Next might well be LA, America! Or even Oklahoma City with its Gay agenda yielding governor.
    • karishore, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4And don't forget Romans 1
    • Phrag, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1There are homosexuals in every sphere of life (by which I assume you mean profession and organization). There has been for a very long time. It is just recently that they would like to be able to acknowledge that they are homosexual without having to be harassed about it. If wanting to be who you re is an agenda, then it is not limited to homosexuals. Straight people like to express themselves as well.
  • DOGODSWILL, on 03/27/2008, -7/+3Phrag , (question) Areyou a FAGOT .
    • ApokalypseNow, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5I would guess that he is neither a bundle of wood, nor a cigarette, so your answer is no.
    • Phrag, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1You know you can shout me if you have a question specifically for me. To answer your question, no I am not homosexual, a bundle of sticks or a cigarette (hell, I'm not even British).

      Why did you put (question) in there, but not use a question mark?
  • rootneg2, on 03/27/2008, -7/+6If god tries to tell me that who I love and how I love is wrong, then it's no god that I want to believe in. Nothing is more powerful than when two people truly love one another. Nothing.
    If I have to be untrue to myself in *this* life, and condemn another person whom I love and care deeply about, then I could not enjoy an eternity in heaven knowing that I betrayed my own convictions and my own loved ones.
    I will gladly suffer an eternity in hell knowing that I spend my life here on earth filled with love for others and compassion for *all* of humanity, standing firm in what *I* know to be right and just and moral, not simply following another's words in blind faith.
    I am not scared of god.

    (and btw, lightening the tone back up a bit...this is one of the craziest comment-to-digg ratios I've seen; don't know what exactly the significance is, just thought it was interesting. Probably just another emergent phenomenon of the stand-alone complex that is "social-networking web-apps")
    • karishore, on 03/27/2008, -5/+6THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH. It doesn't matter what YOU believe. It is what the truth is. Try lighting a match under your finger for 20 seconds and tell me you will even want to suffer in eternity. And, technically, your judging yourself. Revelaiton 20: 11- 15 11. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
      • rootneg2, on 03/27/2008, -3/+5I would burn my finger to the bone in a heartbeat before betraying another person that I care deeply about; pain is nothing compared to human love.
        • KCLorelei39, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4human love is nothing compared to God's love, either. His ways are not our ways. We are like children making mud pies, compared to His holiness, His wisdom, and His ways. The sacrifice of Christ does not give us all a free pass to do as we please; the NT is chock-full of references to destroying the body of sin, dying daily to our own desires, putting away the lust of the flesh, etc. There's a big difference between striving against the desires of the flesh, and embracing the fulfilling of those desires as a good thing.
    • Truthlover23, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4You can love someone of the same sex without having sex with them. Having sexual feelings toward someone of the same sex as yourself is a perversion of what sex was meant for. Not being scared of God doesn't impress me or any other person who respectfully fears God. There have many more that have held your same belief down through the ages and I wonder what their story is now? They can't change their minds now, because it's too late. You still have time. God wants us to love one another. But a love that includes sex was made for only a man and a woman in the institution of marriage. God is giving you a chance right now with these two responses to your comment. He may not give you many more chances to accept the Truth.
  • victorypup, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4REPROBATES
  • karishore, on 03/27/2008, -3/+6Revelation 20: 11-15 11. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
  • Truthlover23, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3To Lutrasimilis: You are quite right in Romans 1:24 “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lust of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:…” I could see where anal sex could be unclean, but I can also see where God says that to have homosexual relations would dishonor your body.
    If you would look a couple of more verses down from this one in Romans 1:26 “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: (27) 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,…” (28) 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; “
    For homosexuals to commit sexual sin is to dishonor their bodies. My dictionary says to dishonor one’s self is to disgrace one’s self. A disgrace is a shameful act. How can homosexual sex be honored and accepted if its dishonorable, disgraceful and shameful?
    In verse 26, God gave homosexuals up to “vile” affections. Again my dictionary’s definition of “vile” is “morally despicable or abhorrent”. Despicable means “deserving to be despised; so worthless or obnoxious as to rouse moral indignation; contemptible…”
    I’m truly sorry if the Truth of the Bible doesn’t agree with what you think, or how you or others you know would like to live your lives. Truth is truth. It can’t be changed, and God won’t allow it to be. It doesn’t matter if someone wants to make their own form of another Bible up, the fact still remains: Homosexual sex is a sin. It was back when God made man, and it is now. It doesn’t matter if someone doesn’t like it or believe it; it is still Truth from God’s word. By the way, a reprobate mind is defined as “morally corrupt; depraved.” Those who encourage homosexuality, and, or live it, are trying to win a losing battle. God tells us what the end of the story is with the people who reject God’s way and God’s Son, and it is worse than we can even imagine.
    I don’t happen to like shellfish. Not because God said it is an abomination, as you say, but because I don’t like the taste and don’t want to eat something that sucks garbage off the ocean floor and other places. The NT teaches that we are able to eat anything as long as we have given thanks with Gods blessing on it. God does give us common sense though to use, like not to eat something rotten, etc.
    • Lutrasimilis, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0You defend your point eloquently. I don't deny that Paul spoke out against homosexuality, or that God called it 'unclean'. I just wonder why people don't take some of Paul's other teachings as seriously. People are willing to quote Paul's condemnation of homosexuality, and yet the same believers conveniently omit that Paul also stated that women should not speak in church, and always be in submissions 1 Cor. 14:33b-36 NIV. It's this form of cherry-picking that I'm getting at. There is nothing divine about it. Basically, we've decided that Paul was wrong to suggest that women should ALWAYS be silent in church. We (for the most part) reject Paul's wisdom! Openly. As in: Well Paul, you were right about condemning that particular group of homosexuals you saw back then, but you were wrong about women speaking in the church.

      In the end, we decided, not God, and certainly not Paul. That's my point. Dance around it if you must, but it's irrefutable. We, as a society, have chosen to ignore vast tracts of the bible (most Christians can't even name 5 of the 10 commandments, my friend), and chosen to focus on a narrow group of sins to the exclusion of all others. That is not Christianity, and should not be respected as such.

      • Truthlover23, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2You have a good point. Women ought to always be in submission. To God and to their husband. I for one still believe that women should remain silent in church. They are not to usurp authority over men, which some have done by becoming teachers or ministers over men. Women were right in gaining equal rights, but with that came rebelliousness from what God's role for women is supposed to be. For instance, women are supposed to be keepers of the home. Wives are the helpmate for the husband. Today, with the equal rights and women's lib age, how many women stay at home as a home maker and take care of the kids? How many are willing to do that and help out the husband whenever needed? I have never believed that it was wrong for Paul to say for women to not speak in church. But look what we have now, because Christians have sidestepped that issue. We have women ministers, and women trying to take over everything, even the Presidency. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that a woman couldn't accomplish the same thing a man can. I am saying that it is not right. The rebelliousness that has formed, during the mid 19th to 20th centuries, from women has been a big reason why our nation is in a downward trend. Where are all the men in this? Why haven't they decided to bring their wives into submission? That is another reason why our country is on a downward trend. We have weak-kneed, (weak in practically everything) men who have fallen and accepted deception. Even though women are supposed to be the weaker sex, they are very cunning when it comes to getting what they want. The biggest tool they use is beauty and sex. I agree with you about society choosing to ignore vast tracks of the Bible. I am a Christian and have seen outright. It is hard to find a church now days that will stick strictly by the Bible. But and if you do, it has been characterized as being a judgmental church - and that is how our society wants it. They want a watered down church that allows anything and everything into it. You probably already know that we live in the Laodicean church age where our works are characterized by God as neither cold or hot (Rev. 3:14-16). Most Christians are fence sitters, whether they realize it or not. Only a few really live what they believe. But because we also live in the age of grace and mercy from God, He allows us to live this way, but not without consequences. The consequences of our actions are from our own doing. We reap what we sow. Too many people out there want to make serious decisions from something not factual, or wrong opinions, or whatever the case may be. They want to say their opinion is truth, even if it disagrees from the "standard" of truths, the Bible. They want to shut their ears and not listen to truth, because they don't want to give up their sin. They have every right to do that. The Christian also, out of love, has the right to share with them what Gods word says and try to warn them of the consequences of their actions.
        • Lutrasimilis, on 03/29/2008, -0/+0Being a true Christian can't be easy. I see plenty of people who can quote the dogma, but very few who seem genuinely happy and self-fulfilled. I see so many of them looking -everywhere- but their own souls. I see a lot of anger and outrage, and plenty of condemnation, but these are such lowly human things. I think a lot of these people are really just secular, clinging to a few religious statements for social reasons but, like most, never even reading the Bible. Or going to church. You'd be very generous in calling them 'fence-sitters' - by Scriptural standards, all of these people are toast. The majority of the world is toast. If we dig at the rest of the minutia in the same way we've dug at homosexuality, for instance, we'd find that every single person in this country is Hellbound. Everyone lies, they can't help it. They pay or charge usury, they wear clothes of blended fibers.They laze around watching 4 hours of TV every day. They put smoke or drink in the 'temple', knowing it'll kill them just as surely as any 'gay disease'. If we judge everyone as harshly as we judge homsexuals, we are ALL doomed, my friend. Every last one of us.
        • Truthlover23, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Being a true Christian is someone who has repented of their sins, placed all of their faith on Jesus and his shed blood on the cross. They have accepted the "free gift" of salvation. Their previous sins have been washed away (spiritually speaking) by the shed blood of Jesus. The 10 commandments are a guide to show everyone that all of us have sinned. Not one of us is worthy to go to heaven as we are. But God loved us so much that He made a way through His Son, Jesus. But we have to go through Jesus. We can't get there by being as good as we can, because our good works are as filthy rags. We can't get there by any other means. True Christians are the ones that have come to God, God's way, not man's way. But, and this is important, Christians will not be perfect (sinless) until they get to heaven where they receive an incorruptible body, because the body we are in now is corrupt from sin. Christians are to try and live as God would want them to. God knows that it is impossible for Christians to not sin, so He also said for us to confess our sins to Him, and He will forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Christians are different from non-Christians in that they have been "forgiven and accepted into Heaven", but they aren't sinless until they get to Heaven.
          As I read your response to me, and others that you have posted on this website in other articles, I am wondering if you aren't dealing with some bitterness in your life of past experiences or from those people who you talk about that say their Christian, but maybe don't have a daily spiritual relationship with the Lord, which is an important part of experiencing the joy that God gives us. These so-called "toast/fence-sitting" Christians will be answering for their wrong deeds. They are bringing unhappiness to themselves, not to mention having a bad testimony to other people. Where we spend eternity is a serious point in a person's life. Don't base your decisions for your eternal life on how others live. We are all imperfect. But all of us, individually, will stand before God one day and give an account of how we lived, what we said, and what we did. We won't be able to blame others for "our own mistakes". Homosexuality is just one sin. Lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, pride, greed, adultery, etc. are just a few others. People that have chosen to live a life of homosexuality have decided to come out of the "closet" and seem to want to push other people into accepting their choice as acceptable. It has become a major movement in the last 30 years, or so. Because it has lately affected our nation, our children, our children's education, our work place, people (Christians mostly) have decided to push back. If you have only centered yourself on noticing the results of the actions of the homosexual movement, then that is what you will comment on and watch for in the news. This will be my last comment to you on this article. Just remember that each one of us only has so much time that God will allow us to decide to accept His way for eternal Life or reject His way and have eternal death. You alone will decide for yourself, not me or my actions, or the actions of others. God bless.
  • Phrag, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1Holy hunky Jesus people. 160+ comments and only 29 diggs. Some people have waaaaaay too much time to debate on the internet.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.