Ever meet anyone who identified him or herself as a liberal christian? Apparently this is one of many Lutheran splinters. They believe that the creation story of Genesis is that, a story, or a symbolic parable I suppose. This individual also believed that the book of Revelation is also symbolic, a point I don't hardly disagree with. The spiritualization of Genesis is a hard to swallow sour tart.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004

Answers

And I'm afraid they are lurking everywhere. A recent Gallup poll done on mainline evangelicals showed that many do not hold to the essentials of the historic Christian faith; i.e., Christ being born of a virgin, the resurrection, etc. etc.

They are in the Catholic Church TOO, so I'm not pointing a finger at JUST evangelicals. Like it or not, while we all may argue tooth-and- nail on this forum, we have a lot more in common than we realize. It would be nice if we could focus on some REALLY monumental AGREEMENTS we have. But alas, I do not think some here are ready to do that.

God Bless,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), May 10, 2004.

Like it or not, while we all may argue tooth-and- nail on this forum, we have a lot more in common than we realize. It would be nice if we could focus on some REALLY monumental AGREEMENTS we have.

Well said, Gail.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 10, 2004.

IMHO, "liberal" Christian theology seems to have infected Christianity as a whole and has lead many people astray from the truth. I apologize if I have offended anyone who follows "liberal" Christian theology. As I said, it is just my humble opinion.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 10, 2004.

Gail,

At least some Sola Scriptura types seem to get it:

W. A. Criswell, a Baptist pastor from Dallas once said:

"I'm not a Catholic. … and I couldn't be, but I thank God for what they have done to name the name of Christ in the world. I would be more comfortable praying with a Catholic priest who believes in the Virgin Birth, the blood Atonement, and the deity of Christ than with a liberal Protestant who doesn't." ''

from: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/003/3.54.html

I don't know much about him, so I will let Faith tell me he is a heretic.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), May 11, 2004.

Liberal CHristaunbs atemto to Modeernise the religion, to make it "relevent" to our times. Ironically, tje more liberal the Chriches, the fewer peopel attended, thus casing the curent fallng away we see.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 11, 2004.

I don't like liberal Christianity James.

And I can't tell you anything about this Baptist Pastor.....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 11, 2004.

Any ideas of why they believe the way they do?

-- Luke juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

Luke,

I think part of it relates to rebelling against what God says. They want to do their own thing, and thus in order to justify that, they say we should take the Bible as all symbolic. It's special, but not really relevant for today. Of course, this is a slippery slope and leads to having no standards whatsoever except whatever one feels must be right. Postmodern idea that truth is subjective to one's own opinion.

This idea has been around in the minds of rebels for centuries, but only now I think is it really becoming dominant. People have sinful desires, and in order to justify their actions, they have to toss out the Bible and the Church or (even better in their minds) get those to say what they want them to say. I think the bottom line is that it's all about "justifying" sin in their own minds. But who are they kidding? We all have a conscience and we know what's right and wrong (Rom. 2). Thus the drive to "justify" what they know is wrong is heightened.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

to be fair Emily, i do not see myself as a liberal, but if the Sermon on the Mount is the totality of your knowledge of God, you start to sense that God likes people that are "nice".

gays can be "nice" is the sense that they are thoughful, obey the laws etc.

ergo a liberal will take the view that a man (God) who -- the Patable i really fail to understand -- sided with the Prodigal Son, is a loving God.

of course, i agree, that it really makles life easier if you are liberal -- no unwanted kids and all that.

BUT some people genuinely believe that God Himself would be a liberal.

PS I am NOT a liberal - do not shoot the messenger.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 11, 2004.

Ian,

This is a good point that perhaps they have a limited knowledge of God, so as to only have heard of His mercy and not of His judgement. Nonetheless, our consciences show us right from wrong and we have God's laws written on our hearts (Rom. 2). So even if they've never heard it preached, I believe they know it's wrong in their consciences. Hence the urgent "need" among liberals to refute standards of morality.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

Try reradong spong. ( I do mean try. I coindt finish his books...)

That will grant you inight into " Liberal" Chrisyainity. Yes, the chruch must cease to be fundamental, and change withthe times, or die. Thast why Spings own episcopalian Chruch is become a breedong groud for catholci conversions...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 11, 2004.

Zarove said: Spings own episcopalian Chruch is become a breedong groud for catholci conversions

Lol, yes like me! I have attended an Episcopalian church for the past 2 years.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

Ian,

Your post seemed like you were describing a "liberal" in terms of politics. I think a Liberal Christian is "liberal" in terms of theology. Please correct me if I misunderstood you.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 11, 2004.

i meant theology, but the two are often the same.

you know, couples that cohabit without marrying because they are doing no harm.

the liberal politician them gives them the same tax breaks as a married couple.

the liberal politician supports abortion as the liberal christian excludes abortion from the Commandment.

they're intertwined.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 12, 2004.

The "Jesus Seminar" has much to do with the liberal, anti-Christ theology permeating churches in our country. It consists of many so- called theolgians who are nothing more than wolves in sheeps clothing. They really should call themselves the "Anti-Jesus Seminar."

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), May 12, 2004.

I got you now Ian. Good points all.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 12, 2004.

Before you get too negative regarding the idea of a “Liberal Christian,” consider this quote from a sermon by a preacher based upon 1 Corinthians 10:24 - "Do not seek your own advantage, but that of the other…"

“A Merciless Man, and a man without natural affection or love is reckoned among such as are given over of God to a reprobate mind, and as it were, transformed into a beast-like humor; for what is man if he is not sociable, kind, affable, free-hearted, liberal; he is a beast in the shape of a man; or rather an infernal spirit, walking amongst men, which makes the world a hell what in him lieth; for, it is even a hell to live where there are such men; such the Scriptures calleth Nabals, which signifieth fools, and decayed men, which have lost both the sap of grace and nature; and such merciless men are called goats, and shall be set at Christ’s left hand at the last day.” The Reverend Robert Cushman, 1621 Plymouth Plantation, New England.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), May 15, 2004.

The term Liberal meant soemthign differnt in 1621 than it does now.Now it means yu supprot Gay rights, abortion , euthanasia, and a socialist sttae. Then it just meant free or generous.

I can go onlien an find an old surmon withthe word Gay in it , saying we shoudl all be Gay, ot doesnt mean we shudl all be Homosexual.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 15, 2004.

Dear Zarove,

From your comments, am I to understand that conservatives support denying civil rights to people, preventing palliative care to the terminally ill, prefer a fascist or autocratic state, and are misogynistic? I doubt it (hopefully).

The point I was attempting to make was the starting point or “prime directive” of a Christian (as identified by Pastor Cushman). A Christian is to be the “Merciful Man” or woman. The assumption made by Cushman is that a Christian – in spirit and message – is strong enough to put the needs of others first. The Merciful Man allows for the autonomy of the other person, even if that means that they choose not to follow our desire or example. If God does not open the heart of a Merciless Man, then it will be God who deals with him.

Regarding coercive laws of the state, in the United States issues of civil order are best worked out within the secular forum of a democratic republic, but are restrained in their intrusiveness because each citizen is an autonomous person (civil rights). As Christians (paraphrasing St. Paul) we acknowledge that what may by legal is not always moral. We also have to concede that what is moral is not always a good civil law, i.e., turning moral temperance in the use of alcoholic beverages into legal prohibition.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), May 20, 2004.

Dear Zarove, From your comments, am I to understand that conservatives support denying civil rights to people, preventing palliative care to the terminally ill, prefer a fascist or autocratic state, and are misogynistic? I doubt it (hopefully).

{No. None of that means we shoudl support sin in any form as christains, or perversion as citesens of this nation.}-Zarove

The point I was attempting to make was the starting point or “prime directive” of a Christian (as identified by Pastor Cushman). A Christian is to be the “Merciful Man” or woman. The assumption made by Cushman is that a Christian – in spirit and message – is strong enough to put the needs of others first. The Merciful Man allows for the autonomy of the other person, even if that means that they choose not to follow our desire or example. If God does not open the heart of a Merciless Man, then it will be God who deals with him.

{Allowoing their autonomy is no the same as allowing perversion to have an outlet. we do not allow automony in all cases. IE I am not allowed to rape someone. Steal. run down the middle of the street naked. ect...

Civil rights aren't what liberals advocate these days, they advocate state contorlesd lives and moral relitavism. God commanded we promote his woll, and htis is why I cannot be Liberal.}-Zarive

Regarding coercive laws of the state, in the United States issues of civil order are best worked out within the secular forum of a democratic republic, but are restrained in their intrusiveness because each citizen is an autonomous person (civil rights).

{Not relaly. Proccess poltics inerferes. for example, MOST people, rather relgious or not, oppsoe aboriton, which is the wilful termination of a human life by the mother. This is legal bot because of civil rights, as the baby is denied his own right to life, btu because of activism and enforced mroal reliyavism.

Likewise, in a democratic nation, we shoudl in theory be allowed to express religiosu veiws and allow them to infulence politics since it is aprt of the will of the people.}-Zarove

As Christians (paraphrasing St. Paul) we acknowledge that what may by legal is not always moral.

{This does nto rpevent us form either speakign agaisnt it, or else form attemtpign to conform the laws. Besdes, their ar many reaosns ot oppsoe what Liberals support, such as abortion or Gay Marriage. They sghpudltn be legal because they elad tio social injsutic and failure. Let alone the moral implications or rleigious opposition, these thigns are wrong for secular reasosn as well.}-Zarove

We also have to concede that what is moral is not always a good civil law, i.e., turning moral temperance in the use of alcoholic beverages into legal prohibition.

{This doesn tmean we must allow perversion legal recognition, or allow the murder of innocent babies, aboron and Gay Marriage for instance are not only not mroal, but actually destructive.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 20, 2004.

Dear Zarove;

It is interesting how you meld diverse activities into a single anathema of “liberal.” However, your attitude does have a single common denominator – power. It is the merciless man (men) who refuses to cede power to the individual to be in control of his own life. It is also the merciless man who refuses to understand and distinguish between people who are different (including different decisions that are made because of those differences) and people who are reprobate.

I might point out that as recent at 50 years ago, you would have been on that list of outcasts. For your obstinate unwillingness to do your homework and learn your spelling lists you would have been eligible for the dunce cap and perhaps the wrath of a teacher’s ruler (particularly if you were left handed). You would not have been able to graduate from high school in some of the better districts because you would have failed most of your English and perhaps some of your math classes (mixing up numbers). There is no way you would have been allowed in a college. At best, you would have been viewed as illiterate. At worst, you would have been considered a reprobate troublemaking dolt. This would have been the conservative view of education, ruled by tradition, intending to protect the values and needs of society by keeping us safe from the likes of you.

Why is it that you expect others to understand your situation with dyslexia? Because the liberal educator (the merciful man/woman) saw your value as a person and then sought to deal with uniqueness of your situation. It was the liberal educator who took the time to recognize that you perceive the world differently and learn differently. Nothing you or any of us can do will change that fact.

Then that liberal educator took the time to teach the rest of us (the literate majority) that you are a person of value dealing with a unique situation. In addition, the burden and judgment is placed on us if we fail to recognize your value, your difference, and the different way you must live, learn, and express yourself.

As a merciful man, you might want to listen to those whom you condemn and desire to punish, seeking to understand what they are living through.

-- Robert Fretz (Pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), May 21, 2004.

Hi Robert

"As a merciful man, you might want to listen to those whom you condemn and desire to punish, seeking to understand what they are living through. "

I was wondering...

I would say, that is the main reason that we preach: because we understand what they are living through, but we understand how it can be much better. We don't allow men to sink or swim; we throw life- lines. It is up to the sinker to grab on for dear life.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 21, 2004.

Dear Rod;

A true enough answer. But, for those of us who seek to preach as merciful men of Christ, we need to be careful that what we toss out as a rescue line is not preceived as (or is in reality - by our own prejudices) a noose.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), May 21, 2004.

That's knot bad advice, hee...heee.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 21, 2004.

It is interesting how you meld diverse activities into a single anathema of “liberal.”

{Actualy, they did. This is what the term Liberal means in politcal discussions. Those whose veiws are left-of-centre and supprot these things.

Again, we aren't usign the dictionary definition.}-Zarove

However, your attitude does have a single common denominator – power. It is the merciless man (men) who refuses to cede power to the individual to be in control of his own life.

{Ironically enough, its the Liberals who wan tot dictate to me what is and isnt moral. You amy want ot think I am the one who is closed midned and bogoted and wants ot excesise power over others, but the reality is that such things as Gay "rights" and abortion are forced into law agaisnt the will of the vast majority of citisens.

Likewise, these issues of controle you bring up are common amoing liberals who want to dictate to us what is and is not morally acceptable based on thei own whoms and desires, rather than on a moral standard.

I don't want ot deny a woman her rights, however, Aboriton sin about a womans rights. its about rotectig the baby.

Gay rights? All i want is the right to denounce it as immral and not to have itlegally sanctioned.

I am not excersisign power over them, but rather tellign them I will not accept their immorality. My morality, as a Chrisain, must cme form God. I must protect rights, and tell others that living in sin is worse. This si not so much for power and controle, as it is to liberate them form their sufferign case dby their sin.}-Zarove

It is also the merciless man who refuses to understand and distinguish between people who are different (including different decisions that are made because of those differences) and people who are reprobate.

{So let me ask you, is this realy what I am doing? Am I refusign to understand them because they are edifferent? what if I fuly ndestand a womans desir o abort, or a Homosexuals motives, and disagree on moral grounds? is it not possible in your owrld that I, not they, excersise understanding and they, not I, seek power to dominate?}- Zarove

I might point out that as recent at 50 years ago, you would have been on that list of outcasts. For your obstinate unwillingness to do your homework and learn your spelling lists you would have been eligible for the dunce cap and perhaps the wrath of a teacher’s ruler (particularly if you were left handed). You would not have been able to graduate from high school in some of the better districts because you would have failed most of your English and perhaps some of your math classes (mixing up numbers). There is no way you would have been allowed in a college. At best, you would have been viewed as illiterate. At worst, you would have been considered a reprobate troublemaking dolt.

{This does not, hwoever, reflect on mroal desisions. Fornication 50 years ago was seen as bad, notw its acceptable. i still oppsoe sex outside of marriage. Are you willign to argue that I am refusign to undertsand popels desire to have sex outside of marriage? Sorry, moral isues are seperate from phsyical ones.

Dyslexia is phsyical, not morla, in origin. Aboriton is the murder of a child, Homosexuality is a free choice in activity. Again, they don ewuate as I cannot choose not to be dyslexic, whereas a woman can choose not to abort and a Homosexual can coose to chang ehis life. ( I don beelive that they cant change, as I know soem who did.)}-Zarove

This would have been the conservative view of education, ruled by tradition, intending to protect the values and needs of society by keeping us safe from the likes of you.

{Actually no. Conservitive doctors and conservitive psycologiss swhere the first to identify Dyslexia. As a matter o fact. liberals wanted to send us off. want a full hisotry?}-Zarove

Why is it that you expect others to understand your situation with dyslexia? Because the liberal educator (the merciful man/woman) saw your value as a person and then sought to deal with uniqueness of your situation.

{Actually its because Dyslexia i a medical condition that has been recognised.

Again, is abortion soemthign I must learn to undertsand and accept? Homosexuality? Unless they show a genetic link to Homoseuality, wich is unlikely at this point, then I cannot acept that pepel have no ntoel over hat I myself have cntole over in my own life.

As to abortion, no one in their right mind will say thats geneitc and inborn.

Again, these are choices, my condition is not. So its a bad analogy.

likewise, as stated, Liberals did nothign for Dyslexics.}-Zarove

It was the liberal educator who took the time to recognize that you perceive the world differently and learn differently. Nothing you or any of us can do will change that fact.

{Actually it was conservitives who did. Aain. will get a hisotry fo you if you like.

Also note: Conservitie and Liberal politics has ALSO changed in the last 5 decades... making the whole thing moot.

Likewise, am I really refusign to understand Homosexuals? It seems toy assume that if I understood them I wodl accept them. Same with abortion. Can't you imagine soemone objectign tot hese thigns AND having a full understabnding of them?

I dont queatsion their vlaue as a person, I queastion their moral choices. Liberals want to remove my ability to make such inquery an ar eht eones tryign to excersise this power. and I refer to MODERN Liberals not those of 50 years past and not the doctionary definition.}-Zarove

Then that liberal educator took the time to teach the rest of us (the literate majority) that you are a person of value dealing with a unique situation. In addition, the burden and judgment is placed on us if we fail to recognize your value, your difference, and the different way you must live, learn, and express yourself.

{Again, it wasnt a liberal who diagnosed the condition...In fact it was firts diagnosed in 1896.In England.You know, sexually repressed, ultraconservitive Victorian England.}-Zarove

As a merciful man, you might want to listen to those whom you condemn and desire to punish, seeking to understand what they are living through.

{Gee golly you sure done shamed me now...

Again, your apparent condecent is ittself appauling.

You asusme that, if I understood these peopel, I woudln condemn them, and its all aboit me tryign to excersise power and contorle,a nd you use my condition to show how I coidl be misunderstood.

Problem is, I am not misunderstandign them. Homosexuality is not equatabel with a bilogical disorder. Abortion is even less so.

I understand them, I stkl object on moral ground. Do you really think its imposisble to both fully understand them, and object?}- Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 21, 2004.

Dear Zarove;

While Drs. Hinshelwood (1895) and Morton (1896) described the condition of “word blindness,” it wasn’t until 1925 that American neurologist, Dr. Samuel T. Orton, developed the first theory of the specific learning disability. Orton uses the name, Strephosymbolia or “dyslexia,” coined by Dr. Berlin (Germany – 1878 to describe “reading blindness”).

Orton believed that these children could be taught using alternative methods that differed from traditional instruction for reading and word identification. It took another 30-40 years for the disability to begin to enter mainstream classroom planning. (The graduate level text, “The Exceptional Individual” 1967, did not mention dyslexia.) It was still a “new” concern in the early 1970’s when I received my elementary teaching certification. It was difficult to diagnose. But it was emphasized that dyslexia was not a matter of children being lazy or stupid. (Many teachers who received their certification 10 to 20 years before questioned our “liberal attitude,” cautioning us that we would simply encourage poor classroom performance with these “willful” children. The fear was that other students would follow the bad example.)

The Bangor Dyslexia Test wasn’t in place until the early 1980’s, which greatly helped the local school diagnose the learning disorder. It wasn’t until the late 1990’s that the genetic and brain function location (using PET) was identified. While I have no idea what their political or theological positions were, Orton (and later Anna Gillingham, Werner, Strauss and others) were willing to break with tradition and develop a progressive way of dealing with this condition rather than conventional wisdom in seeing these children as willful, stupid, lazy, and disobedient. I do imagine that they were ‘Merciful” people.

As to the issue of power – who is attempting to force you or your wife to have an abortion or be a homosexual?

Yet, you would force a woman, who has measured her own life circumstance and decided to abort her pregnancy, to put her life in mortal jeopardy by seeking to self abort or to go to a back alley rather than a legal medical facility. Or perhaps her sinful existent being is of no value compared to the “sinless” potential of a 2-month fetus?

And, you would force two consenting adults to live a mutually committed and monogamous life without any civil parity. How will two gay women down the block receiving the same civil protections from Social Security or a health insurance policy as you and your wife damage your marriage? Who is attempting to force you, or your family, or your circle of friends to do anything that is immoral? If you believe that homosexuality is wrong – don’t be a homosexual, don’t invite them to your home or your church, and shun them in public (that’s from my Mennonite background).

While we Christians work to diminish the need for abortion and speak out against promiscuity, and infidelity, let the government oversee the boardrooms and civil order. We adults can work out our salvation and relationship with God without coercion.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), May 22, 2004.

While Drs. Hinshelwood (1895) and Morton (1896) described the condition of “word blindness,” it wasn’t until 1925 that American neurologist, Dr. Samuel T. Orton, developed the first theory of the specific learning disability. Orton uses the name, Strephosymbolia or “dyslexia,” coined by Dr. Berlin (Germany – 1878 to describe “reading blindness”).

{Again, old news. None of these peopel where Liberal though.}-Zarove

Orton believed that these children could be taught using alternative methods that differed from traditional instruction for reading and word identification. It took another 30-40 years for the disability to begin to enter mainstream classroom planning.

{This was because it was poorly understood. How can you put it into mainstream classroom plannign when you don't know what your doing?}- Zarove

(The graduate level text, “The Exceptional Individual” 1967, did not mention dyslexia.)

{Again, I know. However, this is a medical, not political, issue.}- Zarove

It was still a “new” concern in the early 1970’s when I received my elementary teaching certification. It was difficult to diagnose. But it was emphasized that dyslexia was not a matter of children being lazy or stupid. (Many teachers who received their certification 10 to 20 years before questioned our “liberal attitude,” cautioning us that we would simply encourage poor classroom performance with these “willful” children. The fear was that other students would follow the bad example.)

{This isnt really what we mean by Liberal these days though, is it? Perhaps you relaly haven't caught on that the word Liberal, as it is used in poliitcs these days, has no connection wihte word Liberal even of 20 years ago. Likewise, those who wanted ot Help Dlexics where often political conservitives. And again, this is less a mroal or poltical issue as a medical one.}-Zarove

The Bangor Dyslexia Test wasn’t in place until the early 1980’s, which greatly helped the local school diagnose the learning disorder. It wasn’t until the late 1990’s that the genetic and brain function location (using PET) was identified. While I have no idea what their political or theological positions were, Orton (and later Anna Gillingham, Werner, Strauss and others) were willing to break with tradition and develop a progressive way of dealing with this condition rather than conventional wisdom in seeing these children as willful, stupid, lazy, and disobedient. I do imagine that they were ‘Merciful” people.

{I am merciful. You want to say i am not because of what I oppose. You aslso seem to think my position coems form fear, ignorance, and tradition, rathe than understanding.

Again, their si a diference between learning a new medical condition and how to deal with it, and allowing moral issues to be trampled on to allow degeneration.Treatmenr of Dyslexia was Amoral. No one objected to it on moral groupds. it was Apolitical. No one objected t it politically. It was purely medical.}-Zarove

As to the issue of power – who is attempting to force you or your wife to have an abortion or be a homosexual?

{They are tryign to force us to accedpt Homosexuality as Legitimate.They want our tax dollars to pay for gay marriag benefits. They want our taxdollars to assist in abortion of minors and govenrment workersd and those who cant pay fo it themselves.

Likewise, why does it have to be about me? Even if my future wife ( Unmaried at the time) gets pregnent, the issue isnt her right ot choose to abort otr not, but the right of the CHILD to life.

I dont care who it is, the child has a righ ot life, and the mother has no right to murder said Child.}-Zarove

Yet, you would force a woman, who has measured her own life circumstance and decided to abort her pregnancy, to put her life in mortal jeopardy by seeking to self abort or to go to a back alley rather than a legal medical facility.

{Actually, I am oppsoed tot hat as well. And o toy really think if abortion herent legal 100% f the abortions performed now leglaly at leinics woudl be perfrmed in back allys or in bathrooms wiht coathangers? Statistics bear a different testemony. If yoy make soemthign illegal, fewer peopel do it out of fear of the consequences. if Aboriton lost the glamour of that safe clinic, fewer women woudl abort. This is a fact, because few women WOULD place themselves in Mortal Jepardy. Poeple arent that stupid.

Those that DID do this woudl also be tried for Murder if discovered. The reason is because Abortio IS murder.

You may want me to feel less merciful than pepel who support abortion, but I cant. women who abort their children muder them. Murder is never mroally acceptable.

So where is tour mercy to the unborn?}-Zarove

Or perhaps her sinful existent being is of no value compared to the “sinless” potential of a 2-month fetus?

{"Potential" is the problem. a 2 month old Fetus alreayd has a heartbeat, fingerprints, and can do basic involuntary functions. Their is nothing "Potential" their.

Again, this sint abotu devaluing the women, its abo preserving life.

As much as you want to call me unmerciful, you are advocatign Infanticide.}-Zarove

And, you would force two consenting adults to live a mutually committed and monogamous life without any civil parity.

{Nope. I woudl simpley not legally recognise perversion that has a detremental effect on society. Marriage is only legally recognised because of the social good it does. Sudies in areas that allow gay Marriage shpw that marriage as a whole is chepaened and falls apart where this is allowed. Homosexuals cannot naturaly brign fourh Children, which is one LARGE part f family. Homosexuals also prevent the unity of man and woman and the sabilty of a time honoured institution, if you wan tot argue marriage "rights".

Riskign all of society is not what i call merciful, its what I call stupid an sortsighted.}-Zarove

How will two gay women down the block receiving the same civil protections from Social Security or a health insurance policy as you and your wife damage your marriage?

{1: I have to pay for their social security beenefits, even if I am mroally opposed. No one is morally opposed to heterosexual marriage. except, of course, soem firnge liberals.

2: It hurts me because theuy ar eliving in sin, and destoryign each other. Psycolohical health among lesbians is at a greater risk even than that of Homosexual men. They form too easily an unhealthy odependant relationship. Likewise, the medical risk to them is ignifigant, with few living over the age of 65. Likewise, their "marriage" chepaens and degrades wthe concept f marriage for society, helpign to fiurther erode the institution and cause more civil inrest.

Is that enough?}-Zarove

Who is attempting to force you, or your family, or your circle of friends to do anything that is immoral?

{Trying to force me to accept he legitimacy of Homosexuality is force applied. Tryimng to forc eme to accpe tthat a fetus isn a person and just a potential person and that I shoud be ":Merciful" tot he actual person and let her get a safe abortion is also damaging. It damages us all when life is cheapened. Does the mother have the right to ecid if her child lives or dies? if your perverse senc of mercy, Yes, and I lack mercy because I defend the unborn.

I lack merct and compassion because I call perversion perversion and want no support for it, and dont want it forced into legitimacy, and to be cforced to accept it as a "Persecuted Minority".

This may surprise you, btu I have gay firneds. I even have a gay aunt. I don treat them badly but oppose their lifestyle, and will not permit them to degrade society for their peleasure. Beleive it r not, most fot hem don want the laws changed to allow gay mariage, only a small extremist group does. I am more merciful than you because I stand for the defenceless, the unborn, and the morality God told us to uphold. I do this out of love ofsociety and knowiugn perversion leads to decay. This I can do out of love and with full understanding.

But can you understand me?}-Zarove

If you believe that homosexuality is wrong – don’t be a homosexual, don’t invite them to your home or your church, and shun them in public (that’s from my Mennonite background).

{Actually, they beling in Chruch, how else will they learn morality? I shun none form God's house. All are welcomed to repent. I simpley seek not to legitimise their sin.}-Zarove

While we Christians work to diminish the need for abortion and speak out against promiscuity, and infidelity, let the government oversee the boardrooms and civil order. We adults can work out our salvation and relationship with God without coercion.

{You think that aborton is puely a mater or religiosu conceoince? Do you really think I only object to abortion on religious terms? As I said on another board, Atheists oppsoed Abortion, based onthe same reasons. It is MURDER. Murder of the unborn child is not purely violatiin of religiosu conceonce, and SHOUDL be civil law.

Likwise, Homosexuality can, and is, oppsoed by many Atheists, and many other religions.

Likewise, if we as christaisn do not stand up for what we beleive in, we loose our rights. Christains need to be active in covil govenrent, just liek Muslims and Buddhists do, to protect their inerestd and way of life, lest it be taken away.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 22, 2004.

I see good points made by both Rev. Fretz and Zorove. Zorove pointed out that the word "Liberal" has little connection with what it meant even twenty years ago. This perception is very true. I suspect that Rev. Fretz and I are closer in age as I think we both have a respect for what Liberal meant when we were "coming up."

"Back in the day," I was not the least bit reticent about describing myself as liberal. It was not a dirty word 20 or 30 years ago... nothing like the way its preceived today. For me, Liberal meant being open to ideas, not fearing change in the status-quo, and looking for common ground among those of us with different backgrounds and beliefs. It seemed a good position to hold.

I suspect that like many movements, like a pendulum, liberalism had its day. In areas where it was taken too far, the backlash reversed the pendulum. Now conservatism seems associated with the moral highground and liberalism with elitism and decadence. But just as the pendulum dragged liberalism out of the range of societal comfort. I predict that conservatism may have the same fate. Probably not in my lifetime, but one day many years from now, people will rightly point out that the word Conservative "does not really mean what it did 20 years ago."

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), May 23, 2004.

Dear Jim;

You most likely are right about our age. Liberalism is not the same as moral license or libertarianism. Your definition still applies. A liberal mind is one that sees the value of the other and is open to their differences. Also, a liberal is able to explore without fear, and disagree without disparagement. In short, a liberal is willing to learn, to grow, and to develop as a human being (the creature God called good) giving others, at minimum, the same latitude we seek for ourselves.

-- Robert Fretz (Pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), May 25, 2004.

Rev. Fretz,

Thats how I see it too!

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), May 25, 2004.

But you have to realise that the term is not used that way any longer, and Liberal doesnt mean open minded and willign to learn and explore and grow. Most Political Liberals, in fact, are stunted in their thinkign and angrely demand they get their way even on failed social programmes priven to not work.

And theirs no way you can convence me the murder of an innocent baby is Merciful, or the allowanc eof Moral degredation is somehow open minded.

By your definiiton I am liberal, and you arent.

Thge problem is, of course, if I call myself Liberal, peopel will assume I vite democrate, and am for loose moral values, pro aboriton, anti-Chrisyaina dn traditional values, and for socialisation.

That is, of coruse, what we mean by liberal to-day.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 25, 2004.

Ok....me too....I'm a Republican.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 25, 2004.

I am neither. But then again, who cares. Not a Liberal either.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 25, 2004.

What do you guys think I am?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 25, 2004.

100% hardcore Democrat, David, with Independant tendencies.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 26, 2004.

http://pub84.ezboard.com/fthechristianforumfrm3.showMessage? topicID=3.topic

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 26, 2004.

It's been deleted, David. It went bye-bye.

......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 26, 2004.

Click Me

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 26, 2004.

Well, David, you did say you were voting for Nader.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 26, 2004.

Uh....David.....I've been in and around numerous forums in my time. I simply choose not to use my PC for online stuff. I like my old computer way too much. hee..hheee.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 26, 2004.

o 3 days

o A week

o 2 weeks

o May God Help Him

o When I figure out what "no" and "ffo" means.

I put a picture against my computer screen the other day. It still won't scan a thing. Hmm??

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 26, 2004.

Dear Jim;

Political parties generally have little to do with religious and social liberalism. Both Republican and Democratic parties tend to be conservative (maintaining the status quo) in keeping bureaucracies (government and private) intact. Issues (Anti choice, pro choice, equal rights, 2nd amendment rights, etc) do not change the nature of those in control, they simply enhance the power of those in control who seek to maintain the status quo.

Dear Zarove;

Don't worry. No one will ever mistake you for being liberal.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), May 26, 2004.

hohoho, yeah I am not open minded or tolerent, and lack lercy. I am "Anti-Choice." I don't beleive killign babies is a good thing, hat makes me evil because I force the motehr to actually not murder their children.

By your definition of Liberal, I am Liberal, fretz. Becausae I am open minded, and am merciful. But likewise, byy your definition of Liberal, you lack the quality of mercy because you support Infantacide and call all opposed "Anti-Choice."

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 26, 2004.

Dear Zarove;

Why do you want to be labeled a liberal?

Any way...

My point regarding dyslexia and homosexuality, is that it took time to determine whether dyslexia was a condition of willful disobedience and laziness or a physical/psychological exceptionality. With dyslexia, scientific investigation began in the mid 19th century and definitive explanations did not come about until we were approaching the 21st century: almost 150 years.

Serious and non-biased scientific investigation into homosexuality only began in the mid 1960’s. Following the dyslexia timeline, we should have a definitive answer sometime around 2100 as to the physical and psychological causes of homosexuality. In the mean time, what is our action to be?

Civilly - Since the government can (IRS and Social Security Administration, etc.) recognize numerous family structures and benefits are available to families without children as well as with children, then the civil laws should extend to all lawful citizens in the country. (The taxes paid by a homosexual will be higher – generally, greater income with fewer deductions – and are more likely to pay for the benefits of a heterosexual than the other way around since the homosexual population is only about 3% of the total population in the United States - Janus Report on Sexuality)

Psychologically - you mention the psychological damage done to people who are homosexual. In credible studies, you will find that most damage is caused by devalued self worth through the persecution (physical and mental) and rejection of the homosexual by his/her family, religious fellowship, and community. That is easily verified in the JAMA, JAPA, The Lancet, and studies conducted by the NIMH.

Religiously – I choose the merciful path. That is the lens we should use to look at scripture.

Considering your comments, I assume you rely on the several verses prohibiting certain homosexual behavior in the Bible (about 8 if memory serves me).

Regarding the Hebrew Scriptures, if we are tied to the Levitical prohibitions, does that mean we are free to kill our disobedient children? If Leviticus says treat your slaves justly, can we own slaves? And, while rape (male and female) along with promiscuity are involved in the story of Sodom, the fact is, the scriptural definition of sodomy is clearly stated in Ezekiel 16:49, “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom; she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and the needy.” (Remember, we Protestants believe scripture is self interpreting)

Yes, there is a sin of sodomy – but it doesn’t have anything to do with a person’s sexual identity or orientation being acted upon in a life long and monogamous relationship.

As for the Christian scriptures, looking past the fact that Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality, the specific Greek language that St. Paul uses (that is misinterpreted in the RSV as “homosexuality”) has to do with heterosexual men cheating on their wives (adultery) with unnatural homosexual behavior, effeminates (usually male courtesans), and child abusers.

Just as society and the church has become accepting in its outlook upon “exceptional” people with dyslexia who were perceived as “stupid” (condemned 16 times in scripture) and “fools and foolish” (condemned over 100 times), so too, we should be able to deal with the exceptional sexual orientation of a minority in our society and at the same time uphold the standards of personal morality and family based upon committed, monogamous, and lifelong relationships.

Moving to the issue of women’s reproductive rights and equating early term abortion (which accounts to over 80% of all abortions) with murder, the “moment of conception” was never used by society as the point when personhood was given to the fetus or when a women relinquished her personhood to the fetus. Only abortion after the quickening (13 to 15 weeks) was outlawed in most (American) states into the 1800’s, following English common law. Abortion did have a high maternal mortality rate due to infection. Taking advantage of this, in the second half of the 19th century, medical societies supported extended restrictions. It should be pointed out that midwives (women) were the primary abortion providers and the medical associations (men) supported the laws and tradition restricting women’s entrance into medical schools. (That issue of power comes up again)

Even when abortions were prohibited into the 20th century, they continued. Midwives in ethnic communities and friendly family doctors (using therapeutic dilatation and curettage for general "female problems") offered the safest procedures but tended to be limited to married women or the daughters of long time patients. Self abortion and resorting to back alley amatures was the common path for teens who had no family support, were abused in the family, or came from religious families and were afraid to disclose the pregnancy. Needless to say, permenant damage and death were common occurances.

No one denies a process is begun at conception, but that process is not equal to or greater than the existent life of the woman. Potential life and existent life are not treated equally because they are not equal.

We identify that difference in how we conduct our life as a society and church. If a mother dies during the early term of a pregnancy (for any cause) there is no death certificate for the fetus. In the early term of pregnancy the Church does not require a funeral for a miscarried baby (Masses and memorial services tend to be a pastoral consideration for the parents but are not the norm). An early term miscarried child is not listed in the church (or state) records as a birth and no death certificate is issued. The Church does not baptize an early term fetus in the uterus. Sacramentally, to be baptized one has to be born and survive apart from the mother.

The courts ruled correctly that in the early term of a pregnancy, the woman’s need outweighs the civil interest in the pregnancy. If a woman is in the situation with an unplanned / unwanted pregnancy, she has a choice to make. And it is her's alone to make.

If a woman’s physical life is not in jeopardy, we (Christians) should be able to convince (not coerce) the woman that there are better alternatives to abortion – if she is not convinced, I suggest that we failed because she did not see evidence in our words and actions that we were trustworthy enough to keep our promises to her. In short, we did not reveal the presence and love of Christ.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), May 27, 2004.

Well, the laws of the land may try to make a determination of when life begins. I tend to leave that up to the woman. Once conception exists, you can't turn back.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 27, 2004.

Dear Zarove; Why do you want to be labeled a liberal?

{Depends on the definition, curretn deifnition I want to see as alein to me... But yor definitin amkes me more liberal than you, as I am mor generous and more open minded.}-Zarove

Any way...

My point regarding dyslexia and homosexuality, is that it took time to determine whether dyslexia was a condition of willful disobedience and laziness or a physical/psychological exceptionality. With dyslexia, scientific investigation began in the mid 19th century and definitive explanations did not come about until we were approaching the 21st century: almost 150 years.

{Thats rather an irrelevant point since it overlooks he enourmous strides science has made in his time... fr insatcne, we can now do full genetic sweeps of the Human Genome, soemthign impossible in the 19th century. You assume here that it shoudl take roughtly the same amoungt of time, which i ludecrous since comouters double in power every 6 months. Plus, we have a better workign knweldg eof physiology, psycology, and the naure of body chemistry to guide our search, all of which was unknwon in the 19th century. homosexality won't exaclty be a search started form scratch since it will build on earlier research, mosg pf whoch formally began i the 18th century. So it shoudltn take as long, by logic.}-Zarove

Serious and non-biased scientific investigation into homosexuality only began in the mid 1960’s. Following the dyslexia timeline, we should have a definitive answer sometime around 2100 as to the physical and psychological causes of homosexuality. In the mean time, what is our action to be?

{Again, you cannot follow the dyslexia timeline, as we can usr the research form past conditiosn loiek diyslexia to build cufinctional modles. Of course. dyslexia is totaly unrelated to sexuality, but we have a HUGE body of reseRCH. wE DIDNT START IN 1960. Nor is it accurate to think that we had nohtign in 1960 and strted form scratch. Likewise, een the now infamous Kensay study was conducted int he 1950's, and Homosexuality was investegated in the 19th century by freud and others... so techniclaly no, formal inquerry did nt begin in the 1960's, but a little under a century earlier.}-Zarove

Civilly - Since the government can (IRS and Social Security Administration, etc.) recognize numerous family structures and benefits are available to families without children as well as with children, then the civil laws should extend to all lawful citizens in the country.

{It does. However, this does nto eman that we shoudl make soemthign lawful thatsint, such as Gay marriages. You are operatign on a standard logical fallacy, that gay Marriage is somehow a right, tha is denied Homosexuals. that heterosexuals can marry, but Homosexuals cannot marry. This fallacy is incorrect. No one, raher gay or stroght, can marry thier oswn sex. except now iN Mass. Where gay marriage is legal, two steight men can hypothetically likewise get married. The wuasyion is if the govenrment SHOUDL create new RIGHT, NOT RATHE ROR NOT A GRUP IS DENIESD EQIEL RIGHTS, AS GAYS ALREAYD HAVE EQUEL RIGHTS.

Civvil we houdl not, hwoever, grant Gay marriages. Because studies have indicated that it demoralised an cheapens rgular marriage, and ontribnutes ot civil unrest an social degredation in the nations, like sweden, where it is introdiced.

Marriage was not mean tot be an institution based on lust, or on simpley two peopel loivng each other, btu is a basic unit to protect the family and unite to halves of a whole, and in this instance, a social benefit of staility is proven, and endangered byt he prospect you wan tto offer. You call me unmerciful for oppsoign this, but you are ahortsighted if you think allowing perversion of a rime honoured universal institution is a good idea.}-Zarove

(The taxes paid by a homosexual will be higher – generally, greater income with fewer deductions – and are more likely to pay for the benefits of a heterosexual than the other way around since the homosexual population is only about 3% of the total population in the United States - Janus Report on Sexuality)

{Actually we will pay for their medical benefits, and Homosexuals are 68% mor elikely to need medical aid than Herterosexuals, including long term care, and if you do the baalance, we are still going to find them profitign form peopel who norlaly object.

Likewise, the demorilisation of society and decay of marriage as an institution will also cause problems you may not foresee, and it is wiser not to simey say " Its Ok to be Gay, so lets let them marry" wthout weighting the deeper ramificatiosn this may have on society as a whole. ramificatiosn you prefer to think dont exoist. When te crme and dirce rate increases and more babies ar born out of wedlock, poveryy increaes, and you se mroe broken and imbittered lives, you still ownt see the cause. This is one step in the wrogn direction, a direction tomroal reletavism and ddcay, legeslated and enforced by the govenrment, and pardoned by you.}-Zarove

Psychologically - you mention the psychological damage done to people who are homosexual. In credible studies, you will find that most damage is caused by devalued self worth through the persecution (physical and mental) and rejection of the homosexual by his/her family, religious fellowship, and community. That is easily verified in the JAMA, JAPA, The Lancet, and studies conducted by the NIMH.

{Actually this isnt true. In crfedible studies, and I only get credible ones, I do not frequent AFA, or othe rnlien resources, Homosexuals n accpetign envirionments are still more likely than Heterosexuasl to commit suicide. in largley irrelegious, secular, and acceptign societies liek sweden, Neurosis is far mroe common to Homosexuals than heterosexual, so is a hisotry of unhealthy rlatioships, unsatisfies love life, distended persoanlity , and other less than desireable mental defeceincies that come wihthte territory. so no, its not all cased by persecution, thats a conveneint and popular myth.}-Zarove

Religiously – I choose the merciful path. That is the lens we should use to look at scripture.

{Mercty doesnt mean accpetance of perversion though. I can be merciful and still tell them thy are wrong. We as a culture can be merciful and not allow marriage to be desoryed fr he desires of a small percentage of a small percentage of the community. Not even all Gays want marriageyu know? By not allowiung Gay marriage,w e arnet denying the rights of anyone. By not allowign Gay marriage we are preserving marriage itsself, not beign unmerciful.

By tellign someone they are wrogn and destoryign themselves, we arent beign unmerciful, we are beignloving if we do it in a lovign manner. Just like tellign epoepl not to be alcaholic is not unmerciful.}-Zarove

Considering your comments, I assume you rely on the several verses prohibiting certain homosexual behavior in the Bible (about 8 if memory serves me).

{The amount doesn't matter. Do you rally think that a small percentage means less importance? Only about 9 verses tell of the ressurection fo Jesus formt he dead. Does htis make it unimportant?

Likewise, i am nto limited tot he Bible. I have scientific studies. ( Yes, real, credibke sicnee.) I am a psyclogy major at collage. Though I don have them handy now ( Its summer, gve me a break) I know, as I have read them, that Gays don suffer form depression nd neursis only because they afre pwrsecuted. i also know for a fact that their relationshops are usually less healthy and heir health usually pooerer. These are all repoets not released tot he general public but not relalys ecret either. The reason they arent released is becuae few are reall intereste din technical reprots, and the meda aisin relaly oen o soften the blow on a story thats not pro gay rights.

The fact is, most major religions, and all scinece, tells us that Homosexuality coems with a pricetag, and is usually the result of a deepseated neurosis ina nd of itsself. It is dangerous and degradign to the person to actually BE homosexual, an thi is why one must speak agaisnt it.}-Zarove

Regarding the Hebrew Scriptures, if we are tied to the Levitical prohibitions, does that mean we are free to kill our disobedient children? If Leviticus says treat your slaves justly, can we own slaves?

{We do , as a society own slaves. Slavery as an institution was diffeen tin the ANE than it was int he American civil war times. Likewise, disiplinign children i still mandate, and though killign may seem harsh, one must also conside the times. Society was new, and just risen form barbary, and on all sides hostiles threatened to swallow them up. Corporate survival took presedence over individual survival and any decent coudl have triggeed mass rebellion. Do you even know how life was in the ancient near east?}-Zarove

And, while rape (male and female) along with promiscuity are involved in the story of Sodom, the fact is, the scriptural definition of sodomy is clearly stated in Ezekiel 16:49, “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom; she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and the needy.” (Remember, we Protestants believe scripture is self interpreting)

{Remember,thirs also Jude, chapter 1, verse 7.

7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Seems liek sex to me...fuess Jude dosn tmatter though since yoy can just pull your arguments off of pro gay websites to bolster yor position ather than try to undertsand the word of God...

If the KJV isnt good enoug for you, hwo about the World english Version?

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, having, in the same way as these, given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

Doesnt mater relaly, they all say the same thing. But I guess you can ignore thi pasage, after all, it doesnt suit your "Open midned and enerous" ends.

Thn theirs also the rabbinical liturature form before Christ, the talmud, and other variosu Jewish writiynfs hat all conceed that Homosexuality is bad, and Sodom was filled with Homosexuals. But I guess we can upchuck al the Jewish stuff, after all, what do they know? They just wrte the book is all...}-Zarove

Yes, there is a sin of sodomy – but it doesn’t have anything to do with a person’s sexual identity or orientation being acted upon in a life long and monogamous relationship.

{Actually, it does. And even if it idnt, the moral codes stll speak agaisnt it...even if the punishments are no longer seen as suitable, adultery, incest, theft, all still considered wrong...so why not Homosxuality?}-Zarove

As for the Christian scriptures, looking past the fact that Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality, the specific Greek language that St. Paul uses (that is misinterpreted in the RSV as “homosexuality”) has to do with heterosexual men cheating on their wives (adultery) with unnatural homosexual behavior, effeminates (usually male courtesans), and child abusers.

{Nice way to tiptoe and undercut. Jesus didnt mention rape either, so I uess as a christan i can off and rape soemone...

Just because Jesus dint spacifically mention soemthign ( that we knwo of) dosnt mean he was Ok with it.

Likewise, you just lied. Paul never said "Heterosexual men, don't cheat on tor wives with Homosexual lovers."

romans chapoter 1

21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 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, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 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; 29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31. Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Sicne this is gougn too long, I sant make his too detailed, however, can you SHOW your evidenc ehtta htis was intende d for, ot that any verse wa sinened to mean, striehgt men acting gay and cheatign on theri wives? It has always been understood to mean steihg tout Homosexuality. Not strights acting Gay, yet you and the pro gay wbsite you pulled this form ay otherwise. Can you SHOW me the GREK TENCE so I cna look it up in my lexicons? Can you? Well,? or is this nothign mor ehtan your cheap attemt t pervert scrioture for your own gain?}-Zarove

Just as society and the church has become accepting in its outlook upon “exceptional” people with dyslexia who were perceived as “stupid” (condemned 16 times in scripture) and “fools and foolish” (condemned over 100 times), so too, we should be able to deal with the exceptional sexual orientation of a minority in our society and at the same time uphold the standards of personal morality and family based upon committed, monogamous, and lifelong relationships.

{Dyslecics where condemned? Can you PRIVE that fools anf the foolish meant dyslexics? Can you show yoyr proof that stupid peopel int eh Bibel where relaly dysolexics and misunderstood?

Is it posisble that fool didnt mean dyslecxic?

Arent you graspign for straws here?}-Zarove

Moving to the issue of women’s reproductive rights and equating early term abortion (which accounts to over 80% of all abortions) with murder, the “moment of conception” was never used by society as the point when personhood was given to the fetus or when a women relinquished her personhood to the fetus.

{Sociedty does not make mroal law, God does. Sicnec ehas determiend that lfie begins at conception, nothign society had to say will alter this fact. Just liek if society decides that the sun really does move about the earth, it won't make it so.}-Zarove

Only abortion after the quickening (13 to 15 weeks) was outlawed in most (American) states into the 1800’s, following English common law.

{Interesting hwo you work. If I poisnt out that int eh 1800's we had hangings for sodomites, yu woudl use the word "Progress and modern understanding." If I point out that we know a heck of a lot more now than we did in 1801, you woudln care and woudl still use it. After all, it supports yout "womans reprodictive rights" argument. This si an appeal to an outdated authority. I cannot help what they did, and they didnt knwo any better. We do. We arent locled in the midnset of the 19th century wiht all its limits, we are in the21st century and modern scince shoudl be employed, not english common law of the 1800;'s.}-Zarove

Abortion did have a high maternal mortality rate due to infection. Taking advantage of this, in the second half of the 19th century, medical societies supported extended restrictions. It should be pointed out that midwives (women) were the primary abortion providers and the medical associations (men) supported the laws and tradition restricting women’s entrance into medical schools. (That issue of power comes up again)

{This is irrelevant tot he pro life argument. And do call it pro life rather han anti-choice.

I don care aboutthe practices of early Tankeedom, I care about when life began and ends, NOT when peoepl thought it did back 200 years ago.}-Zarove

Even when abortions were prohibited into the 20th century, they continued. Midwives in ethnic communities and friendly family doctors (using therapeutic dilatation and curettage for general "female problems") offered the safest procedures but tended to be limited to married women or the daughters of long time patients. Self abortion and resorting to back alley amatures was the common path for teens who had no family support, were abused in the family, or came from religious families and were afraid to disclose the pregnancy. Needless to say, permenant damage and death were common occurances.

{Not as common thouhg. Statistically more owmen gave birth that risk abortion. You are makint he same slippery slope assesment that all of the aotiosn that are 100% legal now woudl take palce if abortion was illegal. Only it woudl be dabngerous. had it occired to you that a lot of owmen gave Birth back then, and became ocial poutcasts, because they WOUDL NOT seek a backally aortion?

Then theirs the other problem. Rapes been illegal ince the middle ages, yet we syill aheb it. peoprl resort to illegal rape. Maybe we shoudl just regulate rape, sicne we cant get rid of it...

Again, I am not interested so much in your poin of viw about womens reproductive rights. Use SCIENCE to show me that the fetus sin alive, or else admit you are killign a living thing. if the thing is alive and contains human DNA, why sin it human?}-Zarove

No one denies a process is begun at conception, but that process is not equal to or greater than the existent life of the woman. Potential life and existent life are not treated equally because they are not equal.

{Thats where we diverge. The fetus sint "Potential life." Acordign to the entire scinece of embriology, its a complete, seperate livign thing that is in symbiotic union wiht its mother. It is not, hwoever, only [otentially alive, but rather is classified in all medical text book as a livign orgsnism.Care yo take on the entire scienc eof embryology? I am sure with our modern PET sans, ultrasund equipment, and Invetro scannign capacity, they woudl love to yeaild to 19th century english Common Law...}-Zarove

We identify that difference in how we conduct our life as a society and church. If a mother dies during the early term of a pregnancy (for any cause) there is no death certificate for the fetus.

{This is cultural, not medical. And irrelevsant tot he queastion of rather the feus was alive or not.}-Zarove

In the early term of pregnancy the Church does not require a funeral for a miscarried baby (Masses and memorial services tend to be a pastoral consideration for the parents but are not the norm).

{Relevant how? Again, this is a mater of medical sicnece, NOT a matter of religiosu obligation.}-Zarove

An early term miscarried child is not listed in the church (or state) records as a birth and no death certificate is issued. The Church does not baptize an early term fetus in the uterus. Sacramentally, to be baptized one has to be born and survive apart from the mother.

{See above, this has no bearign on the topic at hand. legal an cultural recognition does not change the facts of Biology. Just liek the myht that you cant get pregnent on your first time havign sex doesnt mean you really cant because a bunch of poepl beleive it.}- Zarove

The courts ruled correctly that in the early term of a pregnancy, the woman’s need outweighs the civil interest in the pregnancy. If a woman is in the situation with an unplanned / unwanted pregnancy, she has a choice to make. And it is her's alone to make.

{Wrong. he cpurts made a vlaid determination about her safety and allowenc eof termination if thir is medical risk, however, they made an error in giving th emothe rlicence ot murder her own child.

Smpley saying it was OK doesn tmake it OK. Again, i dotn care about 19th cenirty common law, I care about the medical sicnece, which tells me it sa livign thing, and God's alw that says not to murder anyone. Kilign an unbirn chold is Murder, nd this choice is not offered to anyone, and is not th emothers choice alone to make, as the fetus is a livign thing and she has no rightto end this livign things life for her own conencne.

Again, you say I am closed minded and unmerciful, and yet you dismiss the life of a child base don arguments of law, whre is your mercy to the unborn?}-Zarove

If a woman’s physical life is not in jeopardy, we (Christians) should be able to convince (not coerce) the woman that there are better alternatives to abortion – if she is not convinced, I suggest that we failed because she did not see evidence in our words and actions that we were trustworthy enough to keep our promises to her. In short, we did not reveal the presence and love of Christ.

{ Christ imself must not have then as many turned form him... and again, opposition to legal aboruton does not ela to a rahs of illegal aboritons, nor does it automatically elad to suffering, nor is it a removal of a womans repriductive rights.

Opposition to abortion isbased on, an entirley on, conern not for a potential livign thing, but an actual human person.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 27, 2004.

Dear Zarove;

I apologize for taking you into a level of discussion in which you were unprepared. That being the case, I will end the conversation with thanks for taking time to read what I had to offer you. I will make a few additional suggestions and clarifications before I leave.

1 – If you are majoring in psychology, I strongly suggest that you start catching up on the professional journals (those I listed and others). Using unpublished or unreviewed material to establish theory, policy, and treatment is questionable at best and at worst, dangerous for your prospective clients. If you get hit with a malpractice suite and attempt to defend yourself with such studies and articles, you will lose.

2 – As for the linguistic and commentary materials I use, they include Keil- Delitzsch Commentary of the Old Testament, Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament (Kohlenberger), Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Davidson), Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Nestle-Marshall), along with other Greek and Hebrew commentaries. (These are the resources I used 33 years ago (except Kholenberger) as a student at a conservative, Midwest, Christian college [far from any metropolitan area and no internet] to develop my understanding about these two subjects, among many others. I might add, that I approached these issues from an orientation not too far from what you have expressed. But, I was compelled to change and follow scripture. When I did that, all else fell into place.)

3 – Try to avoid mixing metaphysics and physics, the Catholic Church has had to defend the “realness” of Christ in a physical location ( an idolatry according to the 10 Commandments) ever since Aquinas gave a scientific/metaphysic definition to “This is my body… this is my blood.” When you ask, “When does life begin,” you are asking a metaphysical (and theological) question, not a scientific one. Life does not begin at a “conception,” rather, it continues from our very creation as a species. If you consider life beginning at the cellular level, then there are millions of lives created in our bodies every day, some that are regenerating our bodies and others that attack our bodies (viruses) and others that are parasitic and symbiotic. If we cause the death of those cells with medications, are we guilty of murder? Of course not.

It is a metaphysical evaluation on the potential of this particular cell grouping in a woman as special and unique – that is religious in nature, not scientific. Just as there are multiple religious beliefs, so there are multiple philosophies/ religious explanations when the soul of an individual is created, delivered, or manifested.

Whether we are talking about the creation of souls or intimate human relationships, in our pluralistic country, we make laws that accommodate those differences and at the same time promote civil order. Civil order, not a Plutonic utopia, is the common denominator to enable our society to function. Coercive laws supporting a particular religious community do not create a moral people or moral beliefs. It simply devalues the ideal of righteousness and justice to the mundane as something to get around instead of a way of life to strive for. Ultimately, that disregard for civil law breaks down the mutual trust citizens have for each other.

Continue the journey and good luck on your studies.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), May 30, 2004.

Alas, a malpractice suite might get you a room at Sing Sing whereas a malpractice suit will end up costing you money and your ability to practice in the mental health field.

Peace.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), May 30, 2004.

Dear Zarove; I apologize for taking you into a level of discussion in which you were unprepared. That being the case, I will end the conversation with thanks for taking time to read what I had to offer you. I will make a few additional suggestions and clarifications before I leave.

{I was actually quiet well prepaired. Thi si a typcal Ad Hominim.

I am obviosuly ignorant or intellectually inforior yto you and lack the ability to discuss.

Thsi because I find it inconsistant to se englush Common Law form the 19th century to justify Abortion, and yet not to justify the execution of Homosexuals. ( In the 19th centiury they where hung, why did htat never enter your mind?)

Likewise, usign modern Science is bad in the case of examining aboriton, btu OK to examine the cause of Homosexuality.

This seems less liek me beign ill prepaired, but you beign inconsistant.

Do NOT insult me liek this again. It is unbecoming.}-Zarove

1 – If you are majoring in psychology, I strongly suggest that you start catching up on the professional journals (those I listed and others). Using unpublished or unreviewed material to establish theory, policy, and treatment is questionable at best and at worst, dangerous for your prospective clients. If you get hit with a malpractice suite and attempt to defend yourself with such studies and articles, you will lose.

{I do read proffessional Journals. You basiclaly assume I don't because I disagree with you. Lying about where I get my information doesn't make you seem superior you know.}-Zarove

2 – As for the linguistic and commentary materials I use, they include Keil- Delitzsch Commentary of the Old Testament, Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament (Kohlenberger), Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Davidson), Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Nestle-Marshall), along with other Greek and Hebrew commentaries. (These are the resources I used 33 years ago (except Kholenberger) as a student at a conservative, Midwest, Christian college [far from any metropolitan area and no internet] to develop my understanding about these two subjects, among many others. I might add, that I approached these issues from an orientation not too far from what you have expressed. But, I was compelled to change and follow scripture. When I did that, all else fell into place.)

{Actually you got your pro gay, pro abpriton arguments form standard websites that promoite suckh things, and you know it.

I actually KNBOW Hebrew, somethign I doub you do. Liekwise, I study in deapth as well, ad have come tot heconclusion that anyone who wants to warp a document can. Juszt liek peopel warp the meanign of the ocnstotution, you warp the meanign of the Holy Binel just to sit your own ends.

This is wrong, and intellectuall dishoienst, and sayign I am ill prepared or mentlaly incapable of discussing these thigns is itsself nothign but a cheap put for you to play moral high ground.Such condecent is in and of itsself unbecoming of a Christain who is sppose to show a degree of lvoe in his communications. Soemthign someone who advocates Infanticide and who mocks the intellectual capacity of another because they disagree withthem may not understand.}-Zarove

3 – Try to avoid mixing metaphysics and physics, the Catholic Church has had to defend the “realness” of Christ in a physical location ( an idolatry according to the 10 Commandments) ever since Aquinas gave a scientific/metaphysic definition to “This is my body… this is my blood.” When you ask, “When does life begin,” you are asking a metaphysical (and theological) question, not a scientific one. Life does not begin at a “conception,” rather, it continues from our very creation as a species. If you consider life beginning at the cellular level, then there are millions of lives created in our bodies every day, some that are regenerating our bodies and others that attack our bodies (viruses) and others that are parasitic and symbiotic. If we cause the death of those cells with medications, are we guilty of murder? Of course not.

{Actually askign qhen life beguns is neither a theological nor metaphysical queastion, tis one of Biology. The feild of embryology is the study of nacent development of livign things, and this scinece has always classified the Fetus as a livign, independant being. Saying otherwise is to toss out embryology compeltely. Or else to render it a rleigiosu feild rather than a medicalone, which is absurd.}-Zarove

It is a metaphysical evaluation on the potential of this particular cell grouping in a woman as special and unique – that is religious in nature, not scientific. Just as there are multiple religious beliefs, so there are multiple philosophies/ religious explanations when the soul of an individual is created, delivered, or manifested.

{Not true. Again, do you need me to post information on actual embryology? I can you know, their ar epelnty of Bilogy and medical sites out their, all of which are neither reigious in nature, nor are the in agreeance wiht yuor claims.}-Zarove

Whether we are talking about the creation of souls or intimate human relationships, in our pluralistic country, we make laws that accommodate those differences and at the same time promote civil order. Civil order, not a Plutonic utopia, is the common denominator to enable our society to function.

{Teah funny thing is Homosexual marriage in countries rhat allow it is accompanied with social dedcay, not enrischment.Aortion likewise lends to an open door policy on such practices as wuthanasia, and even "Pst Birth" aborn discussed in some european nations.

I do not call a loss of covil controle partiularly rewarding as a common social dnominator that helps anyone out.}-Zarove

Coercive laws supporting a particular religious community do not create a moral people or moral beliefs.

{Maybe you miss the point. Not all of this is urely rleigious, and their are good, soudn reasons for not allowign these thijkgns. Perhaps you think its purely rleigious pepel objecting, but if you do you prove how uninformed you are.

Again, statistically women who aort regret abortiona dn ndergo severe depression. They know its murder.

Homosexual marriage lends to the desruction of marriage in general and the unravlign of society itsself as the family, the asic buildign block of the community, is slowly destoryed.

This you can prd via sociological studies, that ar impartial.

Just look at scandinavia.}-Zarove

It simply devalues the ideal of righteousness and justice to the mundane as something to get around instead of a way of life to strive for. Ultimately, that disregard for civil law breaks down the mutual trust citizens have for each other.

{You disregard human life . You say baoeto iz a womans choice, which means you have decreed the fetus isnt a living thing. You condemn me for entertsainign metaphysics, but areny you dougn the dame if you declare its OK to boert? You are basiclaly saing that the fetus sint a livign thing, makign you a Hypocrite for accusign me of this type of metaphysics.

Likewise, I am interested in social unity, the problem is that allowign perversion is not conductive to social stability. e now allow permissive sex, it hasnt stablised soicety its worsened it.

We allow Homosexality, it further decayed our sence of vlaue, it didnt trengghen us.

we allowed profanity ot be common in our language, and we all where ddeva.lued.

This sint purely about enforced religion, its about keepign spciety togather and preventign it form enterign barbarism.No amount of panhandling will change this fact, and no amount of mockign my intellegence will change the truth.}-Zarove

Continue the journey and good luck on your studies.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 30, 2004.

Dear Zarove;

When I apologized for the level of the conversation, it was in response to your comment that you were on summer break and didn’t have access to your psychology references.

When you quoted Romans and missed the specific reference of “aphentes tan phusikan” (sorry for the phonetics, I don’t have a Greek script) I also assumed you didn’t have access to your Greek references either.

If my desire was to insult you, I would have done so directly, such as you attempted by linking me to a mysterious “gay website". (While liable – a written lie intended to damage the reputation of the target by the one who writes it – is frustrating to deal with, a truly powerful insult is one that has its foundation in truth.)

Please remember, you brought up these issues regarding sexuality. I was talking about mercy.

I recommend to you (and anyone who is still reading along), “Sex for Christians,” by Dr. Lewis B. Smedes. It may be out of print. My edition was printed in 1977, but check Amazon. His credentials as an “orthodox” Protestant are significant. He grew up as a member of the Christian Reformed Church in Muskegon, MI. He was a professor of religion and theology at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI (not too far from where I went to college and even more conservative as a Christian Reformed college). He then became professor of ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, CA (again, more conservative than my seminary).

It is a wonderful, sensitive, and frank book about sexuality and where it fits into a Christian’s life. On page 50, he makes an interesting observation – he is talking about sexual idolatry:

“It is simple to make an idol: slice a piece of created reality off the whole and expect miracles from it. The miracles may be positive or negative; they may heal or hurt. If the idol has power to heal, you keep it around you; you touch it, kiss it, rub it, or manipulate it any way you can. If the idol threatens you, you place a taboo on it, which means that your do not touch it, do not even mention it, for fear that familiarity will have a harmful backlash. Idols work both ways; we make an idol of something either by expecting too much good from it or by fearing evil from it. Making an idol of sex happens both ways. We make an idol of sex by first isolating one dimension of sexuality – the genital. Then we either expect everything from it that we need to be happy or we fear that it will hurt us. Either way, sex has become an idol.”

Having spent some time with him, I think he intentionally did not provide an index to the book. It is a book that needs to be read from cover to cover (250 pages) and in context: no quick answers.

Cool down, relax, and have a pleasant summer.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 01, 2004.

Fretz, my comments where not meant to insluult. i just know youer arguments are all too familiar on pro-gay websites. I read dozens of them that quote your arguments verbatum.

Mercy is not the same thing as permissiveness, and htis was a central point of mine.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 01, 2004.

I just came acrossed this post, I apologize for my late response and entry into this conversation. I came across another great book on this subject: God is not a homophobe, by Philo Thelos. I believe it's available at amazon.com and I know it's available at trafford.com It speaks directly to the issue of homosexuality and compares it to the traditional view in depth.

The author was a pastor for over 36 years in mainline churches and it was only after repeated questions at counseling sessions, with people within his church, did he see that the traditional "answers" to questions about sexuality, were yeilding little results and comfort. So he and his wife began and in depth study of every sexual within the pages of Scripture. The results of his journey are chronicled in his book Divine Sex (available at the same sites). I imagine his book on homosexuality is a more exacting examination of that particular topic.

I do have to say that the Divine Sex book as an absolute MUST READ for those of us that are interested in what the Bible has to say about sex. I cannot say enough about that book and how it has given me insight into the principle's of human interaction.

Hope this helps... Blessings

-- Eph. 3:20 (justme91352@yahoo.com), July 29, 2004.

Sorry. I heard all the usual pro Gay arguments, the boo offers nothing new, it just distorts scripture. as to his cunsilign sessions, the flaw is in himself, notthe teachings.

But fo coruse God is not a Homophobe, neither am I. I am not scared of Gays ( Leas tof all is God scared of them) but objecting to a behaviour is neither hatred of a person nor a phobia.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 29, 2004.

Well, I wasn't talking about the book you mentioned. I'm sure you have read God Is Not A Homophobe. I can't imagine a person with your knowledge, pointing out the error of the contents of a book he has never read.

That's like the aethist who has never opened a Bible but points out its inconsistencies and errors.

Blessings, Eph. 3:20

-- Eph. 3:20 (justme91352@yahoo.com), August 05, 2004.

Atheists DO point otut he errrs withotu actually reading the bIBLE...ut thats beside the point.

I dont need ot read the book. I am not reviewing the boo, but rather the argumets, which are recycled. I know thier recycled because every website, book, or artice I read abotu why CHrisaisn should " Accept" Homosexuality rater than veiw it as a sin i always the same.

even the Amazon reviews you showed statesd this man began his journy toward acceptance based on emotionalism, such as discoverign he had lvoed a Gay Man. ( Which isn relevant to rather or not Homosexuality, itsself, is a sin.)

Quiet bluntly, Homosexuality remains a sin no matter how muhc we like the person practicing it and no mattr how we try to ratioalise away the condemnation of it.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.XOM), August 05, 2004.

Using your rational the atheist had no reason to challenge his worldview, because he's heard all the same arguements before without examining the text for himself. What would we say about that person...maybe illogical?

I don't know what review you read, but it doesn't sound like we're talking about the same one. Nevertheless, it sounds like you have determined your path. I believe there have been so many mistakes made by the Church (the Crusades, the Inquisition, Southern segregation etc...) that a study of this type of righteous indignation directed at those that hold a more liberal position is more than warranted.

Isn't that what we're called to do...examine everything (1 Thess. 5:21)

Blessings, Eph. 3:20

-- Eph. 3:20 (justme91352@yahoo.com), August 06, 2004.

Using your rational the atheist had no reason to challenge his worldview, because he's heard all the same arguements before without examining the text for himself. What would we say about that person...maybe illogical?

{The problem is, the text of the Bible is its own argument. Likewise, oen can ge the same information elsewhere. The facts do ot change dependant on their source. I have read similar books on why Bomosexualiry is not a sin and is OK. All of the use the same logicl.}-Zarove

I don't know what review you read, but it doesn't sound like we're talking about the same one.

{Go to Amazon, the reviews, event eh official one, tell this...}- Zarove

Nevertheless, it sounds like you have determined your path. I believe there have been so many mistakes made by the Church (the Crusades, the Inquisition, Southern segregation etc...)

{The Inquesition was not made by "The Chruch", it was spacifically Catholic, not estern Orthodox, and not Protestant, who whee often he victims... the Crusades whre largley justifiable, even though the Christaisn are villified as somehow evil for them. It was that or let the Islamic forces invade the Byzantune, why are they innocent and Christaisn not? Southern segregation? Please, the Churches collectivley largley opposed slavery. It was the Chruch of esngland that was a drivign force in its ending in Brittain. The Chruhc, collecti ley, did not support segregation, and it was largley protestant Ministers that got the emancipation movement going to. They where called abolitionist preachers. even pos that, many Cruches where desegregated long before desegregation became law. Youy may want ot blame Christaisn for this, but ic you do yo display your ignorance ad eagerness to distrt hisotry to show "Mistakes of the past" to colour the erception of a current issue, in which bogoted hurhces hate Gays, which sint true, but Chruches do stand agsint the behaviour.}-Zarove

that a study of this type of righteous indignation directed at those that hold a more liberal position is more than warranted.

{ Ots warrented beausehtat Liberal positin basiclaly says evil is good and good is evil.}-Zarove

Isn't that what we're called to do...examine everything (1 Thess. 5:21)

{Yes, but I have examiend everything. Homosexuality still remains both a desteuctve practice and agasint God's word. What more do you want?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 06, 2004.

My, my, my.....

I displayed my ignorance??? Yes, I guess you must be right then. It must be that the Church has a spottless record. Perhaps we should consult the martyrs.

The book review you said you read, I could not find. The author is married to a woman (well over 30 years) and has two children, and did not come to see the error of his ways through emotionalism but through diligent study. I don't know where you got that from or if it was completely fabricated. It seems facts, historical or otherwise play no part in your reasoning.

At this point, it really doesn't matter. It seems you have truly arrived at your pinnacle of theology and have all the answers. I like the others no longer desire to continue this conversation. It very well might be that God has more to offer than we can see within our narrow existence, that is the ideology behind Liberal Theology.

Reviewing your prior posts, I can see that you love to have the last word, in every instance. I'm sure this will be no different.

May God bless you.

Eph. 3:20

-- Eph. 3:20 (justme91352@yahoo.com), August 10, 2004.

My, my, my..... I displayed my ignorance??? Yes, I guess you must be right then. It must be that the Church has a spottless record. Perhaps we should consult the martyrs.

{Nog only did I not say the chruch had a spotless record, its ireelevant. The facts remain. God orbade Homosexual conduct. Modern research shows that Homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan on average, and contributes heaivly to causign a lower wuality of life. It is always accompanied by some form of neurosis and is beelived possibely to be hte end result of a neurosis, or a symptom of said neurosis. It destorys peoples lives. You want to love them by sayig what they do is OK and let them continue in it. I wan tto love them by tellign them what their doign is destructive and tryign to get them to stop. You see my way as hateful and closed minded because I want to prevent them form doing soemthign that is wrong, based on yuor idea that they arent dougn anythign wrong because its now socally acceptable.}-Zarove

The book review you said you read, I could not find.

{Plural. Reviews. Their where a lot on Amazon. Liekwise, all you have to do is read the Amazon review of the book, wich includes the info on the Back Cover.}-Zarove

The author is married to a woman (well over 30 years) and has two children,

{Which is irrelevant tot he fact that Homosexuality is wrong. Yes, he was worng to hate Homosexuals, but this doesnt negate Homosexuality as wrong. His conversion form hatred also lead to the error of thinkign the behaviour was OK. He made an elementary mistake. Just because the guy is noce and Gay, doesnt mean beign Gay is OK. Just because you can have ga frneds, doesnt mean beign gay is OK. Its liek smoking. Smoking is bad. I discourage it. I still think soem smokers are nice, decent people. soking still causes Cancer and other lung issues. Its still wrong. Why don't you get this logic, its nto that hard?}-Zarove

and did not come to see the error of his ways through emotionalism but through diligent study.

{Study based on meotional concerns. His own words reveal in the preface, available on Amazon.Com, that he was shokced wwhen he learned a firend he had loved wo had died was gay. He had loved a Gay Man. This began his research.

His research was, basiclaly, an attempt to look for arguments in favour of Homosexuality. He sought and foungd these argumets to justify hisown feeligns of friendship toward Homosexuals, since he discovered he knew a few. His research was based on emotionalism, not imperisism.

I dotn hate gays. You may want to beleive I do, but I dont. However, this doesnt alter the fact that their lifestyle is a sin. Nor does it negate the effects of said sin.}-Zarove

I don't know where you got that from or if it was completely fabricated.

{You seem tothink Emotionalism can never be researched... you do realise emotional reasons FOR research can lead to an emotional conclusion beign drawn based on arguments one favours. Selectively usign or seeing evidence in favou of the veiw one is seeking can be doen quiet eaisly and often is.

Just because a lot of research went into osmething doesnt mean its not emotional. The MEATHOD and MOTIVE as well as the DISIPLINE o fthe research matter.

Or do you deny the first thing that stated this was the man learign sem peopel he knew where gay and that he loved gay people? Come on, his own testemony is that he had thoguht it impossible to love a gay prson, thenlearned he had! That was the whole poin in his search for this.That IS emotionalism.}-Zarove

It seems facts, historical or otherwise play no part in your reasoning.

{See above. And don't accuse me of not caring for facts. You are the one who tries to foist emotionalistic morality on us. And yes, the man who write that book used emotionalism to arrive at his conclusion, his researhc was along the vein of trying to support his own veiws as he wrestled with his own feelings. Hardly stoic and removed.}-Zarove

At this point, it really doesn't matter.

{Ad homonim ahoy! You are enlighened and seek truth, I, on the othe rhand, am irrational and cant be reasoned with, and dont care abotu facts, hisotry , or truth. Sorry, I have developed a thicker skin...}- Zarove

It seems you have truly arrived at your pinnacle of theology and have all the answers.

{All this ased ont eh fac that I call Homosexuality a sin? Based on the claim that Homosexuality is destructive, and that it is classed as a Sin in the Bible, I proclaim I know everyhting. So I basclaly know the direct intricacies of creation, the future, and the exact nature of God perfectly based on this.

Grow up, your disparages agaisnt me are nothign but cheap shots to discredit me in an argumet to artificially elevate your position. I dot play those games and I call anyone who dares to, including you.

Why dot you start shoing real evidence by experts and not some book which is obviosuly biased?}-Zarove

I like the others no longer desire to continue this conversation.

{Funny, everyone, inlcusing I, had pretty well concluded it till you showed up...and you just now realise their not into it?}-Zarove

It very well might be that God has more to offer than we can see within our narrow existence,

{I agree. Thi doesnt mean that hat he ha shwon us we are to ignore. Why think what he has revelaed is conradicted by semthgin else?}- Zarove

that is the ideology behind Liberal Theology.

{No its not. Conservitive theology teaches that as well, all foms of theology teach that. This world is but a shadow, the real substance is in Gods preasence.

Liberal theology, as it stands today, is based on rejecitng traditional eiws, not in a promise of possibley more to come. Just lek conservitive theology isnt based on thinkign we have all the asnwers. this is a mistake you make , but most likely diliberalty... you want Libera theology to win out as somehow superior, even though it basiclaly turns its back on what God Said.}-Zarove

Reviewing your prior posts, I can see that you love to have the last word, in every instance.

{Sorry, your worng. I can admit mistakes and do always need the last word. But I have a duty before God to correct errors, such as yours.}- Zarove

I'm sure this will be no different.

{Funny, if you read other threads I often cease to particiate early on, or others get the last word... funny how oyr disparagence doesnt fit relaity, but makes me look bad, huh? Isnt that funny? Now shuffle off...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 10, 2004.

I'll take the last word. After all I did start this thread. My, my, it certainly has taken a turn from what I intended. But as Ian said, Liberal theology and liberal politics are often intertwined. There are many verses about deception and being deceived, and while false teachers certainly will get what's coming, there is more condemnation spoken on those who are deceieved than the deceivers. Interesting. Usually when the word deceive is used, God puts something black and white, and any attempt to make otherwise is evil. 2 Thessalonians 2 is one such passage, but not relevant to this topic. Instead, here's something:

1 Cor 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

no room for interpretation

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), August 12, 2004.