Author Topic: Gay Bishop Consecrated (Read 7911 times)

mrblack · « **Reply #45 on:** November 03, 2003, 06:07:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Well they are most certainly a minority. And they have most certainly been persecuted. What else would you require?

As well they should be and then some.

Kieran · « **Reply #46 on:** November 03, 2003, 06:11:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tumor
I thought that in God's eye a sin is a sin is a sin... correct me if I'm wrong.

If this guy can be Bishop... why is everyone so upset at pedophile priests?

Or Evangelists who enjoy prostitues even while being married?

OR... anything really?

Lets all just have a big fat nasty orgy and sing praise to God for letting us.

That's a pretty good point.

If you start with the knowledge God called homosexuality a sin, then practicing homosexuality is defying God.

Defying God is unrepentance.

No one can be saved without repentance.

Mt 7:15-16 - "Watch for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are fierce wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them."

Mark 9:42 - "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck."

James 3:1- "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly."

midnight Target · « **Reply #47 on:** November 03, 2003, 06:12:59 PM »

from http://nw-ar.com/hdr/bbs/messages/3.html

Quote

August 27, page A4, Mike Maloney made some statements that require a response. He said: “…there is no way for genetics to play more than a minor role in sexual preference (see the landmark 1991 Northwestern University study by Bailey and Pillard).” However, a 1998 report by Pillard and Bailey states: “We present an overview of behavioral genetics research on homosexual and heterosexual orientation. Family, twin, and adoptee studies indicate that homosexuality and thus heterosexuality run in families. Sibling, twin, and adoptee concordances rates are compatible with the hypothesis that genes account for at least half of the variance in sexual orientation.” (Human Biology April 1998; 70: 347-365). Further in their text (page 359), they suggest: “The physical and functional identification of genes for sexual orientation is still a distant goal.” The genes possibly controlling sexual orientation and behavior are only now beginning to be studied in Drosophila, a genetically well-known organism. Two examples are: J Neurobiol 1996; 30: 454-464 “Male-male courtship behavior induced by ectopic expression of the Drosophila white gene: role of sensory function and age” and Neurosci Res 1996; 26: 95-107 “Genetic dissection of sexual orientation: behavioral, cellular, and molecular approaches in Drosophila melanogaster” It is too early to dismiss genetic influence in human sexual orientation, and, in fact, it appears that the contrary may be the case.

There is a belief in this country that sexual orientation is a “choice.” However, there are a number of research findings that demonstrate differences in brain function between hetero- and homosexuals that are beyond choice. For example: “Click-evoked otoacoustic emissions (CEOAEs) are echo-like waveforms emitted by normal-hearing cochleas [part of inner ear] in response to a brief transient [stimuli]. CEOAEs are known to be stronger in females than in males. In this experiment, the CEOAEs of homosexual and bisexual females were found to be intermediate to those of heterosexual females and heterosexual males. A parsimonious explanation is that the auditory systems of homosexual and bisexual females, and the brain structures responsible for their sexual orientation, have been partially masculinized by exposure to high levels of androgens prenatally.” (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1998; 95: 2709-2713) Some forms of brain electrical activity during “mental rotation” were greater in heterosexual men than heterosexual women and homosexual men: “Slow wave activity recorded during MR [mental rotation] was greater for HT [heterosexual] men than for HT women and gay men.” (Brain Cogn 1998; 36: 73-92). Another study found differences in the response of the brain to auditory stimuli between hetero- and homosexual men (Arch Sex Behav 1995; 24: 585-593). Now, I seriously doubt that the homosexual individuals of these studies made a “choice” to alter their brain functions, any more than heterosexual females made a choice to have stronger CEOAEs than heterosexual males.

I suggest scientific evidence is beginning to support a deterministic and genetic view of sexual preference. Therefore, the foregoing biomedical findings should be considered carefully when one attempts to decide whether homosexuality is a “choice.”

SOB · « **Reply #48 on:** November 03, 2003, 06:17:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
That's a pretty good point.

If you start with the knowledge God called homosexuality a sin, then practicing homosexuality is defying God.

Defying God is unrepentance.

No one can be saved without repentance.

...and we come right back to "all studmuffins are going to hell". Very nice.

crabofix · « **Reply #49 on:** November 03, 2003, 06:17:34 PM »

Kerian, can you please come up with something from the scripture that talks about Homosexuals, New testamony?

mrblack · « **Reply #50 on:** November 03, 2003, 06:19:06 PM »

Yeah Yeah and some arse clown could write a paper on
pigs can fly too.
None of it is proven because IT CAN'T BE.
Show me other mammals where two males ingage in anul sex.
For anything but a show of domnance.

SOB · « **Reply #51 on:** November 03, 2003, 06:20:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mrblack
Are our senses getting so dulled as a society now that we no longer see anything wrong with a man wanting to put his dork up another mans arse?

You're right, our senses ARE getting dulled. I think it all started with Rosa Parks. Damned uppity negro. If slavery was good enough for our founding fathers, then why in God's name can't it be good enough for us?! Get out in the fields and start pickin' me some cotton mrblackey or it'll be the whip for ya!

Oh wait, that's just incredibly stupid, isn't it.

Kieran · « **Reply #52 on:** November 03, 2003, 06:24:20 PM »

But consider this, MT...

Suppose there can be a genetic link made to homosexuality. What difference does it make?

Bear with me. People are disposed to do many things, whether it's something as benign as anal retentive behavior, or anti-social as murder. The truth is, science will probably find a genetic cause for just about every behavior we have.

So?

Simple- nothing is ever anyone's fault or responsibility. By claiming genetic cause, we get the "Get out of jail free" card. How can we persecute someone for something they didn't do? Morality then becomes irrelevant and unenforceable. "Yeah, he murders people, but you know, he was born with that extra DNA. What are you gonna do?"

Crowd: "I can't believe you are comparing homosexuals to murderers!"

Me: "I'm not. But don't kid yourselves into thinking this argument won't be applied to any behavior considered to be outside the mainstream."

It may very well be we are all hard-coded with a genetic weakness- Paul himself complained of "a thorn in my side". What that thorn was is open to debate, but for all we know it could have been homosexuality. What we do know is he did not succumb to it, whatever it was.

Whatever the case, if you are a Christian, and if you believe the Bible, there is only one way to read God's take on homosexuality, whatever the cause.

mrblack · « **Reply #53 on:** November 03, 2003, 06:27:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SOB
You're right, our senses ARE getting dulled. I think it all started with Rosa Parks. Damned uppity negro. If slavery was good enough for our founding fathers, then why in God's name can't it be good enough for us?! Get out in the fields and start pickin' me some cotton mrblackey or it'll be the whip for ya!

Oh wait, that's just incredibly stupid, isn't it.

Get hooked on phonics dude.
Learn to read it will help you in life trust me.

The sin of slavery has nothing to do with gays.
Unless uncle tom was gay

SOB · « **Reply #54 on:** November 03, 2003, 06:29:14 PM »

Wow, you really can't be that stupid can you?

mrblack · « **Reply #55 on:** November 03, 2003, 06:30:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SOB
Wow, you really can't be that stupid can you?

Son you wrote the book:rofl

SOB · « **Reply #56 on:** November 03, 2003, 06:31:35 PM »

My mistake. You can be.

mrblack · « **Reply #57 on:** November 03, 2003, 06:33:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SOB
Wow, you really can't be that stupid can you?

Only an idiot could confuse a discussion on gays with slaves?
I mean are you sober:rofl

crabofix · « **Reply #58 on:** November 03, 2003, 06:33:50 PM »

Now, here you can become a Bishop without beliving in God. I think I rather have a Beliving homosexual, then a nonbeliving Bishop.

Quote

Whatever the case, if you are a Christian, and if you believe the Bible, there is only one way to read God's take on homosexuality, whatever the cause.

His sin is between him and God, not between me and him.
The Goverment makes the Laws and if the goverment says, "homosexuality is legal" thats the way it is.

Or any of you object to who instates goverments?

mrblack · « **Reply #59 on:** November 03, 2003, 06:35:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crabofix
Now, here you can become a Bishop without beliving in God. I think I rather have a Beliving homosexual, then a nonbeliving Bishop.

His sin is between him and God, not between me and him.

True but he is still gonna need 2000 spf sunblock:rofl