Posted on 03/17/2014 1:36:31 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Still not yet as disruptive as the Orangemen were, long ago. ILGO didn’t win, decades ago. We’ll see what happens this time.
What does a parade about St. Patrick and Ireland have to do with how someone has sex? This isn’t a sexual parade. In fact, the only sex parades are the fag parades.
Pabst won its ribbon at the Chicago Columbian Exposition in 1892.
Your theory is in complete agreement with what God says.
This needs to be pointed out consistently - homosexuality will not bring judgement upon our country; homosexuality IS the judgement. Romans 1:26 starts with “For this reason” and continues “God gave them up to vile passions.” “..men with men committing what is shameful”; so this is a judgement upon our society.
It also continues and says that they give approval to others for more and more evil acts. We see this today with our legislatures accepting homosexual marriages and the teaching of it as acceptable in the schools.
Note also that Romans 1:32 points out that those who approve of such conduct are just as guilty as those who engage in it.
It will be a never ending slide until we are put in jail for preaching the Bible, this is already going on in Canada.
No gays aren’t banned. But they’re not happy with simply marching, they WANT to march under a gay pride banner.
The beer companies who pulled sponsorship have shown how dumb they are to fall for a scam.
I've been wondering about that. They sponsor the parade, it's publicity. They pull out loudly and sanctimoniously, it's FREE publicity. Call me cynical.
One of the best books of history I have ever read.
And eating shellfish.
What you described made me think of a paintball gun with filled with itchy powder.
I remember when I lived in the US when our diocese paper took the homosexual’s part in the kerfuffle. I wrote them a letter pointing out that the parade was in celebration of the freedom of the Irish catholics to worship in freedom, and that by mandating groups opposing Catholicism to join in was the exact opposite of what was being celebrated.
They printed the letter, but I wasn’t too popular in that diocese.
Need I add that the bishop was gay friendly (He bragged in the diocese newspaper that he had removed all problem priests, but that was false: I had a nurse cry on my shoulder that her husband had been asked to intervene and stop a lawsuit against a nice young priest who had molested a twelve year old)
How bad was it? Well, when our church lost a young priest, the pastor’s only comment was: well, at least he ran away with a female catechist.
actually, homosexuality is not the only sin that god calls an “abomination”...oppressing the poor is another.
But then, I live in the Philippines, where the rich politicians steal everything in sight...
Dolan is a disgrace. How in the hell this backslapping democrat politician ever became a bishop I will never know. I’m sure after the parade he went to lunch with PRO-ABORT, BABY-MURDERING, HOMO-LOVING DeAssio.
RE: How bad was it? Well, when our church lost a young priest, the pastor’s only comment was: well, at least he ran away with a female catechist.
What happened to the Bishop? Is he still a bishop after all these? The man ought to be defrocked.
And eating shellfish.
That is only true if you believe that Leviticus and Deuteronomy were originally written in King James English rather than Hebrew. There are two different Hebrew words that were both translated "abomination" by the King James Translators. The one used when speaking of eating "unclean" items such as shellfish or other dietary restrictions or the types of garments prohibited means "ceremonially unclean" or "unfit". The Hebrew word translated as "abomination" in the passages about incest, sodomy, bestiality, witchcraft, and idolatry is a different word that means "morally depraved" or "wicked".
Anytime you have equated the violation of the dietary prohibition of eating shellfish with carnal acts such as sodomy and bestiality in the past, you have done so perhaps out of naive ignorance. However, now that you have been informed of the truth, if you continue to claim that God said the same thing about eating shellfish as He does about sodomy, you do so as a LIAR, knowingly slandering the Almighty.
Get over yourself. How dare you sling around words like LIAR. No wonder so few Christians succeed in converting others when they come off like self-righteous prigs. Hope you’re happy in your sinlessness. From what I heard, there has only ever been one sinless Being.
Repeat the “God Hates Shrimp” strawman that claims the same word (abomination) is used for shrimp and homosexual acts out of ignorance, and that is just naivity displayed; but if you continue to repeat that strawman after being confronted with the truth that it is two very different words that just happened to be translated into the same word, and you can no longer claim ignorance or that you are unknowingly repeating a falsehood. What word would you approve of to describe somebody who knowingly continues to repeat a strawman argument that he knows to be false?
If this is not the first time Wilde has been warned then he’s lying. But it’s the first time I’ve seen it. Watch out what basis you accuse someone upon.
More to the point, one could be stoned for Sabbath breaking. That should give pause to most folks.
What is very scarce here is compassionate eyes. So called gays are MISERABLE and they are in a TRAP. But it’s going to take better than cat calling from the sidelines to get them sprung from the TRAP.
Thank you for the comments HTRN.
And perhaps I should have been more specific in how I worded the conclusion of my post.
First, I was not and am not accusing anyone of anything for what has been said. I have had discussions in the past with folks who tried the whole “God Hates Shrimp” fallacy about the same word is used to describe the sin of sodomy and the prohibition against eating shellfish, and with my very limited study I was able to very quickly and easily determine that the Hebrew words used in passages in question were distinctly and drastically different in meaning. Thus, I was simply and very directly refuting the argument.
Where I could have and should have been more specific and clear was this: I am not accusing anyone who posted that argument of lying, as it could very well have been posted out of ignorance of the fact that the words are different. However, any future posts of that argument by somebody who has been specifically informed of the fallacy therein would go beyond merely repeating inaccurate information and would constitute a deliberate lie.
To Albion: I apologize for my statement that I can see
could easily have been interpreted as calling you a liar. That was not my intent. My intent of the last part of my comment was a warning that now that you know the truth you can’t keep on using that argument without knowingly lying.
Shrimp and a number of other potential foods were banned as (for at least one reason) they were symbolic of pagan sacrifices. The custom was so old that even Noah knew about “unclean” animals, those which were popular in demonic sacrifices. All eating was to be regarded as a sacrifice to God when done in His holy camp. There was no mindless snacking.
Actually eating the shrimp was physically harmless. It incurred a symbolic penalty.
An agenda that centers around force.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.