Posted on 01/26/2009 5:03:57 AM PST by IbJensen
“Christian eh?”
I’m sorry, but I’m not going to respond to someone who takes this tone and who said something like ‘perversion cheerleader alert’ when another poster (who was a physician in that case) simply posted some studies that discussed the issue of homosexuality and pedophilia. Reasonable discussion is fine, but if you’re looking for a fight, I’m not your man. Take care of yourself, and God Bless you and yours.
That states it quite succinctly.
Agree with your #93 completely.
I can see you're interested in the truth only if it fits your 'agenda.'
I am perfectly willing to treat you and any other members here with courtesy and try do to so, I don’t see that I haven’t (although I am far from perfect have had my “moments” and apologized a few times over the years).
But I will never tolerate the homosexual agenda, or other anti-Nature, anti-God and anti-moral absolute agendas here, and I may speak strongly against them.
People can change, I certainly am testimony to that. If I were to be condemned because of my many years previously habits, beliefs and actions, I’d be hell bound. We are all works in progress. (And many would not call me a Christian, I study the Bible and the Hindu scriptures - the Vedas. I prefer to consider myself an aspiring servant of God.)
With all due respect, I am not going to reply to you anymore, because you’re so focused on the NinoFan=gay thing that now you’re just posting random bits of posts from way earlier in the thread like you’re looking for a fight. Yes, I stand by what I said about the average homosexual not molesting children, but I also said in other replies in this thread that I don’t think the Boy Scouts should be forced to admit ANYONE they don’t want. Freedom of association and opposing leftist idiots who would get rid of it is not much of an evil ‘agenda’, I’m afraid. So best wishes to you, but as far as I’m concerned, there is no point in going back and forth here.
“But I will never tolerate the homosexual agenda, or other anti-Nature, anti-God and anti-moral absolute agendas here, and I may speak strongly against them.”
We disagree on homosexuality (though like this topic shows, we probably don’t always disagree on specific questions concerning it), but I’m sure we agree (or at least hope we agree) on abortion, adultery and a host of other moral issues. I have no desire to force you to change your stance on this or any other issue. I understand that you feel compelled to speak strongly against that which you disagree. That is your God-given right.
“And many would not call me a Christian, I study the Bible and the Hindu scriptures - the Vedas. I prefer to consider myself an aspiring servant of God.”
I must admit that I find the fact that you study Hinduism to be a little surprising*, but I respect your right to do so. I remember going through some years of religious exploration, but that was in my teens. For me, and I believe the world as a whole, Christianity is the answer.
*If you don’t mind me asking, did you grow up with that religion?
I see your buddy the good Dr (he posted he was a Dr on the internet so it must be a fact /sarc) hasn't answered his simple question either.
Go figure!
How childish. I explained the meaning of my username and it has to do with Justice Scalia (His first name being Antonin, his nickname is Nino). Grow up. This is not a playground.
Ive looked at your posting history and you're a one trick pony, sodomite advocating.
Your predilection for this topic is on par with the “gay” community's fascination/obsession with the Boy Scouts of America, Military, Churches or any other Group that has common sense enough to repel the diesease ridden pederast perverts.
Excuse me, I have been here for years and have posted on all kinds of topics. I’m far from a one trick pony. I am staunchly anti-abortion, pro-defense, you name the conservative issue, I’m it.
I am done debating with someone who acts like a child. Good day to you.
No, I converted many decades ago.
But I find truth is universally truth, whoever speaks it or writes it, and it never changes with the waves of time. And I agree with your points above.
The ultimate teaching of Jesus Christ is actually not different from the ultimate teachings of the Vedas - to love God with all of one’s being, and to respect and care for all living beings as much as one does for oneself. Anyway, I dont’ want to side track...
I’m certainly aware of the Court’s opinion in Dale. Though he joined it, he did not author the opinion.
But the main point is that nothing in the opinion suggests that there are no such thing as gays/homosexuals, so I don’t know where you get that from. The opinion does say that the Boy Scouts have a right to decide their membership and leadership. And two justices in the Dale majority, O’Connor and Kennedy, clearly do think that gays exist as a class (though whether it’ll be a protected class on the same level as race is something we’ll have to wait for a future case to know), so again, reading Dale as some major statement against ‘gay rights’ is a bit implausible.
Dale was about the 1st Amendment which is why it managed to get five votes. It tells us little about the Justices’ views on equal protection for homosexuals or substantive due process. And it certainly tells us nothing about their PRIVATE views, which is what I was really responding to when you asked about Justice Scalia and gays. Again, he may think it’s Constitutional for the Boy Scouts to ban homosexuals, but he may not agree with that policy. We simply do not know. That’s the beauty of an originalist justice.
“Again, he may think it’s Constitutional for the Boy Scouts to ban homosexuals,”
This part should read:
Again, he may think that the Boy Scouts have a Constitutional right to ban homosexuals,
Probably only learned the “let he whom is without sin cast the first stone” bit that homo-theologans teach them, to hit the phobe Christians over the head with....
“But the main point is that nothing in the opinion suggests that there are no such thing as gays/homosexuals, so I don’t know where you get that from”
I lean on REALITY -show any scientific test that objectively identifies homosexual beings... There is no test hence there are none objectively...
When it comes to those claiming the existence of homosexual beings it is simply a matter of faith
By analogy -what about Vegetarians OR Golfers do they have special rights?
Very interesting :)
One thing, do you mean you converted to hinduism or to christianity years ago? I assume you mean the latter, but just want to make sure.
I have to be honest that the only time I’ve ever read any part of the Vedas was during a comparative religion course I took years ago. My knowledge on this issue is thus very limited.
Best wishes.
Anyone who calls him/herself a “homosexual/gay” Christian, or “adulterer” Christian, or “porn afficiando” Christian, or “S&M/bondage” Christian, or “pederast” Christian, or “promiscuous” Christian, is fooling themselves and others (some others). No different than “any kind of sin” Christian. as in “thief” Christian, or “liar” Christian.
Or any sincere religious believer, for that matter. Every religion in the world (monotheist) teaches that if someone wants a relationship with God, they will (a) admit that I am sinful, lost and hopeless without His mercy and (b) vow to give up wrongdoing - there’s a lot of them, including sins like pride, greed, and so on - (c) when fallen down, repent sincerely and beg forgiveness, and (d) keep doing the first three. And (e) never promote sin as though it’s perfectly all right!!!
And one should see gradual progress - being less and less inclined to sin. A person can’t do the same sins over and over and over again and beg forgiveness over and over and over again.
You’re a father - you know what your attitude is when a kid says “Sorry!” and immediately goes and “does it again”.... Sincere sorrow means sincerely changing.
And since every religion in the world teaches the same sexual purity rules - meaning no adultery, no pre-marital sex, no masturbation, no homosexual acts, no bestiality, no incest, (I think that’s it!) - anyone who is sincere in his or her religious practice will abstain from those acts and not promote them as virtue. Doesn’t mean that if one occasionally errs or falls they are a total hypocrite. But such failures will cause the sincere believer to feel sorrow, beg God for forgiveness, and stive again to follow God’s laws.
Agreed.
Unfortunately you'll never change and neither will I.
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.