The Homosexual Holocaust

Columcille pointed out the existence of a resource by Dr. Martin, en***led "The ****sexual Holocaust". I must say I'm a bit horrified...but also intrigued as to how Dr. Martin compared same-sex unions (or people?) to the wholesale slaughter of 6 million Jews, gypsies, and ****sexuals.

Does anyone have any further information about this resource? Is it available (or possible to be made available) in audio or video format online? Is there a transcript I could peruse?

Thank you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asdf

Columcille pointed out the existence of a resource by Dr. Martin, en***led "The ****sexual Holocaust". I must say I'm a bit horrified...but also intrigued as to how Dr. Martin compared same-sex unions (or people?) to the wholesale slaughter of 6 million Jews, gypsies, and ****sexuals.

Does anyone have any further information about this resource? Is it available (or possible to be made available) in audio or video format online? Is there a transcript I could peruse?

Thank you!

---

Actually, I think the ***le is not comparing that at all. Most of the comments made during that seems to address the Metropolitan Community Churchs' leadership in how they twist the scriptures. He is not comparing the Holocaust. Holocaust means "1. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire." As such, the fire is most likely the p***ions of the flesh, as 1 Cor. 7.9 says it is better to marry than to burn. As such it is a spiritual holocaust with deeply dark and dangerous ramifications of the soul. I have stated that we are more than just our sexual impulses, but to the ****sexual they identify themselves by the impulses. To attack the impulse as a corruption, is for them to attack the very essence of their being. What a sad thing that the mind goes to waste because of such an iden***y. If we (I mean the Christians) are to go to heaven and be like the angels, having no need for sex, it is going to be hell for the ****sexual Christian since without sexual iden***y what is left for them in the recess of their soul's iden***y?

Perhaps Jill will place it in her listening library sometime soon. Perhaps she will listen to requests for that. I think in light of the recent ELCA and ECUSA's general conventions that the need to revisit this subject absolutely necessary.

http://apprising.org/2009/09/protest...****sexuality/

The link placed above is listed in the WM Columnist section. I accidently clicked on this since it is right above the listening library.

You seriously want me to believe that the word "holocaust" was used in the post-WWII era without the slightest of references to Nazi Germany? Forgive me if I find that to strain credulity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asdf

You seriously want me to believe that the word "holocaust" was used in the post-WWII era without the slightest of references to Nazi Germany? Forgive me if I find that to strain credulity.

---

The second definition in the thefreedictionary.com is the Jewish Holocaust. If you believe in hell fire, and ****sexual acts unrepentant leads a soul there, it is in essence a holocaust in the first definition. I am sorry if I am suppost to just discard useful definitions just because of your own ideas. I am presently listening to the mp3 and his introduction so far makes no reference to why he labeled it "****sexual holocaust." When I find any references to it, I will let you know. As far as I can tell, it seems by his presentation so far that it is referencing a spiritual darkness within "Christian churches" like the Metropolitan Community Church. As such, I am inclined so far to deduce that the first definition fits the context. If he makes a specific remark in his conclusion on side two, I will be able to inductively say that word holocaust is referencing the 1st definition. If he makes a comparison as to the Church's need to fight this darkness like fighting Nazi Germany, it one of comp***ion to evangelize the ****sexual so as to prevent the hell fire holocaust. If there is anyone doing the killing, it is Satan and his minions.

Fair enough. I find that usage determines meaning, not dictionaries. (I could point to dictionaries that define "***" as a cigarette or as kindling; it would not, of course, change the fact that in actual usage, it is a degrading slur.)

Would you by any chance be able to upload the mp3 to a file-sharing site, say box.net?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asdf

Fair enough. I find that usage determines meaning, not dictionaries. (I could point to dictionaries that define "***" as a cigarette or as kindling; it would not, of course, change the fact that in actual usage, it is a degrading slur.)

Would you by any chance be able to upload the mp3 to a file-sharing site, say box.net?

---

Only if I got permission from Jill. It is her ministry and as ministries go, they are not always loaded like Bill Gates. I think it better if you request her to put it up in the listening library. I am inclined not to share it since the ministry is still up and running. The only thing I might share is old Christian music, where the ministries are no longer current and the companies that would be en***led to profits are no longer available. If I were to find anybody who owns copyrights, I would also not share in that circumstance. Pirating is not morally acceptable and is stealing in my book. I find those ministries that no longer are available tend to want their music to be shared since it is profitable for bringing people to Christ or encouraging people to remain strong in Christ. I think the happy medium here belongs to Kevin and Jill. If I could make a donation to purchase the mp3 to send to you, should you be tight on funds, I would be glad to do that... but I will not be able to afford such until I prepare to go Iraq in December. To tell you the truth, I will probably donate sometime after December anyways, since her ministry is important to me.

Cool, thanks. I agree that the best-case scenario would be if Jill could add it to the listening library.

Btw, I do not know if the barracks at the training site I will be going to shortly will have internet access. I will be gone for three weeks and most likely will not be chatting this Friday. If they do have wireless, I might occasionally be on. More than likely, I probably will not be able to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asdf

Columcille pointed out the existence of a resource by Dr. Martin, en***led "The ****sexual Holocaust". I must say I'm a bit horrified...but also intrigued as to how Dr. Martin compared same-sex unions (or people?) to the wholesale slaughter of 6 million Jews, gypsies, and ****sexuals.

Does anyone have any further information about this resource? Is it available (or possible to be made available) in audio or video format online? Is there a transcript I could peruse?

Thank you!

---

Looking for more info on this article, actually led me to an interesting article
on ****sexuals in the Holocaust (for those interested).

In effect, the definition of "public morality" was made a police matter. In 1936, Himmler created the Reich Central Office for the Combating of ****sexuality and Abortion and appointed Joseph Meisinger to head up the office. The results of these administrative changes is very apparent. According to Burleigh and Wipperman (1991:192):

...While in 1934 766 males were convicted and imprisoned, in 1936 the figure exceeded 4,000, and in 1938 8,000. Moreover, from 1937 onwards many of those involved were sent to concentration camps after they had served their "regular" prison sentence...

more found http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...aust/****.html

I understand why many wouldn't care if ****sexuals were killed or if they died... but I don't approve of it.

Light should be cast upon ALL murderous atrocities of the past, with the great hope that some in the present might learn to avoid that same in the future. And Christians should be very concerned about that period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Austin Canes

I understand why many wouldn't care if ****sexuals were killed or if they died... but I don't approve of it.

Light should be cast upon ALL murderous atrocities of the past, with the great hope that some in the present might learn to avoid that same in the future. And Christians should be very concerned about that period.

---

I will admit to ignorance, in not have being taught of the ****sexual victims in the holocaust. (wondering why that wasn't in the textbooks..)

Here is a life story of one of the survivors, this statement struck me...
"Heinz miraculously survived a total of eight-plus years in concentration camps. Following the war, he never spoke to anyone about his experiences. He was afraid. Gay ex-prisoners were regarded as common criminals – not victims of Nazism. "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Austin Canes

I understand why many wouldn't care if ****sexuals were killed or if they died... but I don't approve of it.

Light should be cast upon ALL murderous atrocities of the past, with the great hope that some in the present might learn to avoid that same in the future. And Christians should be very concerned about that period.

---

I agree, there was a large number of Christians that were killed during that time also. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a saint and certainly his example shines. Sanc***y of life is important for everyone, even if the behavior is socially unacceptable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecu...s#Nazi_Germany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Ethnic_Poles

The thing is, it is exactly why I fight for orthodoxy in the Church, because it was Nazi Germany who meddled in Church affairs and created "Positive Christianity." When he didn't have that power, it was a matter of a culture war of influence. Give Obama enough power to force Christian Churches to approve of the liberal agenda, and eventually he will use it. I am not talking conspiracy, for he may not, but I believe the statement true that "absolute power corrupts absolutely." So far I see the same sort of playbook in Obamism, wording is everything, the substance of what he does hasn't changed. Call "Health Reform" and change the wording to "Health Insurance Reform" without changing the substance of the bill is a ploy to soften sentiment without changing substance. Or for Hitler's Third Reich, call Christianity as unstable for the State and attach the word "Positive" for what is acceptable to you and you get the same thing. Would you not want Austin Cane to force the conservative CHurches to marry ****sexuals? I mean if it is a civil rights violation, I should think you would approve of the same strong arm tactics of Hitler, so as to prevent any possibility of ****sexual fears and stablize the society in your image.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

The second definition in the thefreedictionary.com is the Jewish Holocaust.

---

Some dictionaries are organised chronologically, with the older meanings first. Others put the more common meanings first. I think you'll find that most of these dictionaries will list the Nazi's genocide ahead of anything to do with burnt offerings.

TRiG.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

The thing is, it is exactly why I fight for orthodoxy in the Church, because it was Nazi Germany who meddled in Church affairs and created "Positive Christianity." When he didn't have that power, it was a matter of a culture war of influence. Give Obama enough power to force Christian Churches to approve of the liberal agenda, and eventually he will use it. I am not talking conspiracy, for he may not, but I believe the statement true that "absolute power corrupts absolutely." So far I see the same sort of playbook in Obamism, wording is everything, the substance of what he does hasn't changed. Call "Health Reform" and change the wording to "Health Insurance Reform" without changing the substance of the bill is a ploy to soften sentiment without changing substance. Or for Hitler's Third Reich, call Christianity as unstable for the State and attach the word "Positive" for what is acceptable to you and you get the same thing. Would you not want Austin Cane to force the conservative CHurches to marry ****sexuals? I mean if it is a civil rights violation, I should think you would approve of the same strong arm tactics of Hitler, so as to prevent any possibility of ****sexual fears and stablize the society in your image.

---

So a thread about Nazi atrocities (and the further American and British atrocities, as they saw fit not to release those prisoners wearing the pink triangle) has degenerated into lying slurs against the president and against gay activists. You sure are a cl***y person, Columcille.

Quote:

---

Ah, yes. Ever since I was a wee lad, I always imagined my special wedding day being held in a church that thinks I’m a horrible, horrible sinner—priest nervously presiding over us at gunpoint… government agents standing cross-armed by the newly kicked-in cathedral door. But that’s not terrifically likely.
http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/200...-saskatchewan/

---

Churches may deny marriage to whomever they wish. You know that. Stop pretending you don't.

TRiG.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TRiG

So a thread about Nazi atrocities (and the further American and British atrocities, as they saw fit not to release those prisoners wearing the pink triangle) has degenerated into lying slurs against the president and against gay activists. You sure are a cl***y person, Columcille.



Churches may deny marriage to whomever they wish. You know that. Stop pretending you don't.

TRiG.:)

---

In the first place, I always here about seperation of Church and State. The Church does not have prisons, the State does. But if you are trying to tie the Church to Nazi Germany, you already realize that the Church in Poland suffered a lot more casualities under Hitler. I was only pointing that aspect out.

In terms of politics infringing into Church affairs, of course ****sexuals are not going to go where they are not welcome. That is not the point. The point is Government making stipulations that would favor certain religious groups over another. As such, I think the start of it is with Harry Knox and the Faith Based Initiatives. The question is, if it becomes a civil right issue for marriage of same sex, the next thing to do is to dictate churches to change their policy or suffer retracting their tax-free exemption or encourage civil litigation. Now in regards to Church's with actual racial policies, I can point to the fact that Mormons have as their second official declaration to allow blacks to become priests. I am not arguing whether Mormons have never had black priests prior to that declaration, but only the fact that there was a need to even publish it. The charges of racism as such could bring about litigation, and with racial religions whose policies are openly defiant, they could find civil repercussions. Have you not comparied the plight of ****sexuals with minorities and trying to persuade us of political activism to reduce "hatred" of ****sexuals? Again, I think you would love nothing more than Big Government to twist the churches to conform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TRiG

Some dictionaries are organised chronologically, with the older meanings first. Others put the more common meanings first. I think you'll find that most of these dictionaries will list the Nazi's genocide ahead of anything to do with burnt offerings.

TRiG.:)

---

Whether it is first or not matters little. If anything, I should think dictionaries would seperate the word altogether since holocaust is one thing and Holocaust is another. The capitalization making the word a proper noun of a specific event. At any rate, the context is important. Sometimes ***les have all the words capitalized, so you should not be judging the word by the ***le, but by the content.

Please stop lying about me.

TRiG.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunofmysoul

I will admit to ignorance, in not have being taught of the ****sexual victims in the holocaust. (wondering why that wasn't in the textbooks...:o)

Here is a life story of one of the survivors, this statement struck me...
"Heinz miraculously survived a total of eight-plus years in concentration camps. Following the war, he never spoke to anyone about his experiences. He was afraid. Gay ex-prisoners were regarded as common criminals – not victims of Nazism. "

---

The part about the 'singing forest' made my stomach ache. Physically and mentally handicapped individuals were murdered as part of Operation T4 and other so-called euthanasia programs. About 250,000 were killed, 10s of thousands were sterilized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

Again, I think you would love nothing more than Big Government to twist the churches to conform.

---

Since you asked in a private message what the lie was, I'll quote it here. I'd have thought it was obvious.

TRiG.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunofmysoul

Here is a life story of one of the survivors, this statement struck me...
"Heinz miraculously survived a total of eight-plus years in concentration camps. Following the war, he never spoke to anyone about his experiences. He was afraid. Gay ex-prisoners were regarded as common criminals – not victims of Nazism. "

---

I didn't read that link when you first posted it, Soms, guessing I wouldn't be able to cope with it at the time.

I've read it now.

I was right.

TRiG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TRiG

I didn't read that link when you first posted it, Soms, guessing I wouldn't be able to cope with it at the time.

I've read it now.

I was right.

TRiG.

---

indeed, very sorry...but after reading it...felt...it was a story that must be p***ed on...lest we forget...

in the hope, that we shall never tread those grounds again...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TRiG

Since you asked in a private message what the lie was, I'll quote it here. I'd have thought it was obvious.

TRiG.:)

---

How is it a lie, when I stated "I think." Your attempts to persuade that the Church needs to change its position on ****sexuality is precisely why I think the way I do. I remember seeing Muslims smile in the peaceful Muslim countries when 9/11 happened. On the official front, the nations can say they mourn for us, but internally the people are happy it happened. Now that example is extremely bad, but my ***umptions do not carry any real damage. I am not accusing you of wanting to kill orthodox Christians, just wanting to kill orthodox principles. Very much like I want to see the end of Mormonism within my lifetime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

Your attempts to persuade that the Church needs to change its position on ****sexuality is precisely why I think the way I do.

---

When did I ever say anything about the Church's position on anything? You're imagining things.

TRiG.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

Again, I think you would love nothing more than Big Government to twist the churches to conform.

---

I understand your concern, but the real problem is that tax dollars are used by ANY religious organization for ANY reason.
Many of us don't want government involvement in church business, and vice-versa. It was terrible idea from the start!
Maybe christians should get the word out to churches that separation of church and state benefits all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TRiG

When did I ever say anything about the Church's position on anything? You're imagining things.

TRiG.:)

---

Of course you've never said any such thing. Its ridiculous! The churches can and should conduct their business apart from politics. Getting them to do that is another matter.

TRiG, your theological position on God's acceptance of ****sexuality is a Church matter. ****sexual marriages is in your book a morally acceptable, God approved, and a civil rights matter. If it is a civil right matter, just like racial inequality, then Government has an ability to stop that injustice by stipulating in their laws that allow civil suits to be brought against churches, as well as in taking away tax-free exemption or other financial considerations as recieving money through the Faith Based Initiatives. There is only soo much money to be handed out to Christian ministries, and denying some groups based on the liberal good ol' boy network is not beyond imagination. Adding these all together, I think I have made a reasonable deduction. The fact that you would not want to admit, like I do in regards to Mormonism ending in my lifetime, because I believe their doctrine is not from God, only shows how unconvincing you are that God does approve of ****sexual unions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

TRiG, your theological position on God's acceptance of ****sexuality is a Church matter.

---

What is TRiG's theological position? Could you point me to where he stated "God's acceptance of ****sexuality"?

Quote:

---

****sexual marriages is in your book a morally acceptable,

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

God approved,

---

For TRiG? No. He's an atheist.

Quote:

---

and a civil rights matter.

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

...how unconvincing you are that God does approve of ****sexual unions.

---

I've never seen him say anything of the sort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asdf

What is TRiG's theological position? Could you point me to where he stated "God's acceptance of ****sexuality"?.

---

My bad, TRiG did not participate in "opportunity for BrotherBrian and co." section. However, it does not change my original thought that he would love to see the Church change. So long as he considers it a civil rights issue, I can see him justifying Government taking away tax-exemption status or even approving of litigation against churches that refuse to honor, respect, or approve of ****sexuality since as a matter of justice he would see it an injustice if Government did not do or allow some sort of punitive actions against such religious en***ies. He may still think we have a cons***utional right to religion, but that does not matter as his regard to sentiment that he would like to see all the Churches approve of ****sexual unions. My opinion of what he thinks has not radically changed. What aspect he considers that I "lied" about is merely a matter of breaking down my deduction. I still think he would love nothing more than to kill Christian orthodoxy on this subject, so I think he is either not entirely honest or his sentiment is confused because he hasn't really thought of the implications and natural end of making ****sexual unions a civil rights issue and tie it into churches being in direct violation of such civil rights matters at least in his mind. I do not think ****sexuals should marry, period, and I would not support any church that approved of such marriages. If it is a civil rights issue, it applies to all sectors of our society, including church, just as racism in churches can lead to civil lawsuits.

I'm not at all sure what you mean by "making it a civil rights issue". It is a civil rights issue.

TRiG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

My bad, TRiG did not participate in "opportunity for BrotherBrian and co." section. However, it does not change my original thought that he would love to see the Church change. So long as he considers it a civil rights issue, I can see him justifying Government taking away tax-exemption status or even approving of litigation against churches that refuse to honor, respect, or approve of ****sexuality since as a matter of justice he would see it an injustice if Government did not do or allow some sort of punitive actions against such religious en***ies. He may still think we have a cons***utional right to religion, but that does not matter as his regard to sentiment that he would like to see all the Churches approve of ****sexual unions. My opinion of what he thinks has not radically changed. What aspect he considers that I "lied" about is merely a matter of breaking down my deduction. I still think he would love nothing more than to kill Christian orthodoxy on this subject, so I think he is either not entirely honest or his sentiment is confused because he hasn't really thought of the implications and natural end of making ****sexual unions a civil rights issue and tie it into churches being in direct violation of such civil rights matters at least in his mind. I do not think ****sexuals should marry, period, and I would not support any church that approved of such marriages. If it is a civil rights issue, it applies to all sectors of our society, including church, just as racism in churches can lead to civil lawsuits.

---

You have an opinion about what Trig is thinking, rather than what he is saying?
I don't see anything in his posts to indicate that he wants Christian orthodoxy 'killed'.
Religions are not required to adhere to anti-discrimination laws. Discrimination is a big part of many religions!
The case you elude to involves allegations of wire fraud (more?).

Just adding up a deduction. Feel free to dismantle it. What you don't see is perhaps what you don't ****yze. As far as law suits, let me say that JWs get a few for denying blood transfusion. Also, if there is Christian counciling going on, and a person is given instruction to divorce their husband on the basis that their husband is black, could be tried in civil court. The moment it is a civil rights law (****sexual's allowed to marry) there will be ****sexual couples that will attempt to invade the churches and say they are discriminating against them and file law suits. There are some who even charged in California into churches and kissed in front of the altar and tossing out handouts saying Jesus was gay. It is these freaks that will be doing to the dirty work, I am certain most ****sexual couples would stay away from the conservative Churches. However, there are pockets of them in the big denominations. UMC has several pockets, but they have lost their influence due to the African UMC growth, so I do not doubt that they will go against the UMC book of discipline just to force the issue. I am not eluding to "wire fraud." Not sure what case you are talking about.

Don't expect me to respond much after this for awhile. I am packing to go for three weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Columcille

Just adding up a deduction. Feel free to dismantle it. What you don't see is perhaps what you don't ****yze. As far as law suits, let me say that JWs get a few for denying blood transfusion. Also, if there is Christian counciling going on, and a person is given instruction to divorce their husband on the basis that their husband is black, could be tried in civil court. The moment it is a civil rights law (****sexual's allowed to marry) there will be ****sexual couples that will attempt to invade the churches and say they are discriminating against them and file law suits. There are some who even charged in California into churches and kissed in front of the altar and tossing out handouts saying Jesus was gay. It is these freaks that will be doing to the dirty work, I am certain most ****sexual couples would stay away from the conservative Churches. However, there are pockets of them in the big denominations. UMC has several pockets, but they have lost their influence due to the African UMC growth, so I do not doubt that they will go against the UMC book of discipline just to force the issue. I am not eluding to "wire fraud." Not sure what case you are talking about.

Don't expect me to respond much after this for awhile. I am packing to go for three weeks.

---

I see where you said you will be heading for a military training site. I wish you a safe and productive journey.
You are mostly correct that I do not ****yse what I don't see. This is the internet after all. I may intuit meaning based on how one turns a phrase, or if he chooses to use an emoticon, or not, and when words are bolded, capitalized, or italicized. Even with all that, we can't pretend to read anothers mind. If he has said, in so many words, that he wants orthodoxy killed, perhaps you will show us. In the meantime, let's just wait to hear from Trig. Who knows? You might be right.
Almost anything can be heard in a civil court, if a judge is willing to listen.
Billy Graham settled a lawsuit brought against his ministry for discrimination. There is far more to it than that, though. If its not the case you meant, please provide details. I'm not familiar with the situation in Calif. where ****sexuals "charged" a church and kissed then left pamphlets that said Jesus was gay, either. The way you explained it, it kind of sounds funny, in the way egging a neighbors house is funny to a teenager, or 'mooning' a driver on Rte 66 - harmless if agravating.
The JWs get into trouble when their kids are at risk for injury or death because of the religious beliefs of the parents. Right or wrong, that's how it is.
Apart from a very few exeptions, churches can do as they please, including giving d*mb advise. They can deny membership because of race, sexual orientation, or for wearing white shoes after Labor Day. That's not going to change. If churches marry same-sex couples, they will do it because they choose to. If they counsel same-sex couples, or interracial couples to divorce, they can do so without fear. There's no law against st*pid.

As GiGi says, there is no law against ******idy. You may be brought to trial if you have been shown to do actual harm. (As with my ex-religion, as you mention).

TRiG.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TRiG

As GiGi says, there is no law against ******idy

---

The person who created this filter list is in serious need of a brain. This is ridiculous. What are they going to censor next? The?

TRiG.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TRiG

The person who created this filter list is in serious need of a brain. This is ridiculous. What are they going to censor next? The?

TRiG.:)

---

"Oh no! I said it again! AAHH! I did it again! AAAARGH!"

Considering what is going on right now with the vast numbers in the millions and millions of people who due to their sins are being sent to an eternal Hell, .....the word "Holocaust" is very fitting.