The ****sexual Holocaust

[Columcille]

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.

[asdf]

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"?

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

Yes.

God approved,

For TRiG? No. He's an atheist.

and a civil rights matter.

Yes.

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

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

[Columcille]

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.

[TRiG]

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

TRiG.

[GiGi]

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?).

[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.

[GiGi]

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.

[TRiG]

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.

[TRiG]

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.

[asdf]

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!"

[alanmolstad]

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.