'christian' misbehavior

I'll consider your point of view when you tell me you have no
credit cards or bank account with a bank that lends money to
other Christians at interest, and that you make all your
purchases in full in cash.

Not to mention selling all that you have to give the money to
the poor, which Christ commands us to do if we wish to be
saved.

You know, of course, that Scripture forbids Christians taking
interest on loans to other Christians. Scripture indicates
that the earliest Christians held all their major goods in
common, and the Church specifically forbade Christians to
lend at interest during much of the Middle Ages. So we
have Scripture supporting communism as the proper Christian
economic system, and Tradition forbidding loans at interest.

If you have a bank account or a credit card, you are not a
faithful Christian, by the standard you are applying. Do
you accept this?

***@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>
( lending at interest and private property)

Post by c***@gmail.com
are works of the flesh, and
evidence that these people do not have a relationship with Jesus
Christ, despite their claims to the contrary. This behavior is
misbehavior and unworthy of anyone who takes the name of Jesus Christ,
and claims to be His witness.

Condemned out of your own mouth, Carter

Post by c***@gmail.com
This post is a response to the thread on authority. I've created a new
thread to highlight this particular issue.

In His ministry, Christ was much, much more concerned with
economic sins, sins against the poor and disadvantaged in
His society, than with sexual sins. Conservatives turn this
upside down and ignore the central message of economic and
social justice in Christ's teaching. You will find that
through history there have been groups of Christians and
individual Christians who have tried to live by
Christ's message, such as the first Franciscans, and even
Christian anarchists. The Christian Socialist strand
of Anglo-Catholic thought in in this tradition, and led
many Anglo-Catholics to work in the slums.

j***@satx.rr.com

2007-06-15 22:38:33 UTC

Post by ChapelMouse
I'll consider your point of view when you tell me you have no
credit cards or bank account with a bank that lends money to
other Christians at interest, and that you make all your
purchases in full in cash.
Not to mention selling all that you have to give the money to
the poor, which Christ commands us to do if we wish to be
saved.
You know, of course, that Scripture forbids Christians taking
interest on loans to other Christians. Scripture indicates
that the earliest Christians held all their major goods in
common, and the Church specifically forbade Christians to
lend at interest during much of the Middle Ages. So we
have Scripture supporting communism as the proper Christian
economic system, and Tradition forbidding loans at interest.
If you have a bank account or a credit card, you are not a
faithful Christian, by the standard you are applying. Do
you accept this?
<snip>
( lending at interest and private property)

Condemned out of your own mouth, Carter

Post by c***@gmail.com
This post is a response to the thread on authority. I've created a new
thread to highlight this particular issue.

Then I guess you believe TEC should sell
its property and give the money to the poor?

Jim

Mt 19:21 -Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect,
go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor,
and thou shalt have treasure in heaven:
and come and follow me.

ChapelMouse

2007-06-16 00:26:36 UTC

Condemned out of your own mouth, Carter

Post by c***@gmail.com
This post is a response to the thread on authority. I've created a new
thread to highlight this particular issue.

Then I guess you believe TEC should sell
its property and give the money to the poor?

Not the church itself, because the buildings, vestments,
linens, communion vessels and so on are dedicated to
the communal worship of God, and are, in many cases,
passed down from earlier generations of churchmembers who
specifically gave them to the church for that purpose.
Much of the income and so on goes to keep the church
ministries going. If a parish or diocese has more
money or property than it needs, it can certainly go
for some program such as a food bank, housing, a crisis
center, etc. Most financially stable parishes
do this already, or send things that are not needed to
needy parishes elsewhere. I see this as similar to
the costly ointment the woman used to anoint Christ
rather than sell and give the money to the poor in
the Gospel.

Individual Christians certainly should give as much as
they reasonably can to the poor, provided that doesn't
make them a burden on somebody else. If we actually
had a communist society where economic resources were
pooled for the benefit of all, instead of a capitalist
society, one could indeed give everything. A religious
order, like the original Franciscan begging friars, can
do this. The problem is that in a capitalist economy,
you can't survive by begging unless somebody is making
enough money to give some away. This was a basic
problem with the hippie movement in the '60's.

Post by j***@satx.rr.com
Jim
Mt 19:21 -Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect,
go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor,
and come and follow me.

j***@satx.rr.com

2007-06-16 01:22:38 UTC

Condemned out of your own mouth, Carter

Post by c***@gmail.com
This post is a response to the thread on authority. I've created a new
thread to highlight this particular issue.

Then I guess you believe TEC should sell
its property and give the money to the poor?

Not the church itself, because the buildings, vestments,
linens, communion vessels and so on are dedicated to
the communal worship of God, and are, in many cases,
passed down from earlier generations of churchmembers who
specifically gave them to the church for that purpose.
Much of the income and so on goes to keep the church
ministries going. If a parish or diocese has more
money or property than it needs, it can certainly go
for some program such as a food bank, housing, a crisis
center, etc. Most financially stable parishes
do this already, or send things that are not needed to
needy parishes elsewhere. I see this as similar to
the costly ointment the woman used to anoint Christ
rather than sell and give the money to the poor in
the Gospel.
Individual Christians certainly should give as much as
they reasonably can to the poor, provided that doesn't
make them a burden on somebody else. If we actually
had a communist society where economic resources were
pooled for the benefit of all, instead of a capitalist
society, one could indeed give everything. A religious
order, like the original Franciscan begging friars, can
do this. The problem is that in a capitalist economy,
you can't survive by begging unless somebody is making
enough money to give some away. This was a basic
problem with the hippie movement in the '60's.

So your talk about selling what
you have and giving to the poor
is just rhetoric, to attack orthodox
Episcopalians. I know of no Episcopalians
who are against giving to the poor
in a rational way. As Margaret Thacher said,

Regarding the creation of wealth:
Nevertheless, the Tenth Commandment - 'Thou shalt not covet' -
recognizes that making money and owning things could become selfish
activities. But it is not the creation of wealth that is wrong, but
love of money for its own sake. The spiritual dimension comes in
deciding what one does with the wealth. How could we respond to the
many calls for help, or invest for the future, or support the
wonderful artists or craftsmen whose work also glorifies God, unless
we had first worked hard and used our talents to create the necessary
wealth?

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1988thatcher.html

Jim

Joh 13:29 -For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that
Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against
the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.

Post by j***@satx.rr.com
Jim
Mt 19:21 -Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect,
go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor,
and come and follow me.- Hide quoted text -

ChapelMouse

2007-06-16 04:03:50 UTC

***@satx.rr.com wrote:

<snip>

Post by j***@satx.rr.com
So your talk about selling what
you have and giving to the poor
is just rhetoric, to attack orthodox
Episcopalians.

A little slow, are you?

<snip>

Post by j***@satx.rr.com
Mt 19:21 -Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect,
go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor,
and come and follow me.- Hide quoted text -

j***@satx.rr.com

2007-06-16 17:26:19 UTC

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Post by j***@satx.rr.com
So your talk about selling what
you have and giving to the poor
is just rhetoric, to attack orthodox
Episcopalians.

A little slow, are you?
<snip>

Redacting again, you should
have been a lawyer.
Yes, it took me a while to
"ketch on".

Jim

1Co 13:3 - And though I bestow all my goods
to feed the poor, and though
I give my body to be burned,
and have not charity,
it profiteth me nothing.

Post by j***@satx.rr.com
Mt 19:21 -Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect,
go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor,
and come and follow me.-

ChapelMouse

2007-06-17 01:05:55 UTC

Post by j***@satx.rr.com
1Co 13:3 - And though I bestow all my goods
to feed the poor, and though
I give my body to be burned,
and have not charity,
it profiteth me nothing.

Which rather ties in with my original point....

j***@satx.rr.com

2007-06-17 01:27:58 UTC

Post by j***@satx.rr.com
1Co 13:3 - And though I bestow all my goods
to feed the poor, and though
I give my body to be burned,
and have not charity,
it profiteth me nothing.

Which rather ties in with my original point....

So that's why TEC spends millions
to take property away from parishes?
It is out of charity? If you believe that,
I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
Cheap!

Jim

1Ti 6:10 - For the love of money is the root of all evil: which
while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced
themselves through with many sorrows.

ChapelMouse

2007-06-17 14:05:28 UTC

Post by j***@satx.rr.com
1Co 13:3 - And though I bestow all my goods
to feed the poor, and though
I give my body to be burned,
and have not charity,
it profiteth me nothing.

Which rather ties in with my original point....

So that's why TEC spends millions
to take property away from parishes?

The Episcopal church does not try to take
property away from parishes. Indeed, that is
the church's central concern here: to prevent
break-away non-church groups from taking
the things given by earlier generations to the
church, to be used for the worship and honor of
God, away from the church to which they were
given and the parish -- a part of the *Episcopal
church* -- to which they belong.

If a bunch of Baptist squatters occupied an
Episcopal church and claimed ownership of the
building and articles of worship on the grounds
that they were the only "real" Christians and
so everything belonged to them -- would you ask
the church to give away what its people need to
worship God?

Nobody would force any group to remain as part of
a church they don't agree with. The separatists
can go any time they like, and hook up with any
other group they like better. But they have no
right to steal what does not belong to them and
take it with them. It isn't theirs.

Post by j***@satx.rr.com
It is out of charity? If you believe that,
I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
Cheap!
1Ti 6:10 - For the love of money is the root of all evil: which
while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced
themselves through with many sorrows.

j***@satx.rr.com

2007-06-17 21:18:59 UTC

Post by j***@satx.rr.com
1Co 13:3 - And though I bestow all my goods
to feed the poor, and though
I give my body to be burned,
and have not charity,
it profiteth me nothing.

Which rather ties in with my original point....

So that's why TEC spends millions
to take property away from parishes?

The Episcopal church does not try to take
property away from parishes. Indeed, that is
the church's central concern here: to prevent
break-away non-church groups from taking
the things given by earlier generations to the
church, to be used for the worship and honor of
God, away from the church to which they were
given and the parish -- a part of the *Episcopal
church* -- to which they belong.
If a bunch of Baptist squatters occupied an
Episcopal church and claimed ownership of the
building and articles of worship on the grounds
that they were the only "real" Christians and
so everything belonged to them -- would you ask
the church to give away what its people need to
worship God?
Nobody would force any group to remain as part of
a church they don't agree with. The separatists
can go any time they like, and hook up with any
other group they like better. But they have no
right to steal what does not belong to them and
take it with them. It isn't theirs.

You know that those aren't Baptists, but
orthodox Episcopalians trying to prevent
PC revisionists from hyjacking their chuch.
We all know what the historic Catholic
Faith is, and they have exposed their
so-called concen for the poor.

Jim

Mr 10:21 -Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him,
One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and
give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come,
take up the cross, and follow me.

- Show quoted text -

ChapelMouse

2007-06-16 15:53:57 UTC

***@satx.rr.com wrote:

<snip>

Post by j***@satx.rr.com
So your talk about selling what
you have and giving to the poor
is just rhetoric, to attack orthodox
Episcopalians. I know of no Episcopalians
who are against giving to the poor
in a rational way. As Margaret Thacher said,
Nevertheless, the Tenth Commandment - 'Thou shalt not covet' -
recognizes that making money and owning things could become selfish
activities. But it is not the creation of wealth that is wrong, but
love of money for its own sake. The spiritual dimension comes in
deciding what one does with the wealth. How could we respond to the
many calls for help, or invest for the future, or support the
wonderful artists or craftsmen whose work also glorifies God, unless
we had first worked hard and used our talents to create the necessary
wealth?

<snip>

To comment on this a bit, one might counter with the old anarchist
slogan that "property is theft". There is no way wealth can exist
without a sinful source exploiting others. Even if a person creates
a homestead in an uninhabited place, even then, there is
sinful exploitation of the animals whose habitat the area already
was, and often of God's created world in general, by polluting
and destroying the natural world. The only reasonably just economic
system is one of gathering ( not hunting, which kills animals ) food
and other necessities in ways not harmful to others. By definition,
*wealth* is a surplus over individual needs. The best thing we can
do with it is give it away to beings who don't have enough and need
help, once it exists. The fundamental problem of capitalistic society
is that capitalism *requires* wealth -- economic surplus, capital,
to create and support social goods. A society which can build houses
by a community effort of cutting timber and having a "house-raising"
does exploit the natural world, but it is better than a society
where almost every person must take on a crippling mortgage *loan*
to obtain a house, or pay rent to a landlord. A community where
people make things out of local resources and grow/gather their own
food, which is shared among all the inhabitants, also is a more just
social unit than a community of property owners, capitalists, wage
workers, all trying to exploit others sufficiently to gain *wealth* --
some small portion of which they may then give away.

A person *in a capitalistic society* who gives away all he has to the
poor and thus becomes destitute himself, begging his daily bread and
lodging from others, is indeed more virtuous *himself* according to
Christ's command, but the unintended consequence is that such a
lifestyle *requires* others to sin in order to support that person,
by exploiting others to gain *wealth* to give to the beggar. Only
in a communistic ( not Marxist) society can such a Christian
commandment really work. We have to move beyond seeing ourselves *only*
as individuals, and see ourselves as part of a whole, a whole including
not only other humans, but other living beings and the whole of
Creation. Do you think Adam and Eve in the Garden were trying to create
wealth? Or were they gathering what they needed from God's bounty?
We are told they didn't even begin to wear clothing, till the earth,
or work until after the Fall. A redeemed Creation will have no wealth
in it at all, because every being will have what he needs to be happy,
but nothing beyond.

Post by j***@satx.rr.com
Mt 19:21 -Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect,
go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor,
and come and follow me.- Hide quoted text -

j***@satx.rr.com

2007-06-17 00:52:29 UTC

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

<snip>
To comment on this a bit, one might counter with the old anarchist
slogan that "property is theft". There is no way wealth can exist
without a sinful source exploiting others. Even if a person creates
a homestead in an uninhabited place, even then, there is
sinful exploitation of the animals whose habitat the area already
was, and often of God's created world in general, by polluting
and destroying the natural world. The only reasonably just economic
system is one of gathering ( not hunting, which kills animals ) food
and other necessities in ways not harmful to others. By definition,
*wealth* is a surplus over individual needs. The best thing we can
do with it is give it away to beings who don't have enough and need
help, once it exists. The fundamental problem of capitalistic society
is that capitalism *requires* wealth -- economic surplus, capital,
to create and support social goods. A society which can build houses
by a community effort of cutting timber and having a "house-raising"
does exploit the natural world, but it is better than a society
where almost every person must take on a crippling mortgage *loan*
to obtain a house, or pay rent to a landlord. A community where
people make things out of local resources and grow/gather their own
food, which is shared among all the inhabitants, also is a more just
social unit than a community of property owners, capitalists, wage
workers, all trying to exploit others sufficiently to gain *wealth* --
some small portion of which they may then give away.
A person *in a capitalistic society* who gives away all he has to the
poor and thus becomes destitute himself, begging his daily bread and
lodging from others, is indeed more virtuous *himself* according to
Christ's command, but the unintended consequence is that such a
lifestyle *requires* others to sin in order to support that person,
by exploiting others to gain *wealth* to give to the beggar. Only
in a communistic ( not Marxist) society can such a Christian
commandment really work. We have to move beyond seeing ourselves *only*
as individuals, and see ourselves as part of a whole, a whole including
not only other humans, but other living beings and the whole of
Creation. Do you think Adam and Eve in the Garden were trying to create
wealth? Or were they gathering what they needed from God's bounty?
We are told they didn't even begin to wear clothing, till the earth,
or work until after the Fall. A redeemed Creation will have no wealth
in it at all, because every being will have what he needs to be happy,
but nothing beyond.

You said this

"I'll consider your point of view when you tell me you have no
credit cards or bank account with a bank that lends money to
other Christians at interest, and that you make all your
purchases in full in cash.

Not to mention selling all that you have to give the money to
the poor, which Christ commands us to do if we wish to be
saved. "

Then I pointed out you were willing
to spend millions to keep property
in TEC instead of using it to help
the poor.

You also talk about rights then
support the denial of a church trial
for orthodox Episcopalians or at
least are not clear in supporting it.
You seem to give animals more
rights than them.

I myself like the way Native Americans
approached wildlife. You should remember
humans are also part animal, and like
bears we are omnivores. I also, think
neither species should be attacked for
that fact, as wolfs and cougars were for
being meat eaters.

My mothers parents were born in
the Commune Di Barga barganews.com
guess what word is derived from Commune?
It worked well and is still working well. It has
an opera house, theater, a Jazz club, bars,
resident artists, plus families.
When going to Barga, please keep it green,
bring money.

You need to realize we are sinners that
all share in the fall, and being tolerant
and inclusive doesn't mean driving out
people you don't agree with when alternative
oversight would solve the problem for most.

"Power is something which once you gain you don't want to give it
away to anybody," he told the publishers. "People don't give power
away."

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/insider/archives/2007_02_01.html

Jim

Ro 3:23 - For all have sinned,
and come short
of the glory of God;

Post by j***@satx.rr.com
Mt 19:21 -Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect,
go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor,
and come and follow me.- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

c***@gmail.com

2007-06-16 12:56:11 UTC

Your major fallacy is that, if we can't be 100% perfect, we can be 0%
perfect. This is merely an excuse to sin. It's like saying, 'if I
can't resist one slice of pie, I might as well go the whole hog and
eat the entire pie.' We all sin, and if we all accepted your fallacy,
we would all sin all the time.

Your minor fallacy is that the activity you describe is not viewed as
sin. (1) The NT does not prohibit the earning of interest in any way,
shape, or form. (2) The NT doesn't even condemn usury. (3) In any
case, the time value of capital is a legitimate concept, and is
totally different from usury, which is extortion or theft. (4) Jesus
specifically approved of the increase of capital in the parable of the
talents, if not explicitly at least by strong implication. (5) Lastly,
this is a perfect example of the application of spiritual principles
to different cultural and social conditions, in that our present cash/
credit based money and free market economy didn't exist until about
100 years ago. Contrast this with the institution of marriage, which
we have reference to in the first book of the Bible, and which we know
exists even in stone age cultures as a relationship exclusively
between the genders, not between members of the same gender. In both
the Christian sense and the secular sense, fornication and adultery
are concepts which transcend time and place, unlike monetary systems,
credit cards, debit cards, and free markets, which are confined to
particular times and places.

Post by ChapelMouse
Not to mention selling all that you have to give the money to
the poor, which Christ commands us to do if we wish to be
saved.

Just because we need some financial resources to meet our obligations,
such as providing for our families, doesn't mean that we shouldn't
give. The tithe is the starting point. My family and I begin with the
tithe, and after we offer that ten percent, we give. You don't start
giving until after you do your tithe. I've shared a little personal
information with you that I have never shared outside my family, so
I'll ask you to do the same. Do you tithe? and after your tithe, do
you give? You can't give until after you tithe, and withholding the
tithe is literally stealing from God.

Post by ChapelMouse
You know, of course, that Scripture forbids Christians taking
interest on loans to other Christians.

Cite the passage. It doesn't exist.

Post by ChapelMouse
Scripture indicates
that the earliest Christians held all their major goods in
common,

Only among the Jerusalem church. The NT indicates that the usual
practice accepted the ownership of personal property, including human
beings, witness the return of Onesimus to Philemon.

Post by ChapelMouse
and the Church specifically forbade Christians to
lend at interest during much of the Middle Ages.

As well as the selling of indulgencies, simony, the burning of witches
and heretics, etc. If you like the Middle Ages so much, live like it.

Post by ChapelMouse
So we
have Scripture supporting communism as the proper Christian
economic system, and Tradition forbidding loans at interest.

'Communism' existed only during the early years in one church, and
after 70AD wasn't even practiced there. Tradition supports all manner
of things, including crusades and inquisitions. Do you also want a
return to trial by ordeal?

Post by ChapelMouse
If you have a bank account or a credit card, you are not a
faithful Christian, by the standard you are applying. Do
you accept this?

You've got to be kidding. This isn't even an attempt to reply to what
I wrote. Neither bank accounts nor credit cards are mentioned anywhere
in scripture, but (see Galatians 5, e.g.) adultery and fornication
are. Sexual morality occupies a specific place in the theology of the
NT and immorality is always condemned; recognition of the time value
of capital is also recognized and accepted in the theology of the NT.

Post by ChapelMouse
In His ministry, Christ was much, much more concerned with
economic sins, sins against the poor and disadvantaged in
His society, than with sexual sins.

How to you quantify this? What metric to you use? What is your unit of
measurement and what methodology do you use? A quick glance at my
handy dandy concordance shows that references to sexual matters occupy
many more columns of references than do economic matters. If I get the
interest and the time, I'll count the references and sum them, and
report to you exactly how much more Christ was concerned with matters
of self control of the natural lusts than we was of economic concerns.

Post by ChapelMouse
Conservatives turn this
upside down and ignore the central message of economic and
social justice in Christ's teaching.

Christ's central message was NOT economic and social justice. It was
holiness and purity. 'Be ye holy as I am holy.' 'Seek ye first the
Kingdom of Heaven and all these things will be added.' It's you who
turn thing upside down, as by your insistence that a wife may take a
wife.

Post by ChapelMouse
You will find that
through history there have been groups of Christians and
individual Christians who have tried to live by
Christ's message, such as the first Franciscans, and even
Christian anarchists. The Christian Socialist strand
of Anglo-Catholic thought in in this tradition, and led
many Anglo-Catholics to work in the slums.

How many of them were adulterers? Very few, I'll bet. How many of them
practiced immoral life styles, such as cohabitation with an unmarried
lover? Very few, I'll bet.

Christian socialism is only one strand, and the Reformation strand
that evolved into political and economic liberalism certainly has been
more powerful and persuasive than the socialist strand. Respect for
the sanctity of contract, private property, industry and hard work,
the importance of productive labor, capital, and the accumulation of
wealth (spiritual and material) all stem in major part from Geneva.
This has been well documented, see for example Berger's work (IIRC
'How the West Grew Rich'). It ain't no accident that growth and
prosperity followed the Reformed tradition, from Switzerland down the
Rhine to the Netherlands, accross the Channel to England and Scotland,
and accross the Atlantic to the New World. If you want a comparison,
compare the accomplishments of the Scots (Calvinists) to the Irish
(Catholics). Gaels all, one nation became explorers, inventors,
scientists, conquerors, and the other nation became quarreling
drunkards. I'm exaggerating to make a point and I don't mean this
literally, but your Anglo-Catholic tradition has little to recommend,
and you don't even measure up to those low standards.

If I had to pick the success story between catholic socialism and
protestant capitalism, I'd pick the latter, in BOTH the secular and
spiritual realms.

CC

2007-06-16 15:42:44 UTC

You are mispresenting what Scripture says - Christians were not to charge
other Christians interest - last time I checked Banks are not "christian"

Post by ChapelMouse
Not to mention selling all that you have to give the money to
the poor, which Christ commands us to do if we wish to be
saved.

Again you are mispresenting what Scripture says - Christ told the rich young
ruler "sell all he had" not because everyone should do this but because to
the rich young ruler because material possessions were more important to him
than following Jesus.

Post by ChapelMouse
You know, of course, that Scripture forbids Christians taking
interest on loans to other Christians. Scripture indicates
that the earliest Christians held all their major goods in
common, and the Church specifically forbade Christians to
lend at interest during much of the Middle Ages. So we
have Scripture supporting communism as the proper Christian
economic system, and Tradition forbidding loans at interest.
If you have a bank account or a credit card, you are not a
faithful Christian, by the standard you are applying. Do
you accept this?
<snip>
( lending at interest and private property)

Condemned out of your own mouth, Carter

Post by c***@gmail.com
This post is a response to the thread on authority. I've created a new
thread to highlight this particular issue.

Acutally I would disgree with you on this as well - during his ministry
Christ was MOST concerned about people being willing to surrender ANYTHING
that came between them and God. He wanted them to strive for the truth in
everything they do. In many of your threads on this NG you stated repeatedly
that as long as something is done with the informed consent of the other
party and it does not injure them it is OK to do. This is NOT what Jesus
taught - He did not ignore Scripture but followed the teachings in them -
many times the Jewish leaders tried to trap him but could not because he had
not done anything wrong.

We would all do well to follow his example.

BB

ChapelMouse

2007-06-16 19:47:59 UTC

BB wrote:

<snip>

Post by BB
Acutally I would disgree with you on this as well - during his ministry
Christ was MOST concerned about people being willing to surrender ANYTHING
that came between them and God. He wanted them to strive for the truth in
everything they do. In many of your threads on this NG you stated repeatedly
that as long as something is done with the informed consent of the other
party and it does not injure them it is OK to do.

Not necessarily O.K. in terms of being in accord with Christian
teaching and practice, but not unethical in terms of secular
ethics, and hence -- the most important point for secular policy --
should not be punished by secular state force or prohibited by
secular state law.

What is sinful is between a believer and God, and IMO, is
determined by whether it follows the principle I quoted
given us by Christ. What is unethical is based on whether
any objective *harm* is done to another rights-bearing
being, and so what is illegal should be based on that. In
a perfect world, *nothing* would be illegal -- there would
be no need for state force to make people treat each other
with love and respect. Force demonstrates a breakdown of
ethical interaction, whether that involves war, crime, or
abuse of any kind. Law is officially sanctioned Force,
and should be kept to the absolute minimum needed to defend
individuals against real violence and injury, not to enforce
anyone's concept of what is or is not sinful, as long as it
is not also objectively harmful.

For me, raising and slaughtering animals for food should be
illegal, because the whole process violates the rights of
rights-bearing beings. Using drugs should not be illegal,
because no harm is *necessarily* done by the drug user to
any other rights-bearing being. However, if harm is done
as a result of drug use ( reckless driving, theft, assault ),
that violation of rights should be prohibited/ punished.
This principle should follow through all actions in society.

Post by BB
This is NOT what Jesus
taught - He did not ignore Scripture but followed the teachings in them -
many times the Jewish leaders tried to trap him but could not because he had
not done anything wrong.
We would all do well to follow his example.

c***@gmail.com

2007-06-17 14:27:46 UTC

Post by BB
everything they do. In many of your threads on this NG you stated repeatedly
that as long as something is done with the informed consent of the other
party and it does not injure them it is OK to do.

The reverse is also true, that the secular society shouldn't force
secural policy on the church, as in the case of so-called sexual
preference discrimination statutes and law suits we are beginning to
see. The state has no moral right to enforce upon a church moral
standards that the church rejects, including the refusal to 'grant'
rights to those who the church views as engaging in sinful activity --
a sexual relationship outside of marriage.

Post by ChapelMouse
What is sinful is between a believer and God, and IMO, is
determined by whether it follows the principle I quoted
given us by Christ. What is unethical is based on whether
any objective *harm* is done to another rights-bearing
being, and so what is illegal should be based on that.

We are not talking about criminal acts, but sinful acts. If you look
at the list in Galatians 5 that I mentioned in the OP, most if not all
do not involve objective harm to others, but concern personal
behavior. To refresh your recollection, or to introduce you to this
passage if you have never read it, here are the acts that Galatians
describes as works of the flesh. Tell me which are unethical by your
objective harm to others standard:

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these;
Adultery,
fornication,
uncleanness,
lasciviousness,
Idolatry,
witchcraft,
hatred,
variance, [discord]
emulations, [jealousy]
wrath,
strife,
seditions, [factions]
heresies,
envyings,
murders,
drunkenness,
revellings,
and such like:

Which of these cause objective harm other than murder? Please note
that factory farming is not included in this list.

Post by ChapelMouse
For me, raising and slaughtering animals for food should be
illegal, because the whole process violates the rights of
rights-bearing beings. Using drugs should not be illegal,
because no harm is *necessarily* done by the drug user to
any other rights-bearing being. However, if harm is done
as a result of drug use ( reckless driving, theft, assault ),
that violation of rights should be prohibited/ punished.
This principle should follow through all actions in society.

Is your failure to READ the result of inability or contrariness? This
thread concerns 'christian' misbehavior. The Church has different
standards. Don't you get it? Adultery might not be illegal, but it
certainly is immoral.

CC

ChapelMouse

2007-06-17 20:09:26 UTC

I don't see the state doing this except in situations where
secular activity is involved, such as the Boy Scouts using
public building at cut rates while denying gay people
equality in their organization. The state should not
discriminate in secular policy on the basis of religious
dogma. Today, someone may enforce anti-abortion rules or
anti-gay discrimination; tomorrow someone may enforce
Muslim religious law against Christians.

We are not talking about criminal acts, but sinful acts.

I'm talking about both, and the difference between them.
The principle BB quoted above was one that refers to the
use of state force, not Christian faith.

Post by c***@gmail.com
If you look
at the list in Galatians 5 that I mentioned in the OP, most if not all
do not involve objective harm to others, but concern personal
behavior.

Exactly my point.

Post by c***@gmail.com
To refresh your recollection, or to introduce you to this
passage if you have never read it

You know, I'm getting really tired of your snide comments
suggesting I haven't read the Bible.

Post by c***@gmail.com
, here are the acts that Galatians
describes as works of the flesh. Tell me which are unethical by your
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these;
Adultery, Christian yes; secular not illegal
fornication, Christian yes; secular not illegal
uncleanness, same ( need a definition here )
lasciviousness, same
Idolatry, same
witchcraft, same
hatred, same crimes motivated by hatred are unethical
variance, [discord] same
emulations, [jealousy] same crime motivated by jealousy are unethical
wrath, same crimes motivated by wrath are unethical
strife, same crimes motivated by strife are unethical
seditions, [factions] same
heresies, same
envyings, same crimes motivated by envy are unethical
murders, both sinful & unethical; a matter of

definition

Post by c***@gmail.com
drunkenness, same; unethical if results in harm
revellings, same; unethical if results in harm
Which of these cause objective harm other than murder?

The motive is never unethical unless and until it results in
objectively harmful action against another. All these things
are sinful.

Post by c***@gmail.com
Please note
that factory farming is not included in this list.

It should be included with murder.

Indeed, I do get it, very much so. My point is that the state
should not enforce strictly religious prohibitions, not only
because in many cases there is no objective harm done to another
created being, but *especially* in a religiously diverse
society, because religious groups, both Christian and non,
*differ* over which actions come under these classifications.

Some Christians regard abortion as murder; some don't. Some
Christians regard use of the rosary as idolatry, some don't.
Some, as you've stressed, see remarriage as adultery; some
don't. Some regard contraception as immoral; some regard it
as highly responsible. And so on. The State should not
enforce one group's views on another, and the members of one
group should be aware they do not have the right to enforce
their religious views on a religious group which disagrees
with them either.

ChapelMouse

2007-06-18 12:36:36 UTC

ChapelMouse wrote:

Let me modify this somewhat: sedition may be a virtuous
act, if the government is unethical.

j***@satx.rr.com

2007-06-18 17:43:08 UTC

Post by ChapelMouse
Let me modify this somewhat: sedition may be a virtuous
act, if the government is unethical.

Are you talking about TEC that in the
last 40 years has caused over one million
members to vote with their feet and leave?

Jim

Mt 10:23 - But when they persecute you in this city,
flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you,
Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel,
till the Son of man be come.

2007-06-17 16:25:26 UTC

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Not necessarily O.K. in terms of being in accord with Christian
teaching and practice, but not unethical in terms of secular
ethics, and hence -- the most important point for secular policy --
should not be punished by secular state force or prohibited by
secular state law.
What is sinful is between a believer and God, and IMO, is
determined by whether it follows the principle I quoted
given us by Christ. What is unethical is based on whether
any objective *harm* is done to another rights-bearing
being, and so what is illegal should be based on that. In
a perfect world, *nothing* would be illegal -- there would
be no need for state force to make people treat each other
with love and respect. Force demonstrates a breakdown of
ethical interaction, whether that involves war, crime, or
abuse of any kind. Law is officially sanctioned Force,
and should be kept to the absolute minimum needed to defend
individuals against real violence and injury, not to enforce
anyone's concept of what is or is not sinful, as long as it
is not also objectively harmful.
For me, raising and slaughtering animals for food should be
illegal, because the whole process violates the rights of
rights-bearing beings. Using drugs should not be illegal,
because no harm is *necessarily* done by the drug user to
any other rights-bearing being. However, if harm is done
as a result of drug use ( reckless driving, theft, assault ),
that violation of rights should be prohibited/ punished.
This principle should follow through all actions in society.

I was referring to Christian life as it relates to God - It is a bit
disconserting that you seem to divide your life into two parts - secular and
religious. As a Christian are we not to show the presence of God in all
parts of our lives? I would never support forcing anyone to worship God but
that does not mean that I should not follow Christian principles at the
ballot box or in expressing my concerns to elected officals. For example in
the US alone, since Roe vs Wade, more than 35 million fetus have been
aborted (that is more than 10% of the total population of the US). What has
been the effect upon society from this? When abortion issues are voted on my
my state I vote according to my beliefs (I am not trying to turn this into
an abortion debate by the way since I feel that abortion is dealing with the
symption rather than the root cause of irresponsibilty). Society is
crumbling and imorality and is being held up as something pure which it is
not.

The world is messed up due to sin. We need to reflect God and all aspects of
our lives not agree with worldy values of right and wrong.

BB

ChapelMouse

2007-06-17 19:39:05 UTC

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Post by BB
Acutally I would disgree with you on this as well - during his ministry
Christ was MOST concerned about people being willing to surrender

ANYTHING

Post by BB
that came between them and God. He wanted them to strive for the truth

Post by BB
everything they do. In many of your threads on this NG you stated

repeatedly

Post by BB
that as long as something is done with the informed consent of the other
party and it does not injure them it is OK to do.

Not necessarily O.K. in terms of being in accord with Christian
teaching and practice, but not unethical in terms of secular
ethics, and hence -- the most important point for secular policy --
should not be punished by secular state force or prohibited by
secular state law.
What is sinful is between a believer and God, and IMO, is
determined by whether it follows the principle I quoted
given us by Christ. What is unethical is based on whether
any objective *harm* is done to another rights-bearing
being, and so what is illegal should be based on that. In
a perfect world, *nothing* would be illegal -- there would
be no need for state force to make people treat each other
with love and respect. Force demonstrates a breakdown of
ethical interaction, whether that involves war, crime, or
abuse of any kind. Law is officially sanctioned Force,
and should be kept to the absolute minimum needed to defend
individuals against real violence and injury, not to enforce
anyone's concept of what is or is not sinful, as long as it
is not also objectively harmful.
For me, raising and slaughtering animals for food should be
illegal, because the whole process violates the rights of
rights-bearing beings. Using drugs should not be illegal,
because no harm is *necessarily* done by the drug user to
any other rights-bearing being. However, if harm is done
as a result of drug use ( reckless driving, theft, assault ),
that violation of rights should be prohibited/ punished.
This principle should follow through all actions in society.

I was referring to Christian life as it relates to God - It is a bit
disconserting that you seem to divide your life into two parts - secular and
religious.

Not my life, but what I believe should be enforced on those who
do not necessarily agree with my views by FORCE* -- that is,
by the state.

Post by BB
As a Christian are we not to show the presence of God in all
parts of our lives?

Yes -- but not meddle in the lives of others who don't share our
beliefs unless they objectively injure others. This is built
into the U.S. political/constitutional system, and is central
to freedom of religion for everyone.

Post by BB
I would never support forcing anyone to worship God but
that does not mean that I should not follow Christian principles at the
ballot box or in expressing my concerns to elected officals. For example in
the US alone, since Roe vs Wade, more than 35 million fetus have been
aborted (that is more than 10% of the total population of the US).

However. many people don't consider that a religious issue, and
don't accept a fetus -- at least before the third trimester -- as
a rights-bearing being. I'm one of them. I think abortion is an
issue of private conscience for the individual carrying the
fetus, not for the state.

Post by BB
What has
been the effect upon society from this?

Many unwanted fetuses have not come to term to suffer after birth,
many women have been spared injury and death through botched
abortions, many families have been saved from expenses they
couldn't afford of raising an unwanted child, the number of
sick infants with major birth defects born has decreased, there
is a slight decrease in overpopulation, women's ( and men's)
freedom has been enlarged by removing an essentially religious
issue from secular control. I donate to Planned Parenthood,
and support them completely. If abortion becomes illegal, I
would be more than willing to help a woman who wants one get
a safe abortion in any way I can.

Post by BB
When abortion issues are voted on my
my state I vote according to my beliefs (I am not trying to turn this into
an abortion debate by the way since I feel that abortion is dealing with the
symption rather than the root cause of irresponsibilty).

It's a lot more responsible to get an abortion than to birth
an unwanted child you can't care for.

Post by BB
Society is
crumbling and imorality and is being held up as something pure which it is
not.
The world is messed up due to sin. We need to reflect God and all aspects of
our lives not agree with worldy values of right and wrong.

But religious people *also* disagree on questions of right and
wrong. The state shouldn't enforce one religious group's
views at the expense of religious people who believe differently.

<snip.

2007-06-23 04:47:46 UTC

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Post by BB
Acutally I would disgree with you on this as well - during his ministry
Christ was MOST concerned about people being willing to surrender

ANYTHING

Post by BB
that came between them and God. He wanted them to strive for the truth

Post by BB
everything they do. In many of your threads on this NG you stated

repeatedly

Post by BB
that as long as something is done with the informed consent of the other
party and it does not injure them it is OK to do.

Not necessarily O.K. in terms of being in accord with Christian
teaching and practice, but not unethical in terms of secular
ethics, and hence -- the most important point for secular policy --
should not be punished by secular state force or prohibited by
secular state law.
What is sinful is between a believer and God, and IMO, is
determined by whether it follows the principle I quoted
given us by Christ. What is unethical is based on whether
any objective *harm* is done to another rights-bearing
being, and so what is illegal should be based on that. In
a perfect world, *nothing* would be illegal -- there would
be no need for state force to make people treat each other
with love and respect. Force demonstrates a breakdown of
ethical interaction, whether that involves war, crime, or
abuse of any kind. Law is officially sanctioned Force,
and should be kept to the absolute minimum needed to defend
individuals against real violence and injury, not to enforce
anyone's concept of what is or is not sinful, as long as it
is not also objectively harmful.
For me, raising and slaughtering animals for food should be
illegal, because the whole process violates the rights of
rights-bearing beings. Using drugs should not be illegal,
because no harm is *necessarily* done by the drug user to
any other rights-bearing being. However, if harm is done
as a result of drug use ( reckless driving, theft, assault ),
that violation of rights should be prohibited/ punished.
This principle should follow through all actions in society.

I was referring to Christian life as it relates to God - It is a bit
disconserting that you seem to divide your life into two parts - secular and
religious.

Not my life, but what I believe should be enforced on those who
do not necessarily agree with my views by FORCE* -- that is,
by the state.

As Christians are not we supposed to be the "salt of the earth"?

Post by BB
As a Christian are we not to show the presence of God in all
parts of our lives?

How do you define injury?

So you also agree that slaughtering animals is a matter of private
conscience for the individual? Or are you placing animal rights above that
of a human fetus?

Post by BB
What has
been the effect upon society from this?

Hmm, One cannot help but wonder how many Einsteins, Van Goghs, Beethovens,
et al were among those 35M aborted fetuses???? Does that fact they they are
unwanted make them any less important in the sight of God?

It's a lot more responsible to get an abortion than to birth
an unwanted child you can't care for.

Really? Perhaps the ultimate responsibility would be not to have sex outside
of marriage??? And inside of marriage responsible use of contraceptives if
no more children are wanted?

But religious people *also* disagree on questions of right and
wrong. The state shouldn't enforce one religious group's
views at the expense of religious people who believe differently.

Really - I believe (as do members of my church) that same sex sexual
activity is morally wrong but in my state if I refuse to rent a house to a
gay couple I will face civil and possibly criminal sanctions. Is this not
the state forcing me to do something that my religious beliefs tell me is
wrong?

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip.

ChapelMouse

2007-06-23 13:30:21 UTC

<snip>

<snip>

Post by BB
I was referring to Christian life as it relates to God - It is a bit
disconserting that you seem to divide your life into two parts - secular

and

Post by BB
religious.

Not my life, but what I believe should be enforced on those who
do not necessarily agree with my views by FORCE* -- that is,
by the state.

As Christians are not we supposed to be the "salt of the earth"?

Yes -- but nowhere does the Bible say we, as Christians, are
to use the power of the secular State to force others to
follow our beliefs. Living our beliefs, even to martyrdom,
can be powerful witness. Acting, as individuals, against state
force can be powerful witness. But as soon as the Church
became involved with State force by becoming the official
State religion, and started demanding the State enforce its
views on others, it was badly compromised as a spiritual body.

Post by BB
As a Christian are we not to show the presence of God in all
parts of our lives?

How do you define injury?

Objective and serious physical or mental harm or abuse. Agreed, this
can be a gray area. Should parents who refuse their child a
blood transfusion on religious grounds be overruled by the State?
Society has generally agreed they should. Should those who believe
teaching evolution in school is wrong be allowed to forbid it? The
State has generally said, "no" but the parents' freedom of action
is not compromised because they are allowed to take their child
out of school and home-school him.

Post by BB
the US alone, since Roe vs Wade, more than 35 million fetus have been
aborted (that is more than 10% of the total population of the US).

So you also agree that slaughtering animals is a matter of private
conscience for the individual?

No. Objective and deadly injury is done to the animal.

Post by BB
Or are you placing animal rights above that
of a human fetus?

Yes, if the fetus is less developed than the point at which it
becomes viable, for two reasons: 1) before a certain point in
development, the fetus is not conscious and thus, IMO, has no
rights, and 2) until viability, the rights of the woman
carrying the fetus override any rights the fetus may have.
After viability, IMO, there is an ethical issue, but in general
I still believe the rights of the woman come before any rights
the fetus may have before birth. An animal is a separate
individual, like a child *after* birth, while a fetus is a
part of the woman's body, essentially a parasite on her, until
it is born. She should have a right to say if it can live in
her body. I do feel women who deliberately harm a fetus
which will be permitted to grow to birth, such as by drinking
alcohol or using drugs while pregnant, or by not eating right,
commit a very great moral wrong.

Post by BB
What has
been the effect upon society from this?

Or how many Hitlers, Jeffrey Dahmers, etc...it's a meaningless argument.

I can't speak for God. If He is sufficiently concerned, no doubt He
can act on His own. The issue is what the *State* should enforce.
Anything else is up to private conscience.

Post by BB
When abortion issues are voted on my
my state I vote according to my beliefs (I am not trying to turn this

into

Post by BB
an abortion debate by the way since I feel that abortion is dealing with

the

Post by BB
symption rather than the root cause of irresponsibilty).

It's a lot more responsible to get an abortion than to birth
an unwanted child you can't care for.

Really? Perhaps the ultimate responsibility would be not to have sex outside
of marriage??? And inside of marriage responsible use of contraceptives if
no more children are wanted?

That would be preferable, certainly. But when the question of abortion
comes up, that option has already passed. The issue is what to do
after that option is no longer available. (And remember, contraception
is not infallible )

Post by BB
Society is
crumbling and imorality and is being held up as something pure which it

Post by BB
not.
The world is messed up due to sin. We need to reflect God and all

aspects of

Post by BB
our lives not agree with worldy values of right and wrong.

But religious people *also* disagree on questions of right and
wrong. The state shouldn't enforce one religious group's
views at the expense of religious people who believe differently.

No. If you offer your house for rent on the open market, you can only
ethically refuse to rent it to someone on the basis of considerations
which relate to use of the house. If you dislike a potential
renter because he/she is black, female, Italian, gay, or living with
an unmarried partner, that has absolutely no bearing on whether
that person will pay the rent on time and take care of your property.

You can get around this by a sort of renter's version of home schooling:
if it really matters to you, you can advertise your house only to
potential renters you like -- in some private listing, or by word of
mouth. I know gay people who want to rent to other gay people who
advertise homes for rent on a private gay/Lesbian chat group. That's
legitimate. If they advertise in the newspaper, they have to rent to
anybody who can pay rent on time and won't trash the property. Same
thing with people who don't want to rent to black people or gays.

2007-06-23 15:17:43 UTC

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

<snip>

Post by BB
I was referring to Christian life as it relates to God - It is a bit
disconserting that you seem to divide your life into two parts - secular

and

Post by BB
religious.

Not my life, but what I believe should be enforced on those who
do not necessarily agree with my views by FORCE* -- that is,
by the state.

As Christians are not we supposed to be the "salt of the earth"?

I agree that the state should not endorse a "state religion" nor should it
force people to follow religious beliefs however in the past you has
indicated that you support the state outlawing "discrimination" based on
sexual orientation even if it tramples on the rights of the religious
beliefs of people who feel that homosexual activity is morally wrong. . . a
disconnect here is it not?

Post by BB
As a Christian are we not to show the presence of God in all
parts of our lives?

How do you define injury?

Interesting - People who have strong beliefs based on religion are free to
take their children out of public schools that they are forced to fund
through their tax dollars and either go to the additional expense of home
schooling or sending them to a Christian school as the only recourse they
have. These public schools are also the ones that will suspend a student for
bringing an aspirin to school but freely give out condoms and/or promote
abortion as a viable option when a student gets pregnant. Yes we must
maintain the integrity of our public school system which is so wonderful. .
.

Post by BB
the US alone, since Roe vs Wade, more than 35 million fetus have been
aborted (that is more than 10% of the total population of the US).

So you also agree that slaughtering animals is a matter of private
conscience for the individual?

No. Objective and deadly injury is done to the animal.

OK let me get this right you - you don't beleive that any objective and
deadly injury is done to a fetus that is aborted????

Post by BB
Or are you placing animal rights above that
of a human fetus?

So when does a fetus become conscious? Does anyone really know? Is it the
same for ALL fetuses? Also in #1 by your reasoning a person in a coma is not
conscious either so it is OK to terminate them?

Post by ChapelMouse
After viability, IMO, there is an ethical issue, but in general
I still believe the rights of the woman come before any rights
the fetus may have before birth. An animal is a separate
individual, like a child *after* birth, while a fetus is a
part of the woman's body, essentially a parasite on her, until
it is born. She should have a right to say if it can live in
her body. I do feel women who deliberately harm a fetus
which will be permitted to grow to birth, such as by drinking
alcohol or using drugs while pregnant, or by not eating right,
commit a very great moral wrong.

A fetus is a parasite? What???? You ascribe more rights to an animal than a
human fetus even though the animal is not conscious as a human is and it not
capable of making moral decisions?

Post by BB
What has
been the effect upon society from this?

Or how many Hitlers, Jeffrey Dahmers, etc...it's a meaningless argument.

Why is it meaningless - Hitler and Dahmer were not born as mass murdurers
but were shaped by the environment around them.

Post by ChapelMouse
I can't speak for God. If He is sufficiently concerned, no doubt He
can act on His own. The issue is what the *State* should enforce.
Anything else is up to private conscience.

Ah yes what an excellent attitude - I beleive Christ told a parable about
that one - something about a man who was beaten and robbed and left to die
by the roadside. . . Christ taught us to be involved. . .

Post by BB
When abortion issues are voted on my
my state I vote according to my beliefs (I am not trying to turn this

into

Post by BB
an abortion debate by the way since I feel that abortion is dealing with

the

Post by BB
symption rather than the root cause of irresponsibilty).

It's a lot more responsible to get an abortion than to birth
an unwanted child you can't care for.

Really? Perhaps the ultimate responsibility would be not to have sex outside
of marriage??? And inside of marriage responsible use of contraceptives if
no more children are wanted?

Ah yes - just treat the symtom rather than the cause - rather like the
current medical system in the US. Contraception is not infallible but
abortion allows people to escape the results of their actions. . . Abortion
is an easy out for many people - it removes responsibility. . .

Post by BB
Society is
crumbling and imorality and is being held up as something pure which it

Post by BB
not.
The world is messed up due to sin. We need to reflect God and all

aspects of

Post by BB
our lives not agree with worldy values of right and wrong.

But religious people *also* disagree on questions of right and
wrong. The state shouldn't enforce one religious group's
views at the expense of religious people who believe differently.

Really? So you fell fully comfortable renting your home to a Nazi who is a
member of the KKK as long as he pays rent on time and takes care of the
property? You have no moral issues with this type of person?

Post by ChapelMouse
if it really matters to you, you can advertise your house only to
potential renters you like -- in some private listing, or by word of
mouth. I know gay people who want to rent to other gay people who
advertise homes for rent on a private gay/Lesbian chat group. That's
legitimate. If they advertise in the newspaper, they have to rent to
anybody who can pay rent on time and won't trash the property. Same
thing with people who don't want to rent to black people or gays.

Ah yes lets be sneaky to work around the current insanity of the US legal
system. . .

ChapelMouse

2007-06-23 22:14:32 UTC

<snip>

Post by BB
As Christians are not we supposed to be the "salt of the earth"?

No. Once again you are confusing the use of State force with private
conscience.

All people should have a right to use public facilities open to the
public equally. The State has an obligation to ensure this. I
may feel Jerry Falwell or Fred Phelps definitely do things which
I consider morally wrong. That does not mean I can ask the secular
state to prohibit Fred Phelps from eating at a public lunch
counter or drinking from a public water fountain, or holding a
meeting in a public facility he has rented at going market rate.
That doesn't mean I have to invite him to my house for dinner.

Post by BB
As a Christian are we not to show the presence of God in all
parts of our lives?

How do you define injury?

Yes.

Post by BB
These public schools are also the ones that will suspend a student for
bringing an aspirin to school but freely give out condoms and/or promote
abortion as a viable option when a student gets pregnant.

Please cite an occasion when a public lower school did so. I think
condoms should be available if students ask for them. Having
a condom does not force a person to have sex. Being *prevented*
from obtaining a condom when someone wants one can result in
serious or even fatal consequences. And certainly abortion is a
viable option if a student gets pregnant. That doesn't make the
student get one. Information is vital and central to good
decision-making, and ignorance never prevented people from making
poor decisions. The "abstinence only" programs are both incomplete
and ineffective.

Yes we must

Post by BB
maintain the integrity of our public school system which is so wonderful. .

<snip>

Post by BB
So you also agree that slaughtering animals is a matter of private
conscience for the individual?

No. Objective and deadly injury is done to the animal.

OK let me get this right you - you don't beleive that any objective and
deadly injury is done to a fetus that is aborted????

No violation of rights happens if the fetus is not a conscious,
self-aware being (first trimester ) and other considerations
come into play as long as the fetus is inside a being with
rights, the woman.

Post by BB
Or are you placing animal rights above that
of a human fetus?

So when does a fetus become conscious? Does anyone really know? Is it the
same for ALL fetuses?

Well, the fetus certainly has to develop the physical structures which
allow consciousness, including a functioning central nervous system
and a reasonably well-developed brain.

Post by BB
Also in #1 by your reasoning a person in a coma is not
conscious either so it is OK to terminate them?

I believe that depends on various factors: if the coma is
a "permanent vegetative state" and whether members of
the person's family want to preserve life-processes. A
person in a coma who has no chance of recovery has no
interests and thus has no rights. It is less aware than
a normal adult animal. But the family may want to keep
heart and lungs working and force-feed the body, even
though it has no mind and ( I would think ) the soul has
left it.

A fetus is a parasite? What????

Yes, absolutely.

Post by BB
You ascribe more rights to an animal than a
human fetus even though the animal is not conscious as a human is

An animal certainly is as conscious as a human is in all the areas
which relate to being raised and slaughtered for food. A fetus
before the third trimester is certainly *less* conscious than
a born animal.

Post by BB
and it not
capable of making moral decisions?

Well, we don't know that. Recent research into animal cognition
suggests animals are indeed capable of rudimentary ethical
decision-making. Whatever else they do is subjective -- it's
very difficult do prove they do or do not have some sense of
ethics. Also, if you exclude all beings lacking the capacity
for moral decision-making, you would eliminate young human
children and mentally disabled humans from moral consideration
as well.

<snip>
.

Post by BB
Hmm, One cannot help but wonder how many Einsteins, Van Goghs,

Beethovens,

Post by BB
et al were among those 35M aborted fetuses???? Does that fact they they

are

Post by BB
unwanted make them any less important in the sight of God?

Or how many Hitlers, Jeffrey Dahmers, etc...it's a meaningless argument.

Why is it meaningless - Hitler and Dahmer were not born as mass murdurers
but were shaped by the environment around them.

So were Einstein, etc. It's a meaningless argument.

Post by ChapelMouse
I can't speak for God. If He is sufficiently concerned, no doubt He
can act on His own. The issue is what the *State* should enforce.
Anything else is up to private conscience.

You'll note the Good Samaritan did not call on the Roman police
to help the robbery victim. He helped the man himself,
provided for him with his own resources. There is a major difference
between this case and the ones I am describing. For one, there was
no religious group which considered it wrong to help an injured
person. Christ's point was, in fact, that those who did not help,
even though they were religious leaders, were at fault and should have
done the same. The issue is what positive action, beyond that required
by law, should be taken to help another person in need. Also, acts
of charity take precedence over ritual prohibitions of religious Law.

This is an issue of positive action. My concern here is with
prohibitions by the secular State based on religious dogma which
the person being forbidden to act does not accept.

Post by BB
When abortion issues are voted on my
my state I vote according to my beliefs (I am not trying to turn this

into

Post by BB
an abortion debate by the way since I feel that abortion is dealing

with

Post by BB
the

Post by BB
symption rather than the root cause of irresponsibilty).

It's a lot more responsible to get an abortion than to birth
an unwanted child you can't care for.

Really? Perhaps the ultimate responsibility would be not to have sex

outside

Post by BB
of marriage??? And inside of marriage responsible use of contraceptives

Post by BB
no more children are wanted?

You've never had one, I presume? The question is, again, whether the
State should prevent women who want an abortion from getting one,
based on disputed religious dogma. That's not the function of the State.

I would hate to be a child raised by a woman who didn't want me and only
had me because the State prevented her from having an abortion.
Seeing a person as a punishment for wrong-doing is not a good attitude
for the person to live with, and can destroy that person's
mental health.

<snip>

Post by ChapelMouse
No. If you offer your house for rent on the open market, you can only
ethically refuse to rent it to someone on the basis of considerations
which relate to use of the house. If you dislike a potential
renter because he/she is black, female, Italian, gay, or living with
an unmarried partner, that has absolutely no bearing on whether
that person will pay the rent on time and take care of your property.

Really? So you feel fully comfortable renting your home to a Nazi who is a
member of the KKK as long as he pays rent on time and takes care of the
property?

Yes. He has a right to hold opinions I find morally repugnant. I am
not the Thought Police.

Post by BB
You have no moral issues with this type of person?

Of course I do, but that does not mean I can violate that person's
right to equal treatment. One of the reasons I oppose the Nazis
and the KKK is precisely because they do that -- they act
against people on the basis of irrelevant characteristics, such
as race, religion and ethnicity. The Nazis prevented Jewish
people from purchasing from public stores and sharing public
facilities. I would be acting like them if I kept a person
with Nazi beliefs from renting property I had put on the
open market, as long as he fulfilled his obligations to me as
landlord.

Ah yes lets be sneaky to work around the current insanity of the US legal
system. . .

That's the point: if you want to prevent certain people from renting
from you, you don't put your property on the open market. You
advertise it privately. This works if you are a racist, an anti-
Semite, a homophobe -- or a heterophobe.

2007-06-24 01:40:41 UTC

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Post by BB
As Christians are not we supposed to be the "salt of the earth"?

No. Once again you are confusing the use of State force with private
conscience.

So lets be clear - you support trampling on peoples personal beliefs if it
is to your benefit. . .

Post by ChapelMouse
All people should have a right to use public facilities open to the
public equally. The State has an obligation to ensure this. I
may feel Jerry Falwell or Fred Phelps definitely do things which
I consider morally wrong. That does not mean I can ask the secular
state to prohibit Fred Phelps from eating at a public lunch
counter or drinking from a public water fountain, or holding a
meeting in a public facility he has rented at going market rate.
That doesn't mean I have to invite him to my house for dinner.

Nor should it mean that I have to condone immoral behaviour (which the state
does by forcing people to follow the no discrimination policy based on
sexual orientation). It prevents me from freely following my personal
beliefs.

Post by BB
As a Christian are we not to show the presence of God in all
parts of our lives?

How do you define injury?

Yes.

Ah - thats right you also support taking churches from parishes that want to
leave the ECUSA eventhough it is the members that paid for it and it's
upkeep.

Do you read the news? What do you think is taught in sex ed classes? In many
states parental consent is not needed for a teen to get an abortion but a
doctors prescription is required for them to take aspirin to school.

Unfortunately your position removes any of the consequences from the
decisions that young people make and gives them a pass to do whatever they
want. As a society in America we no longer teach responsibility for ones
actions - if it feels good do it. . . there is aways a way to avoid the
consequences.

Post by ChapelMouse
Yes we must

Post by BB
maintain the integrity of our public school system which is so wonderful. .

<snip>

Post by BB
So you also agree that slaughtering animals is a matter of private
conscience for the individual?

No. Objective and deadly injury is done to the animal.

OK let me get this right you - you don't beleive that any objective and
deadly injury is done to a fetus that is aborted????

OK it is time to start reading what I write - I am NOT talking about rights
of the fetus. I asked if there any objective and deadly injury is done to a
fetus that is aborted. IT IS TERMINATED! A rational person would call that
deadly injury.

Post by BB
Or are you placing animal rights above that
of a human fetus?

So when does a fetus become conscious? Does anyone really know? Is it the
same for ALL fetuses?

Well, the fetus certainly has to develop the physical structures which
allow consciousness, including a functioning central nervous system
and a reasonably well-developed brain.

As usual you avoided actually answering the questions posed. Do you or does
anyone else know the precise time that a fetus becomes conscious? Is it the
same for all fetuses? A rational human would have to answer that it is
unknown for the first question and second question.

Post by BB
Also in #1 by your reasoning a person in a coma is not
conscious either so it is OK to terminate them?

So how are your beliefs any different than Hitler's?

A fetus is a parasite? What????

Yes, absolutely.

Sorry but a parasite is a totally foreign body living off of the host. A
fetus is composed of 50% of the DNA of the mother and is a result of the
reproductive process. Your view of a fetus being a parasite speaks volumes
about your views on abortion. . .

Post by BB
You ascribe more rights to an animal than a
human fetus even though the animal is not conscious as a human is

Your raising of animals to the level of humans is non scriptural and
unsupportable.

Post by BB
and it not
capable of making moral decisions?

And you are asserting that since we do not know we must assume they do. . .
Scripture clearly states that man was created above the animals and was in
charge of them. Your lack of compassion for a human fetus but extreme
concern for animals is simply not Scriptural.

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>
.

Post by BB
Hmm, One cannot help but wonder how many Einsteins, Van Goghs,

Beethovens,

Post by BB
et al were among those 35M aborted fetuses???? Does that fact they they

are

Post by BB
unwanted make them any less important in the sight of God?

Or how many Hitlers, Jeffrey Dahmers, etc...it's a meaningless argument.

Why is it meaningless - Hitler and Dahmer were not born as mass murdurers
but were shaped by the environment around them.

So were Einstein, etc. It's a meaningless argument.

Is it meaningless to God that humans so carelessly abort a fetus since it is
inconvienant to take it to term?

Post by ChapelMouse
I can't speak for God. If He is sufficiently concerned, no doubt He
can act on His own. The issue is what the *State* should enforce.
Anything else is up to private conscience.

I was refering to your statement that:
"If He is sufficiently concerned, no doubt He can act on His own". Not state
intervention.

Post by ChapelMouse
This is an issue of positive action. My concern here is with
prohibitions by the secular State based on religious dogma which
the person being forbidden to act does not accept.

Post by BB
When abortion issues are voted on my
my state I vote according to my beliefs (I am not trying to turn this

into

Post by BB
an abortion debate by the way since I feel that abortion is dealing

with

Post by BB
the

Post by BB
symption rather than the root cause of irresponsibilty).

It's a lot more responsible to get an abortion than to birth
an unwanted child you can't care for.

Really? Perhaps the ultimate responsibility would be not to have sex

outside

Post by BB
of marriage??? And inside of marriage responsible use of

contraceptives

Post by BB
if

Post by BB
no more children are wanted?

Abortion

Post by BB
is an easy out for many people - it removes responsibility. . .

I have never had an abortion since it is phycially impossible for a man to
get pregnant. A close friends had to have one when medical tests showed
gross abnormalities in the fetus that would have not survived birth. It was
a very difficult decision for them to make and I do not judge them for it.
You have stated again and again that it is only the womans right to choose
since it is her body and she can do what she wants with it. For a non
Christian this may be true but for a Christian our body is the temple of God
and we are to treat it as such.

Yes religous dogma also says that murder is wrong as are adultery, theft and
lying. The state enforces prohibitions against them. . .

Post by ChapelMouse
I would hate to be a child raised by a woman who didn't want me and only
had me because the State prevented her from having an abortion.
Seeing a person as a punishment for wrong-doing is not a good attitude
for the person to live with, and can destroy that person's
mental health.

Again you are dealing with the symtom rather than the cause - sexual
activity outside of marriage will lead to this problem. Prevention is always
better than the cure. . .

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Really? So you feel fully comfortable renting your home to a Nazi who is a
member of the KKK as long as he pays rent on time and takes care of the
property?

Yes. He has a right to hold opinions I find morally repugnant. I am
not the Thought Police.

I find that position to be untenable since again it removes responsiblity
from the person - they can act however they please with no consequences. . .

Post by BB
You have no moral issues with this type of person?

Your position on "rights" is almost pathological - but then of course you
also have stated that you have the "right" to pronounce immoral behaviour as
moral and acceptable in the church. When someone points out that your
position on homosexuality is not scriptural you claim "new light" and then
start calling them a homophobe in an attempt to bludgon them into agreeing
with your position. Perhaps this is because unless you take this position
you cannot justify your lifestyle???

BB

Ah yes lets be sneaky to work around the current insanity of the US legal
system. . .

ChapelMouse

2007-06-24 15:00:31 UTC

You seem to be getting a trifle testy here, BB.

BB wrote:

<snip>
I agree that the state should not endorse a "state religion" nor should

Post by BB
it

Post by BB
force people to follow religious beliefs however in the past you has
indicated that you support the state outlawing "discrimination" based on
sexual orientation even if it tramples on the rights of the religious
beliefs of people who feel that homosexual activity is morally wrong. .

. a

Post by BB
disconnect here is it not?

No. Once again you are confusing the use of State force with private
conscience.

So lets be clear - you support trampling on peoples personal beliefs if it
is to your benefit. . .

No. One of my most central beliefs is that *belief* should be
absolutely free, as should speech. God certainly, IMO, judges
belief and motive, and there are certainly sins which involve
only internal mental processes.

*HOWEVER* the other central principle I support is that State
force should not be used to enforce a strictly religious belief.
The belief that homosexual activity is sinful is a strictly
religious belief, and one shared by only some Christians. The
State must, in justice, grant gay people all the same rights it
grants straight people, including the right to use of public
facilities.

The only justification for use of State force is objectively
harmful action against rights-bearing beings.

Yes, it does, and that is as it should be in a free society. Your
religious beliefs do not trump my civil rights in civil society.

<snip>

Post by BB
Ah - thats right you also support taking churches from parishes that want to
leave the ECUSA eventhough it is the members that paid for it and it's
upkeep.

The parish property belongs to the parish, which is an organizational
division of the Episcopal church, or to the diocese. It does not
belong to individual people who move to another organization or
diocese (such as the Anglican church of Nigeria). In fact, I *oppose*
taking church buildings and property from the parishes which own them.

Do you read the news? What do you think is taught in sex ed classes? In many
states parental consent is not needed for a teen to get an abortion but a
doctors prescription is required for them to take aspirin to school.
Unfortunately your position removes any of the consequences from the
decisions that young people make and gives them a pass to do whatever they
want.

There are consequences, of course, but if the young person has already
decided to have sex, refusing to allow access to a condom or an abortion
will not stop him/her. It will only compound the problems for everyone
involved if something worse happens. People were having sex outside
of marriage for thousands of years in spite of every effort to prevent
them from knowing how to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease,
and all the sermons of the churches. They won't stop now. Giving them
complete information enables them to make more responsible and
informed decisions.

If a young person thinks it is sinful to have sex before marriage, and
believes that strongly enough, waving a condom or a Planned Parenthood
flyer at them will not drive them to have sex. Fear of death by AIDS
or pregnancy or death by a backstreet abortion is not a godly motive.
Acting on love, as Christ taught, moves us to teach what we believe,
but *also* to love even those who sin, accept them as God accepts us,
and helping them if they are suffering, even if that suffering is the
result of sinful action. God does it for us; He expects us to do
it for each other.

<snip>

Post by BB
So you also agree that slaughtering animals is a matter of private

Post by BB
conscience for the individual?

No. Objective and deadly injury is done to the animal.

OK let me get this right you - you don't beleive that any objective and
deadly injury is done to a fetus that is aborted????

OK it is time to start reading what I write - I am NOT talking about rights
of the fetus.

I am. The issue is whether State force should be used to prevent action
based only on religious belief. It should not. It should only be
used to prevent violation of rights. If a beings does not have rights,
there is no issue involving the use of State force. There may,
certainly, be a moral issue, but that is not a matter for secular law to
deal with.

Post by BB
I asked if there any objective and deadly injury is done to a
fetus that is aborted. IT IS TERMINATED! A rational person would call that
deadly injury.

Post by BB
Or are you placing animal rights above that
of a human fetus?

So when does a fetus become conscious? Does anyone really know? Is it

the

Post by BB
same for ALL fetuses?

Well, the fetus certainly has to develop the physical structures which
allow consciousness, including a functioning central nervous system
and a reasonably well-developed brain.

It's not unknown. Up to the point at which the physical structures in
the body necessary for consciousness to exist develop, a being cannot
be conscious. It is physiologically impossible.

Post by BB
Also in #1 by your reasoning a person in a coma is not
conscious either so it is OK to terminate them?

So how are your beliefs any different than Hitler's?

In a vast number of ways, BB.

Post by BB
A fetus is a parasite? What????

Yes, absolutely.

Sorry but a parasite is a totally foreign body living off of the host.

Well, it may share much of the biological functions of the host
body. The point is that a parasite is a separate biological
entity, but one totally dependent on the host for food and
survival. That applies to a fetus.

Post by BB
You ascribe more rights to an animal than a
human fetus even though the animal is not conscious as a human is

Your raising of animals to the level of humans is non scriptural and
unsupportable.

I am not raising the animal to the level of a human in all areas.
However, an animal is certainly as able to feel pain, discomfort,
frustration, suffering, fear, boredom, and so on. It is as
conscious in those areas.

Post by BB
and it not
capable of making moral decisions?

And you are asserting that since we do not know we must assume they do. . .

No, I'm not. I'm saying whether animals are moral agents or not
is irrelevant to the question of whether they have equal consciousness
of suffering, pain, and frustration, and the question of whether they
have rights. If a two-year-old has a right not to be slaughtered
for food, so does a cow.

Post by BB
Scripture clearly states that man was created above the animals and was in
charge of them. Your lack of compassion for a human fetus but extreme
concern for animals is simply not Scriptural.

I disagree. Humanity was given stewardship over the natural world,
and that obligates humans not to abuse that charge.

<snip>

Post by BB
"If He is sufficiently concerned, no doubt He can act on His own". Not state
intervention.

I wasn't

<snip>

Post by BB
I have never had an abortion since it is phycially impossible for a man to
get pregnant. A close friends had to have one when medical tests showed
gross abnormalities in the fetus that would have not survived birth. It was
a very difficult decision for them to make and I do not judge them for it.

Very good. That's a start. Now try extending that insight to
people you don't know personally.

<snip>

Post by BB
Yes religious dogma also says that murder is wrong as are adultery, theft and
lying. The state enforces prohibitions against them. . .

Actually, the State only prohibits murder and theft. There's
no law against adultery and lying _per se_.

Again you are dealing with the symtom rather than the cause - sexual
activity outside of marriage will lead to this problem. Prevention is always
better than the cure. . .

I couldn't agree more....

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Post by BB
No. If you offer your house for rent on the open market, you can only
ethically refuse to rent it to someone on the basis of considerations
which relate to use of the house. If you dislike a potential
renter because he/she is black, female, Italian, gay, or living with
an unmarried partner, that has absolutely no bearing on whether
that person will pay the rent on time and take care of your property.

Really? So you feel fully comfortable renting your home to a Nazi who is

a >>> member of the KKK as long as he pays rent on time and takes care of the

Post by BB
property?

Yes. He has a right to hold opinions I find morally repugnant. I am
not the Thought Police.

I find that position to be untenable since again it removes responsiblity
from the person - they can act however they please with no consequences. . .

No -- that's the point. A person should have complete freedom to
*BELIEVE* whatever he wants and express those beliefs without any
State intervention whatsoever. At all. In any way. That is an
absolute, the core freedom on which all other freedoms depend, the
absolute necessity for a free society. Action which violates others'
rights is completely different.

How can making a person responsible for his own opinions remove
responsibility from him?

Post by BB
You have no moral issues with this type of person?

Your position on "rights" is almost pathological

I believe very strongly in civil rights for all.
If you don't, that is a frightening and dangerous position.

<snip>

2007-06-25 05:49:40 UTC

Post by ChapelMouse
You seem to be getting a trifle testy here, BB.

Testy no - perplexed as to what planet you come from does come to mind
however.

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>
I agree that the state should not endorse a "state religion" nor should

Post by BB
it

. a

Post by BB
disconnect here is it not?

No. Once again you are confusing the use of State force with private
conscience.

So lets be clear - you support trampling on peoples personal beliefs if it
is to your benefit. . .

Another disconnect since belief that cannot be put into practice because of
civil law infringes on the beliefs.

Post by ChapelMouse
*HOWEVER* the other central principle I support is that State
force should not be used to enforce a strictly religious belief.
The belief that homosexual activity is sinful is a strictly
religious belief, and one shared by only some Christians. The
State must, in justice, grant gay people all the same rights it
grants straight people, including the right to use of public
facilities.

Hmm - ever read the 10 commandments - quite a few of them are enshrined in
civil law. . .

Post by ChapelMouse
The only justification for use of State force is objectively
harmful action against rights-bearing beings.

Yes, it does, and that is as it should be in a free society. Your
religious beliefs do not trump my civil rights in civil society.

Excuse me but reality check time - perhaps time for a bit of consitution
study as well - It allows me to worship and practice my beliefs without
state interferance. . .

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Post by BB
Ah - thats right you also support taking churches from parishes that want to
leave the ECUSA eventhough it is the members that paid for it and it's
upkeep.

Do you read the news? What do you think is taught in sex ed classes? In many
states parental consent is not needed for a teen to get an abortion but a
doctors prescription is required for them to take aspirin to school.
Unfortunately your position removes any of the consequences from the
decisions that young people make and gives them a pass to do whatever they
want.

Hmm - if you are only referring to young people in a Christian church do you
still hold the same ideas?

Post by ChapelMouse
If a young person thinks it is sinful to have sex before marriage, and
believes that strongly enough, waving a condom or a Planned Parenthood
flyer at them will not drive them to have sex. Fear of death by AIDS
or pregnancy or death by a backstreet abortion is not a godly motive.
Acting on love, as Christ taught, moves us to teach what we believe,
but *also* to love even those who sin, accept them as God accepts us,
and helping them if they are suffering, even if that suffering is the
result of sinful action. God does it for us; He expects us to do
it for each other.

But removing the consequences of their actions from them is not Scriptural
either. . .

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Post by BB
So you also agree that slaughtering animals is a matter of private

Post by BB
conscience for the individual?

No. Objective and deadly injury is done to the animal.

OK let me get this right you - you don't beleive that any objective and
deadly injury is done to a fetus that is aborted????

OK it is time to start reading what I write - I am NOT talking about rights
of the fetus.

Your inability or unwillingness to answer questions shows up again. . . I
will restate the question:
Is there any objective and deadly injury is done to a fetus that is
aborted???

Post by BB
I asked if there any objective and deadly injury is done to a
fetus that is aborted. IT IS TERMINATED! A rational person would call that
deadly injury.

Post by BB
Or are you placing animal rights above that
of a human fetus?

So when does a fetus become conscious? Does anyone really know? Is it

the

Post by BB
same for ALL fetuses?

Well, the fetus certainly has to develop the physical structures which
allow consciousness, including a functioning central nervous system
and a reasonably well-developed brain.

It's not unknown. Up to the point at which the physical structures in
the body necessary for consciousness to exist develop, a being cannot
be conscious. It is physiologically impossible.

Again you did not answer the questions - please tell me exactly when a fetus
become conscious - month, day, hour and minute of it would be appreciated. .
.

Post by BB
Also in #1 by your reasoning a person in a coma is not
conscious either so it is OK to terminate them?

So how are your beliefs any different than Hitler's?

In a vast number of ways, BB.

Really care to enumerate?

Post by BB
A fetus is a parasite? What????

Yes, absolutely.

Sorry but a parasite is a totally foreign body living off of the host.

You cannot simply makeup your own definitions of words to suite your current
liking. . .

Post by BB
You ascribe more rights to an animal than a
human fetus even though the animal is not conscious as a human is

Your raising of animals to the level of humans is non scriptural and
unsupportable.

Do you ever read the statements you respond to??? Simply restating your
position is not a defense of it. . .

Post by BB
and it not
capable of making moral decisions?

And you are asserting that since we do not know we must assume they do. . .

Actually under US civil law and the US constitution - a child does have the
right not to be slaughtered but I see no mention of cows in the consitution.
. .

I disagree. Humanity was given stewardship over the natural world,
and that obligates humans not to abuse that charge.

I agree that as Christians we are to be good stewards but you are confusing
something you yourself stated above - you said that religious rights do not
trump civil rights. Stewardship over the world was given by God and is a
religious belief not a civil one. Therefore the civil right of the animals
owner to do what they want with the animal allows them to slaughter it
according to your previous statement.

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Post by BB
"If He is sufficiently concerned, no doubt He can act on His own". Not state
intervention.

I wasn't

Do you ever stay on topic???

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Very good. That's a start. Now try extending that insight to
people you don't know personally.

Sigh - the number of abortions required due to medial necessity is miniscule
compared to the total number performed. . . An abortion for a medical reason
is quite different than one for convienance. . .

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Post by BB
Yes religious dogma also says that murder is wrong as are adultery, theft and
lying. The state enforces prohibitions against them. . .

Actually, the State only prohibits murder and theft. There's
no law against adultery and lying _per se_.

Sigh - really? Scooter Libby is going to jail for lying.There are places
where adultery is against the law. . .

Again you are dealing with the symtom rather than the cause - sexual
activity outside of marriage will lead to this problem. Prevention is always
better than the cure. . .

I couldn't agree more....

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Really? So you feel fully comfortable renting your home to a Nazi who is

a >>> member of the KKK as long as he pays rent on time and takes care of the

Post by BB
property?

Yes. He has a right to hold opinions I find morally repugnant. I am
not the Thought Police.

I find that position to be untenable since again it removes

responsiblity

Post by BB
from the person - they can act however they please with no consequences. . .

No -- that's the point. A person should have complete freedom to
*BELIEVE* whatever he wants and express those beliefs without any
State intervention whatsoever. At all. In any way. That is an
absolute, the core freedom on which all other freedoms depend, the
absolute necessity for a free society. Action which violates others'
rights is completely different.
How can making a person responsible for his own opinions remove
responsibility from him?

That is not what I said. . .

Post by BB
You have no moral issues with this type of person?

Your position on "rights" is almost pathological

I believe very strongly in civil rights for all.
If you don't, that is a frightening and dangerous position.

I believe in the civil rights granted under the constitution not "made up
rights" that are based on ones actions. . .

BB

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

ChapelMouse

2007-06-25 17:17:39 UTC

BB wrote:

<snip>

Post by ChapelMouse
One of my most central beliefs is that *belief* should be
absolutely free, as should speech. God certainly, IMO, judges
belief and motive, and there are certainly sins which involve
only internal mental processes.

Another disconnect since belief that cannot be put into practice because of
civil law infringes on the beliefs.

That's correct. The civil law will protect people from having their
rights violated as a result of other's religious beliefs. That does
not affect your own right to carry out your beliefs in your own life.
If you believe homosexual activity, drinking alcohol, dancing, driving
a car, uncovering one's head, cutting one's beard, or any number of
other activities is forbidden by God, you are free to avoid those
activities, and to try to convince others by non-coercive means to
agree with you. You are *not* free, either legally or ethically, to
prevent those who do not agree from carrying out those activities.

Hmm - ever read the 10 commandments - quite a few of them are enshrined in
civil law. . .

Not because they are a religious prohibitions, but because they
are harmful to others. For example, coveting one's neighbor's
property is not forbidden by law. It is sinful, but not
harmful. *Stealing* one's neighbor's property, or murdering him
to take it, are forbidden by law. They cause objective harm to
rights-bearing beings.

Post by ChapelMouse
The only justification for use of State force is objectively
harmful action against rights-bearing beings.

<snip>
.

Post by ChapelMouse
Yes, it does, and that is as it should be in a free society. Your
religious beliefs do not trump my civil rights in civil society.

Excuse me but reality check time - perhaps time for a bit of consitution
study as well - It allows me to worship and practice my beliefs without
state interferance. . .

Only as long as you do not violate the civil rights of others.

<snip>

Post by ChapelMouse
There are consequences, of course, but if the young person has already
decided to have sex, refusing to allow access to a condom or an abortion
will not stop him/her. It will only compound the problems for everyone
involved if something worse happens. People were having sex outside
of marriage for thousands of years in spite of every effort to prevent
them from knowing how to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease,
and all the sermons of the churches. They won't stop now. Giving them
complete information enables them to make more responsible and
informed decisions.

Hmm - if you are only referring to young people in a Christian church do you
still hold the same ideas?

The church, of course, should not be required to provide either the
information or the condoms, but the young person cannot legally be
prevented by the church from obtaining the information or condoms
(or an abortion )in most cases -- and ethically, should not be. If
a person is old enough to get pregnant or impregnate someone, he/she
is old enough to have the information and resources needed not to do
so. It's an individual decision.

Post by ChapelMouse
If a young person thinks it is sinful to have sex before marriage, and
believes that strongly enough, waving a condom or a Planned Parenthood
flyer at them will not drive them to have sex. Fear of death by AIDS
or pregnancy or death by a backstreet abortion is not a godly motive.
Acting on love, as Christ taught, moves us to teach what we believe,
but *also* to love even those who sin, accept them as God accepts us,
and help them if they are suffering, even if that suffering is the
result of sinful action. God does it for us; He expects us to do
it for each other.

But removing the consequences of their actions from them is not Scriptural
either. . .

That I don't see at all. If you believe there are spiritual
consequences, then certainly God will/can provide them. It is not
the function of the State to punish sin.

<snip>

Post by ChapelMouse
I am. The issue is whether State force should be used to prevent action
based only on religious belief. It should not. It should only be
used to prevent violation of rights. If a beings does not have rights,
there is no issue involving the use of State force. There may,
certainly, be a moral issue, but that is not a matter for secular law to
deal with.

Your inability or unwillingness to answer questions shows up again. . . I
Is there any objective and deadly injury is done to a fetus that is
aborted???

Yes. There is objective and deadly force done to a weed which is
pulled up, too, but since there is no violation of *rights*
involved, it is not a matter for State intervention ( in most cases ).

<snip>

Post by ChapelMouse
Up to the point at which the physical structures in
the body necessary for consciousness to exist develop, a being cannot
be conscious. It is physiologically impossible.

Again you did not answer the questions

Yes, I did.

Post by BB
- please tell me exactly when a fetus
become conscious - month, day, hour and minute of it would be appreciated. .

When do you believe a fetus becomes conscious?

<snip>

Post by BB
So how are your beliefs any different than Hitler's?

In a vast number of ways, BB.

Really care to enumerate?

That would require an entire article -- probably an entire
book. In reference to what, specifically?

Post by BB
A fetus is a parasite? What????

Yes, absolutely.

Sorry but a parasite is a totally foreign body living off of the host.

You cannot simply makeup your own definitions of words to suite your current
liking. . .

I'm applying the dictionary definition here.

Post by BB
Your raising of animals to the level of humans is non scriptural and
unsupportable.

Do you ever read the statements you respond to??? Simply restating your
position is not a defense of it. . .

I clarified my position, above. We've gone over this here before in
some detail.

<snip>

Post by BB
If you exclude all beings lacking the capacity

Post by ChapelMouse
for moral decision-making, you would eliminate young human
children and mentally disabled humans from moral consideration
as well.

And you are asserting that since we do not know we must assume they do.

Actually under US civil law and the US constitution - a child does have the
right not to be slaughtered but I see no mention of cows in the consitution.

Correct. It is a question of moral right here, not legal right. Because
there is no legal right as yet, I leave it to others as a matter of
private conscience.

<snip>

Post by BB
I agree that as Christians we are to be good stewards but you are confusing
something you yourself stated above - you said that religious rights do not
trump civil rights. Stewardship over the world was given by God and is a
religious belief not a civil one. Therefore the civil right of the animals
owner to do what they want with the animal allows them to slaughter it
according to your previous statement.

Yes. I believe that is morally wrong, but it is not illegal.

<snip>

Post by BB
A close friends had to have one when medical tests showed
gross abnormalities in the fetus that would have not survived birth. It

was

Post by BB
a very difficult decision for them to make and I do not judge them for

it.

Post by ChapelMouse
Very good. That's a start. Now try extending that insight to
people you don't know personally.

No one has an abortion for convenience. It is inherently an
inconvenient, expensive, and emotionally serious matter. It is
up to the individual woman to decide, not you or the State.

<snip>

Post by ChapelMouse
I believe very strongly in civil rights for all.
If you don't, that is a frightening and dangerous position.

I believe in the civil rights granted under the constitution not "made up
rights" that are based on ones actions. . .

What do you see as the difference?

2007-07-01 03:03:29 UTC

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Another disconnect since belief that cannot be put into practice because of
civil law infringes on the beliefs.

Really? I am free to believe as I wish and practice my belief so that means
I am free to NOT hire practicing homosexuals in my privately owned business
because it would interfer with the harmony of my other workers who are
Christians and beleive as I do?

Hmm - ever read the 10 commandments - quite a few of them are enshrined in
civil law. . .

US and English civil law is based on Judeo-Chrisitan principles - You seem
unwilling to understand or concede this point.

Post by ChapelMouse
The only justification for use of State force is objectively
harmful action against rights-bearing beings.

<snip>
.

Post by ChapelMouse
Yes, it does, and that is as it should be in a free society. Your
religious beliefs do not trump my civil rights in civil society.

Excuse me but reality check time - perhaps time for a bit of consitution
study as well - It allows me to worship and practice my beliefs without
state interferance. . .

Only as long as you do not violate the civil rights of others.

So my rights are less important than others rights. . .???

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Hmm - if you are only referring to young people in a Christian church do you
still hold the same ideas?

Actually if the person is a minor it is up to the parents I would say. . .
You seem to be saying that removing the consequences of ones actions is OK
in a Christian perspective.

Post by ChapelMouse
If a young person thinks it is sinful to have sex before marriage, and
believes that strongly enough, waving a condom or a Planned Parenthood
flyer at them will not drive them to have sex. Fear of death by AIDS
or pregnancy or death by a backstreet abortion is not a godly motive.
Acting on love, as Christ taught, moves us to teach what we believe,
but *also* to love even those who sin, accept them as God accepts us,
and help them if they are suffering, even if that suffering is the
result of sinful action. God does it for us; He expects us to do
it for each other.

But removing the consequences of their actions from them is not Scriptural
either. . .

That I don't see at all. If you believe there are spiritual
consequences, then certainly God will/can provide them. It is not
the function of the State to punish sin.

The paragraph above illustrates what I earlier stated that you seem to live
in two worlds that do not intersect or are related to each other. You seem
unable to apply Christian principles to secular issues. Instead you just
take the secular position is generally not even close to being Christian.

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Your inability or unwillingness to answer questions shows up again. . . I
Is there any objective and deadly injury is done to a fetus that is
aborted???

Yes. There is objective and deadly force done to a weed which is
pulled up, too, but since there is no violation of *rights*
involved, it is not a matter for State intervention ( in most cases ).

Your analogy is incorrect since a weed even if it is left grow for a hundred
years will never have the ability to think or act. . . A fetus will. . .

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Post by ChapelMouse
Up to the point at which the physical structures in
the body necessary for consciousness to exist develop, a being cannot
be conscious. It is physiologically impossible.

Again you did not answer the questions

Yes, I did.

Post by BB
- please tell me exactly when a fetus
become conscious - month, day, hour and minute of it would be appreciated. .

When do you believe a fetus becomes conscious?

I really feel that you are incapable answering direct questions put to you
which is a form of dishonesty. I will again note that you did not answer a
direct question I put to you. It appears obvious that you do not have an
answer for it or that the answer would undermine your position you are
taking.

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Post by BB
So how are your beliefs any different than Hitler's?

In a vast number of ways, BB.

Really care to enumerate?

That would require an entire article -- probably an entire
book. In reference to what, specifically?

No - it would not, since from what I have seen you post on this NG I would
say that the both of you do not allow the Holy Spirit to speak to you
concerning right and wrong.

Post by BB
A fetus is a parasite? What????

Yes, absolutely.

Sorry but a parasite is a totally foreign body living off of the host.

You cannot simply makeup your own definitions of words to suite your current
liking. . .

I'm applying the dictionary definition here.

Then you need to get a new dictionary since your are incorrect in your
understanding. . .

Post by BB
Your raising of animals to the level of humans is non scriptural and
unsupportable.

Do you ever read the statements you respond to??? Simply restating your
position is not a defense of it. . .

I clarified my position, above. We've gone over this here before in
some detail.
<snip>

Post by BB
If you exclude all beings lacking the capacity

Post by ChapelMouse
for moral decision-making, you would eliminate young human
children and mentally disabled humans from moral consideration
as well.

And you are asserting that since we do not know we must assume they do.

Actually under US civil law and the US constitution - a child does have the
right not to be slaughtered but I see no mention of cows in the consitution.

Correct. It is a question of moral right here, not legal right. Because
there is no legal right as yet, I leave it to others as a matter of
private conscience.

Your attempts at logic baffle to say the least - at one moment you are
arguing legal rights and the next moral rights. You dismiss 35 millions
abortions as no problem since fetuses have no legal rights and you ignore
the moral rights fetuses have and the moral responsiblity of the parents to
the fetus. In another breath you then claim that the moral rights of animals
(cows in this case) are so great that you want to see legal rights given to
them. I am sorry to say but your position is logically indefensible and
morally reprehensible.

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Yes. I believe that is morally wrong, but it is not illegal.
<snip>

Post by BB
A close friends had to have one when medical tests showed
gross abnormalities in the fetus that would have not survived birth. It

was

Post by BB
a very difficult decision for them to make and I do not judge them for

it.

Post by ChapelMouse
Very good. That's a start. Now try extending that insight to
people you don't know personally.

No one has an abortion for convenience. It is inherently an
inconvenient, expensive, and emotionally serious matter. It is
up to the individual woman to decide, not you or the State.

Really - Those 35 million abortions were all medically necessary?
Convenience played no role whatsoever? I think you are not living in a real
world if you think this. As Christians we should be teaching abstinence and
chastity before marriage and responsibility in marriage -

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Post by ChapelMouse
I believe very strongly in civil rights for all.
If you don't, that is a frightening and dangerous position.

I believe in the civil rights granted under the constitution not "made up
rights" that are based on ones actions. . .

What do you see as the difference?

There are no civil rights in the constituion based on one's sexual
orientation - sorry it is not there and yet government seems intent on
making it one. I can refuse to rent a house to a smoker and can refuse to
hire him as a worker but I cannot do the same for a homosexual. . . A person
can kill his wife's lover and it is only murder but if a person kills a
homosexual it is a "hate crime" with a longer prison sentence. A person can
spray graffiti on another persons house and it is a misdemeanor but if that
same person paints the word "faggot" on the house it becomes a "hate crime".
Many gay rights parades have public nudity in them but arrests are never
made, but if a heterosexual person tried to march nude in a July 4 parade
they would be arrested for indecent exposure. Do I need to go on? Gays do
not want equal rights but "special rights" based solely on their actions,
something that is not granted in the constitution. Your statement that you
"believe strongly in civil rights for all" is not supported by your other
comments.

BB

ChapelMouse

2007-07-01 19:31:23 UTC

BB wrote:

<snip.

Post by BB
Really? I am free to believe as I wish and practice my belief so that means
I am free to NOT hire practicing homosexuals in my privately owned business
because it would interfer with the harmony of my other workers who are
Christians and beleive as I do?

That would depend on the way the law is written. AFAIK, if you
advertise an opening at your business ( as with advertising a
house for rent ) you cannot discriminate in hiring on the basis
of orientation. Again, you can hire by word of mouth, or by
advertising only in your church newsletter, or some such.

Ethically, I still think the only legitimate basis for hiring a
worker is whether he/she can do the job or not, but that is just
my opinion. I would certainly hire a Shoutin' Baptist if I
thought he was best qualified for the job, but I would suggest he
be circumspect in his preaching at work.

<snip>

Post by ChapelMouse
Not because they are a religious prohibitions, but because they
are harmful to others. For example, coveting one's neighbor's
property is not forbidden by law. It is sinful, but not
harmful. *Stealing* one's neighbor's property, or murdering him
to take it, are forbidden by law. They cause objective harm to
rights-bearing beings.

US and English civil law is based on Judeo-Chrisitan principles - You seem
unwilling to understand or concede this point.

Of course I am -- because it is not. The principles have influenced
interpretation of law, true, but are not actually the basis of it.
Even if it *were* true, modern law must not be based on the
teachings of any specific religion, although principles found in
both religious thought and ethics can apply.

Post by ChapelMouse
The only justification for use of State force is objectively
harmful action against rights-bearing beings.

<snip>

Post by ChapelMouse
Yes, it does, and that is as it should be in a free society. Your
religious beliefs do not trump my civil rights in civil society.

Excuse me but reality check time - perhaps time for a bit of consitution
study as well - It allows me to worship and practice my beliefs without
state interferance. . .

Only as long as you do not violate the civil rights of others.

So my rights are less important than others rights. . .???

No -- your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
Everyone has *equal* civil rights. You must respect others'
as they must respect yours -- equally.

<snip>

Post by BB
Actually if the person is a minor it is up to the parents I would say. . .

On a purely ethical basis, I wouldn't. I think everyone has
a right to make decisions about his own reproductive activity.

Post by BB
You seem to be saying that removing the consequences of ones actions is OK
in a Christian perspective.

No, that's not what I'm saying, and I don't see how you get that
idea from what I've written.

Post by ChapelMouse
If a young person thinks it is sinful to have sex before marriage, and
believes that strongly enough, waving a condom or a Planned Parenthood
flyer at them will not drive them to have sex. Fear of death by AIDS
or pregnancy or death by a backstreet abortion is not a godly motive.
Acting on love, as Christ taught, moves us to teach what we believe,
but *also* to love even those who sin, accept them as God accepts us,
and help them if they are suffering, even if that suffering is the
result of sinful action. God does it for us; He expects us to do
it for each other.

But removing the consequences of their actions from them is not

Scriptural

Post by BB
either. . .

That I don't see at all. If you believe there are spiritual
consequences, then certainly God will/can provide them. It is not
the function of the State to punish sin.

Of course I apply Christian *principles* to secular issues.

<snip>

Post by BB
I

Post by BB
Is there any objective and deadly injury is done to a fetus that is
aborted???

Yes. There is objective and deadly injury done to a weed which is
pulled up, too, but since there is no violation of *rights*
involved, it is not a matter for State intervention ( in most cases ).

Your analogy is incorrect since a weed even if it is left grow for a hundred
years will never have the ability to think or act. . . A fetus will. . .

But does not at the time. Potential/ possible development does not
give present rights.

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Post by ChapelMouse
Up to the point at which the physical structures in
the body necessary for consciousness to exist develop, a being cannot
be conscious. It is physiologically impossible.

Again you did not answer the questions

Yes, I did.

Post by BB
- please tell me exactly when a fetus
become conscious - month, day, hour and minute of it would be

appreciated. .

Post by ChapelMouse
When do you believe a fetus becomes conscious?

The traditional answer is that a fetus becomes human/ensouled,/or the
subject of moral consideration at the time of quickening, which is
about the sixth month. I tend to agree with this as a general
guideline. That would seem to be about the point at which a fetus
becomes viable on its own, and about the time the physical
structures of brain and nervous system become sufficiently
developed for consciousness to be possible. Ballpark.

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Post by BB
So how are your beliefs any different than Hitler's?

In a vast number of ways, BB.

Really care to enumerate?

That would require an entire article -- probably an entire
book. In reference to what, specifically?

No - it would not, since from what I have seen you post on this NG I would
say that the both of you do not allow the Holy Spirit to speak to you
concerning right and wrong.

I disagree, and I certainly hope you are incorrect.

Post by BB
A fetus is a parasite? What????

Yes, absolutely.

Sorry but a parasite is a totally foreign body living off of the host.

You cannot simply makeup your own definitions of words to suite your

current

Post by BB
liking. . .

I'm applying the dictionary definition here.

Then you need to get a new dictionary since your are incorrect in your
understanding. . .

Then so is the dictionary.

<snip>

Post by BB
Your attempts at logic baffle to say the least

Sorry you are having so much trouble following logic.

Post by BB
- at one moment you are
arguing legal rights and the next moral rights.

Yes, the two are related, but are not identical.

Post by BB
You dismiss 35 millions
abortions as no problem since fetuses have no legal rights

Correct, they do not, or at least the issue is in legal question.

Post by BB
and you ignore
the moral rights fetuses have and the moral responsiblity of the parents to
the fetus.

No, I don't. I don't believe a pre-conscious fetus has moral rights
as an individual, but, as important or more so, I believe in cases
where rights may conflict, the rights of the woman override whatever
rights the fetus may have until the fetus is outside the woman's
body. I *certainly* believe the woman has a moral obligation to
provide the best possible environment for the fetus to develop, if
she intends to carry it to term.

In another breath you then claim that the moral rights of animals

Post by BB
(cows in this case) are so great that you want to see legal rights given to
them.

Yes, that is so. Cows exist as conscious, independent individuals,
just as humans do. However, fetal cattle would be in the same
relationship to the cow carrying the fetus as a human fetus to the
woman carrying a human fetus.

<snip>

Post by ChapelMouse
No one has an abortion for convenience. It is inherently an
inconvenient, expensive, and emotionally serious matter. It is
up to the individual woman to decide, not you or the State.

Certainly. I haven't seen any Christian ( myself included ) teaching
otherwise.

Post by ChapelMouse
<snip>

Post by ChapelMouse
I believe very strongly in civil rights for all.
If you don't, that is a frightening and dangerous position.

I believe in the civil rights granted under the constitution not "made

Post by BB
rights" that are based on ones actions. . .

What do you see as the difference?

Cite please.

Post by BB
A person
can kill his wife's lover and it is only murder but if a person kills a
homosexual it is a "hate crime" with a longer prison sentence. A person can
spray graffiti on another persons house and it is a misdemeanor but if that
same person paints the word "faggot" on the house it becomes a "hate crime".

Yes. If the action was done because the victim was a member of a
class, rather than an individual, it is a hate crime.

Post by BB
Many gay rights parades have public nudity in them but arrests are never
made, but if a heterosexual person tried to march nude in a July 4 parade
they would be arrested for indecent exposure.

Having attended many gay freedom parades, I can say I have never seen
anyone actually nude -- no more so than participants in something
like a Mardi Gras parade. In fact, having marched in many gay rights
parades, I can assure you that the parade marshals come around to each
of the marching groups to make sure the participants do not violate
local laws against indecent exposure. They are very careful about it.

Post by BB
Do I need to go on? Gays do
not want equal rights but "special rights" based solely on their actions

Just equal protection of their civil rights.

<snip>

c***@gmail.com

2007-06-28 14:31:04 UTC

Post by ChapelMouse
You seem to be getting a trifle testy here, BB.

Testy no - perplexed as to what planet you come from does come to mind
however.

BB, by now you should have concluded that this particular poster is as
nutty as a fruitcake.

She just recently argued that letting her bird use her as a sexual
object was an animal welfare issue, and in the recent past has
vigoriously defended sexual sadism and anal sex. She claims that she
is 'married' to her girl friend, although neither the law nor her
church recognizes such.

At one time I thought this person was a precocious adolescent boy, and
I think there still an outside chance this is true, based on the fact
that I cannot conceive that a mature woman would take these positions
even in jest. The only other, and more reasonable, explanation is the
lunacy of this poster. I think you will agree that this individual
needs professional psychiatric care.

CC

ChapelMouse

2007-06-28 19:22:48 UTC

***@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

Post by c***@gmail.com
She just recently argued that letting her bird use her as a sexual
object was an animal welfare issue,

It was, as you would realize if you knew as much about parrot
species' welfare as I do. I take the physical/psychological
welfare of animals entrusted to my guardianship very seriously.

I hope you realize your views seem just as bizarre to me and
many others as mine do to you.

<snip>

2007-07-01 03:17:38 UTC

Post by ChapelMouse
You seem to be getting a trifle testy here, BB.

Testy no - perplexed as to what planet you come from does come to mind
however.

BB, by now you should have concluded that this particular poster is as
nutty as a fruitcake.

Having engaged in many discussions with her I am aware that logic and a
viewpoint that is based in Scriptural principles may not be her strong
point. . .

Post by c***@gmail.com
She just recently argued that letting her bird use her as a sexual
object was an animal welfare issue, and in the recent past has
vigoriously defended sexual sadism and anal sex. She claims that she
is 'married' to her girl friend, although neither the law nor her
church recognizes such.
At one time I thought this person was a precocious adolescent boy, and
I think there still an outside chance this is true, based on the fact
that I cannot conceive that a mature woman would take these positions
even in jest. The only other, and more reasonable, explanation is the
lunacy of this poster. I think you will agree that this individual
needs professional psychiatric care.

Having never met this person I can only say that the postions she takes and
espouses pose great risk for the body of Christ if they are not refuted. I
can also say that her positions are no different than those taken by others
of the "new theology" that seems to be afflict the body of Christ today. If
you have time check out this radio broadcast from the Trinity United
Methodist Church pastor in Seattle, WA. I happened to hear it on a recent
trip to Seattle. My jaw litterally dropped open when I heard his and his
guests statements.

Visit: http://livingfaithnow.org/index.php?v=1&p=2

Then scroll down and listen to the June 8 segment titled: Can the Church Be
Gay? Homosexuality As Christian Sacrament.

When people depart for God and listen to their own desires there is no limit
to what they will believe. . .

Peace in Christ,
BB

c***@gmail.com

2007-07-01 11:41:15 UTC

Post by BB
Having engaged in many discussions with her I am aware that logic and a
viewpoint that is based in Scriptural principles may not be her strong
point. . .

You must mean 'illogic.'

Post by BB
Having never met this person I can only say that the postions she takes and
espouses pose great risk for the body of Christ if they are not refuted. I
can also say that her positions are no different than those taken by others
of the "new theology" that seems to be afflict the body of Christ today. If
you have time check out this radio broadcast from the Trinity United
Methodist Church pastor in Seattle, WA. I happened to hear it on a recent
trip to Seattle. My jaw litterally dropped open when I heard his and his
guests statements.
Visit:http://livingfaithnow.org/index.php?v=1&p=2
Then scroll down and listen to the June 8 segment titled: Can the Church Be
Gay? Homosexuality As Christian Sacrament.

Thanks for the link. I noted with interest this comment about Rich
Lang. "As a Pastor his desire is to help the Church articulate and
develop a Wisdom Culture that welcomes everyone to the table, and
calls forth everyone's gifts for a common good and a common wealth."
The "What is Progressive Christianity" commentary makes it clear that
Lang's answer to the Phillippian jailer's question, 'What must I do to
be saved?' would be a little more equivocal than Paul's. (Acts 16).
I'll listen to it at work since my internet computer at home isn't
connected to the sound system.

Post by BB
When people depart for God and listen to their own desires there is no limit
to what they will believe. . .
Peace in Christ,

Thank you for your witness.

CC

GnosticLady

2007-07-02 06:13:39 UTC

Post by c***@gmail.com
Behavior is outward and objective, observable by all who care to see.
Christians behave in some ways that are 'right' (in some sense) and
'wrong.' This is a trivial statement, and I hope that no one will take
offense at its triteness.
An example of (1) is the teaching by 'Bishop' Robinson that God is
doing a 'New Thing' (his words), by saying that adultery and
fornication are no long forms of misbehavior but now are forms of
right behavior. Of course, his only basis for saying this is his claim
that God has revealed this to him. He wants us to believe not in the
Word of God or in the teaching of the Church, but in the word and
teaching of Gene Robinson, an unfaithful alcoholic.
An example if (2) is the philosophy by labrat that acts of adultery
and/or fornication are not adultery and fornication if the sexual
partners 'love' each other and 'commit' to each other. Among other
things, this converts objective standards into subjective, inner
standards that cannot be tested against passages like Galatians 5.
This redefines adultery and fornication right out of existence.
The fact is that the sexual relationship that Gene Robinson has with
his unmarried lover Mark Andrew, and the sexual relationship that
labrat has with her unmarried lover swan, are works of the flesh, and
evidence that these people do not have a relationship with Jesus
Christ, despite their claims to the contrary. This behavior is
misbehavior and unworthy of anyone who takes the name of Jesus Christ,
and claims to be His witness.

CC
What an idiot! You are afraid of commiting adultery? Why borrow
another mans bedroom and christian lifestyle? Worry about your own
dick. Other wise your not making sense here. What did Christ have to
say about love? Well, love was and is his first and greatest
commandment. Are you a sex offender? Maybe your just a crazy
catholic!

c***@gmail.com

2007-07-02 13:24:21 UTC