In article <4hlggv8rkvsjdvo9fg8fsma8if9h5i199u[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:27:27 +0200, C Lund
><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>>>>> Anyway, I've never met a Christian who could cite the Bible passages that
>>>>> are against homsoxuality *and* who obeyed the other prohibitions in the
>>>>> neighboring passages.
>>>>The Amish, perhaps?
>>>Everyone, including the Amish, makes mistakes.
>>So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to justify
>>their homophobia are making a mistake?
>What are Xtians?

The letter "X" is a cross, so "Xtian" = "Christian".

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:23:23 +0200, C Lund
<christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:

>In article <4hlggv8rkvsjdvo9fg8fsma8if9h5i199u[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:27:27 +0200, C Lund
>><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>>>>>> Anyway, I've never met a Christian who could cite the Bible passages that
>>>>>> are against homsoxuality *and* who obeyed the other prohibitions in the
>>>>>> neighboring passages.
>>>>>The Amish, perhaps?
>>>>Everyone, including the Amish, makes mistakes.
>>>So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to justify
>>>their homophobia are making a mistake?
>>What are Xtians?
>
>The letter "X" is a cross, so "Xtian" = "Christian".

Let's stick with the real word for what they're really called, eh?
This isn't an X-Box, XTina Aguillera, etc. teenybopper fest, eh?

In article <070720031218074269%invid[at]localnet.com>,
Invid Fan <invid[at]localnet.com> wrote:

> In article <721jgvsrh4f5vns833dkfpucckk7derc63[at]4ax.com>, foo
> <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:23:23 +0200, C Lund
> > <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <4hlggv8rkvsjdvo9fg8fsma8if9h5i199u[at]4ax.com>,
> > > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> > >>On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:27:27 +0200, C Lund
> > >><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Anyway, I've never met a Christian who could cite the Bible passages
> > >>>>>> that
> > >>>>>> are against homsoxuality *and* who obeyed the other prohibitions in
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>> neighboring passages.
> > >>>>>The Amish, perhaps?
> > >>>>Everyone, including the Amish, makes mistakes.
> > >>>So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to justify
> > >>>their homophobia are making a mistake?
> > >>What are Xtians?
> > >
> > >The letter "X" is a cross, so "Xtian" = "Christian".
> >
> > Let's stick with the real word for what they're really called, eh?
> > This isn't an X-Box, XTina Aguillera, etc. teenybopper fest, eh?
>
> 'Xtian' is a word used by Christians, although it's not in comon use in
> the US at the moment. Xmas is also a Christian created term, and not
> thought up by ad agencies as commonly thought. Not sure of the origin,
> but it wouldn't surprise me if it came from Christians who didn't like
> using the word "Christ" in any form apart from refering to Jesus
> himself. We don't say "Jesusian", so shouldn't say "Christian" so the
> logic would go.
That is a made up word used by people uncomfortable with Christ. :) Xmas
is also a made up word used by the same people. The proper term is
Christmas as in "Christ mass" a mass for/about Christ. Being called
Jesusians would be silly since it is a common first name but one
particular Jesus was also called the Christ.

--
Ari Ukkonen

In article
<christopher.lund-C8EB7A.09232307072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:

> In article <4hlggv8rkvsjdvo9fg8fsma8if9h5i199u[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:27:27 +0200, C Lund
> ><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> >>>>> Anyway, I've never met a Christian who could cite the Bible passages
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> are against homsoxuality *and* who obeyed the other prohibitions in the
> >>>>> neighboring passages.
> >>>>The Amish, perhaps?
> >>>Everyone, including the Amish, makes mistakes.
> >>So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to justify
> >>their homophobia are making a mistake?
> >What are Xtians?
>
> The letter "X" is a cross, so "Xtian" = "Christian".

Actually, the 'X' is short for 'Xristos' (means something close to
'anointed'), which is how the Hebrew word for 'Messiah' was usually
translated into Greek. In other words, it's literally an abbreviation
for 'Christ'. Lots of ignorant Christians who aren't aware of this get
offended by it.

--
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article <95skgvgv3p21fvtp1ah6ppblph1cvlg0p6[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:23:40 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><christopher.lund-C8EB7A.09232307072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
> > C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <4hlggv8rkvsjdvo9fg8fsma8if9h5i199u[at]4ax.com>,
> >> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:27:27 +0200, C Lund
> >> ><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> >> >>>>> Anyway, I've never met a Christian who could cite the Bible passages
> >> >>>>> that
> >> >>>>> are against homsoxuality *and* who obeyed the other prohibitions in
> >> >>>>> the
> >> >>>>> neighboring passages.
> >> >>>>The Amish, perhaps?
> >> >>>Everyone, including the Amish, makes mistakes.
> >> >>So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to justify
> >> >>their homophobia are making a mistake?
> >> >What are Xtians?
> >>
> >> The letter "X" is a cross, so "Xtian" = "Christian".
> >
> >Actually, the 'X' is short for 'Xristos' (means something close to
> >'anointed'),
>
> We've now had three different interpretations of what Xtian means.
> That's why I'll stick with "Christian" since we can agree, ftmp, on
> what that means.
>
> > which is how the Hebrew word for 'Messiah' was usually
> >translated into Greek. In other words, it's literally an abbreviation
> >for 'Christ'. Lots of ignorant Christians who aren't aware of this get
> >offended by it.
>
> It's also part of today's fetish to put an X in front of everything,
> and so since we call Christians Christians, I'd rather see the correct
> (or normal) terminology used.

I'm fine with that. So there's a possibility that Christians who use the
bible to justify their homophobia are making a mistake?

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <95skgvgv3p21fvtp1ah6ppblph1cvlg0p6[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:23:40 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><christopher.lund-C8EB7A.09232307072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
> > C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <4hlggv8rkvsjdvo9fg8fsma8if9h5i199u[at]4ax.com>,
> >> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:27:27 +0200, C Lund
> >> ><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> >> >>>>> Anyway, I've never met a Christian who could cite the Bible
> >> >>>>> passages that are against homsoxuality *and* who obeyed the
> >> >>>>> other prohibitions in the neighboring passages.
> >> >>>>The Amish, perhaps?
> >> >>>Everyone, including the Amish, makes mistakes.
> >> >>So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to
> >> >>justify their homophobia are making a mistake?
> >> >What are Xtians?
> >>
> >> The letter "X" is a cross, so "Xtian" = "Christian".
> >
> >Actually, the 'X' is short for 'Xristos' (means something close to
> >'anointed'),
>
> We've now had three different interpretations of what Xtian means.

Yes, but mine is actually correct :-P

> That's why I'll stick with "Christian" since we can agree, ftmp, on
> what that means.
>
> >which is how the Hebrew word for 'Messiah' was usually translated
> >into Greek. In other words, it's literally an abbreviation for
> >'Christ'. Lots of ignorant Christians who aren't aware of this get
> >offended by it.
>
> It's also part of today's fetish to put an X in front of everything,
> and so since we call Christians Christians, I'd rather see the
> correct (or normal) terminology used.

--
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

In article <znu-315281.02234008072003[at]news.fu-berlin.de>,
ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>In article
><christopher.lund-C8EB7A.09232307072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
> C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>> In article <4hlggv8rkvsjdvo9fg8fsma8if9h5i199u[at]4ax.com>,
>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:27:27 +0200, C Lund
>> ><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>> >>>>> Anyway, I've never met a Christian who could cite the Bible passages
>> >>>>> that
>> >>>>> are against homsoxuality *and* who obeyed the other prohibitions in the
>> >>>>> neighboring passages.
>> >>>>The Amish, perhaps?
>> >>>Everyone, including the Amish, makes mistakes.
>> >>So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to justify
>> >>their homophobia are making a mistake?
>> >What are Xtians?
>> The letter "X" is a cross, so "Xtian" = "Christian".
>Actually, the 'X' is short for 'Xristos' (means something close to
>'anointed'), which is how the Hebrew word for 'Messiah' was usually
>translated into Greek. In other words, it's literally an abbreviation
>for 'Christ'. Lots of ignorant Christians who aren't aware of this get
>offended by it.

Guess I learned something new then. B)

I picked up the "Xtian" habit on alt.atheism (before that ng got so
crowded) and stuck with it.

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/

In article <95skgvgv3p21fvtp1ah6ppblph1cvlg0p6[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

>>Actually, the 'X' is short for 'Xristos' (means something close to
>>'anointed'),
>
>We've now had three different interpretations of what Xtian means.
>That's why I'll stick with "Christian" since we can agree, ftmp, on
>what that means.

Ok. You stick with "Christian". I'll stick to "Xtian". We both know
what we mean. B)

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/

In article <95skgvgv3p21fvtp1ah6ppblph1cvlg0p6[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

>We've now had three different interpretations of what Xtian means.
>That's why I'll stick with "Christian" since we can agree, ftmp, on
>what that means.

Oh, and you forgot to answer my question:

"So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to justify
their homophobia are making a mistake?"

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/

In article <721jgvsrh4f5vns833dkfpucckk7derc63[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:23:23 +0200, C Lund
><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>>In article <4hlggv8rkvsjdvo9fg8fsma8if9h5i199u[at]4ax.com>,
>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:27:27 +0200, C Lund
>>><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>>>>>>> Anyway, I've never met a Christian who could cite the Bible passages
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> are against homsoxuality *and* who obeyed the other prohibitions in the
>>>>>>> neighboring passages.
>>>>>>The Amish, perhaps?
>>>>>Everyone, including the Amish, makes mistakes.
>>>>So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to justify
>>>>their homophobia are making a mistake?
>>>What are Xtians?
>>The letter "X" is a cross, so "Xtian" = "Christian".
>Let's stick with the real word for what they're really called, eh?
>This isn't an X-Box, XTina Aguillera, etc. teenybopper fest, eh?

Far as I'm concerned, Christianity isn't that much better.

However:

"So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to justify
their homophobia are making a mistake?"

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:34:54 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <95skgvgv3p21fvtp1ah6ppblph1cvlg0p6[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:23:40 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><christopher.lund-C8EB7A.09232307072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
>> > C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <4hlggv8rkvsjdvo9fg8fsma8if9h5i199u[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:27:27 +0200, C Lund
>> >> ><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>> >> >>>>> Anyway, I've never met a Christian who could cite the Bible passages
>> >> >>>>> that
>> >> >>>>> are against homsoxuality *and* who obeyed the other prohibitions in
>> >> >>>>> the
>> >> >>>>> neighboring passages.
>> >> >>>>The Amish, perhaps?
>> >> >>>Everyone, including the Amish, makes mistakes.
>> >> >>So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to justify
>> >> >>their homophobia are making a mistake?
>> >> >What are Xtians?
>> >>
>> >> The letter "X" is a cross, so "Xtian" = "Christian".
>> >
>> >Actually, the 'X' is short for 'Xristos' (means something close to
>> >'anointed'),
>>
>> We've now had three different interpretations of what Xtian means.
>> That's why I'll stick with "Christian" since we can agree, ftmp, on
>> what that means.
>>
>> > which is how the Hebrew word for 'Messiah' was usually
>> >translated into Greek. In other words, it's literally an abbreviation
>> >for 'Christ'. Lots of ignorant Christians who aren't aware of this get
>> >offended by it.
>>
>> It's also part of today's fetish to put an X in front of everything,
>> and so since we call Christians Christians, I'd rather see the correct
>> (or normal) terminology used.
>
>I'm fine with that. So there's a possibility that Christians who use the
>bible to justify their homophobia are making a mistake?

Because of today's X-fetish? What does one have to do with the other?

In article
<christopher.lund-68BA8D.12053708072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:

> In article <95skgvgv3p21fvtp1ah6ppblph1cvlg0p6[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
> >We've now had three different interpretations of what Xtian means.
> >That's why I'll stick with "Christian" since we can agree, ftmp, on
> >what that means.
>
> Oh, and you forgot to answer my question:
>
> "So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to justify
> their homophobia are making a mistake?"

Foo shied away from that when I turned the conversation back to that
topic. Foo, don't shy away again. Coudl you be mistaken in your biblical
basis for homophobia?

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:55:16 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <r7slgv0am860b5j2u9hmhhem3ofcfj62r9[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:34:54 GMT, Woofbert
>> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <95skgvgv3p21fvtp1ah6ppblph1cvlg0p6[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:23:40 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article
>> >> ><christopher.lund-C8EB7A.09232307072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
>> >> > C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In article <4hlggv8rkvsjdvo9fg8fsma8if9h5i199u[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:27:27 +0200, C Lund
>> >> >> ><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>> Anyway, I've never met a Christian who could cite the
>> >> >> >>>>> Bible passages that are against homsoxuality *and* who
>> >> >> >>>>> obeyed the other prohibitions in the neighboring
>> >> >> >>>>> passages.
>> >> >> >>>>The Amish, perhaps?
>> >> >> >>>Everyone, including the Amish, makes mistakes.
>> >> >> >>So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to
>> >> >> >>justify their homophobia are making a mistake?
>> >> >> >What are Xtians?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The letter "X" is a cross, so "Xtian" = "Christian".
>> >> >
>> >> >Actually, the 'X' is short for 'Xristos' (means something close
>> >> >to 'anointed'),
>> >>
>> >> We've now had three different interpretations of what Xtian means.
>> >> That's why I'll stick with "Christian" since we can agree, ftmp,
>> >> on what that means.
>> >>
>> >> > which is how the Hebrew word for 'Messiah' was usually
>> >> >translated into Greek. In other words, it's literally an
>> >> >abbreviation for 'Christ'. Lots of ignorant Christians who aren't
>> >> >aware of this get offended by it.
>> >>
>> >> It's also part of today's fetish to put an X in front of
>> >> everything, and so since we call Christians Christians, I'd rather
>> >> see the correct (or normal) terminology used.
>> >
>> >I'm fine with that. So there's a possibility that Christians who use
>> >the bible to justify their homophobia are making a mistake?
>>
>> Because of today's X-fetish? What does one have to do with the
>> other?
>
>Nothing. I'm returning the conversation to an earlier topic, one which
>you tried to steer away from because someone used a form of the word
>"Christian" that you didn't like. The context of that conversation has
>been faithfully copied above. Please read it and answer the question.

Anything a person does can be a mistake, so I'd refer you to the Bible
for the answer. What does the Bible say on the matter?

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:05:01 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article
><christopher.lund-68BA8D.12053708072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
> C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>
>> In article <95skgvgv3p21fvtp1ah6ppblph1cvlg0p6[at]4ax.com>,
>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>
>> >We've now had three different interpretations of what Xtian means.
>> >That's why I'll stick with "Christian" since we can agree, ftmp, on
>> >what that means.
>>
>> Oh, and you forgot to answer my question:
>>
>> "So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to justify
>> their homophobia are making a mistake?"
>
>Foo shied away from that when I turned the conversation back to that
>topic. Foo, don't shy away again. Coudl you be mistaken in your biblical
>basis for homophobia?

Asked and answered. For your ease of reading, I'll repeat it here -
what does the Bible say?

In article <14vlgv0eu955pldqu4qd1m91ds3eh5ntte[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:55:16 GMT, Woofbert
> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <r7slgv0am860b5j2u9hmhhem3ofcfj62r9[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:34:54 GMT, Woofbert
> >> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <95skgvgv3p21fvtp1ah6ppblph1cvlg0p6[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:23:40 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article
> >> >> ><christopher.lund-C8EB7A.09232307072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
> >> >> > C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> In article <4hlggv8rkvsjdvo9fg8fsma8if9h5i199u[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:27:27 +0200, C Lund
> >> >> >> ><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>> Anyway, I've never met a Christian who could cite the
> >> >> >> >>>>> Bible passages that are against homsoxuality *and* who
> >> >> >> >>>>> obeyed the other prohibitions in the neighboring
> >> >> >> >>>>> passages.
> >> >> >> >>>>The Amish, perhaps?
> >> >> >> >>>Everyone, including the Amish, makes mistakes.
> >> >> >> >>So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to
> >> >> >> >>justify their homophobia are making a mistake?
> >> >> >> >What are Xtians?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The letter "X" is a cross, so "Xtian" = "Christian".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Actually, the 'X' is short for 'Xristos' (means something close
> >> >> >to 'anointed'),
> >> >>
> >> >> We've now had three different interpretations of what Xtian means.
> >> >> That's why I'll stick with "Christian" since we can agree, ftmp,
> >> >> on what that means.
> >> >>
> >> >> > which is how the Hebrew word for 'Messiah' was usually
> >> >> >translated into Greek. In other words, it's literally an
> >> >> >abbreviation for 'Christ'. Lots of ignorant Christians who aren't
> >> >> >aware of this get offended by it.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's also part of today's fetish to put an X in front of
> >> >> everything, and so since we call Christians Christians, I'd rather
> >> >> see the correct (or normal) terminology used.
> >> >
> >> >I'm fine with that. So there's a possibility that Christians who use
> >> >the bible to justify their homophobia are making a mistake?
> >>
> >> Because of today's X-fetish? What does one have to do with the
> >> other?
> >
> >Nothing. I'm returning the conversation to an earlier topic, one which
> >you tried to steer away from because someone used a form of the word
> >"Christian" that you didn't like. The context of that conversation has
> >been faithfully copied above. Please read it and answer the question.
>
> Anything a person does can be a mistake, so I'd refer you to the Bible
> for the answer. What does the Bible say on the matter?

Cop-out.

The Bible says whatever you want it to say.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:08:45 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:

>In article <iavlgv42tfc9v2b89dekuin6h00lgpba3k[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:05:01 GMT, Woofbert
>> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><christopher.lund-68BA8D.12053708072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
>> > C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <95skgvgv3p21fvtp1ah6ppblph1cvlg0p6[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >We've now had three different interpretations of what Xtian means.
>> >> >That's why I'll stick with "Christian" since we can agree, ftmp, on
>> >> >what that means.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, and you forgot to answer my question:
>> >>
>> >> "So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to justify
>> >> their homophobia are making a mistake?"
>> >
>> >Foo shied away from that when I turned the conversation back to that
>> >topic. Foo, don't shy away again. Coudl you be mistaken in your biblical
>> >basis for homophobia?
>>
>> Asked and answered. For your ease of reading, I'll repeat it here -
>> what does the Bible say?
>
>What the Bible says is open to all kinds of argument and interpretation.
>The Bible has been translated, edited, and interpreted to mean what the
>editors wanted it to mean. The authority of the Old Testament is in
>serious question, and what parts of it people choose to follow are
>arbitrary. The Gospels of the New Testament are politically informed.
>Jesus said nothing about homoseuxals. Modern Christian churches are not
>in agreement on many things, including the question of homoseuxality.
>There is no way to objectively determine a True Christian.
>
>In short, there can be no rational Biblical basis for homophobia.
>Rather, the reverse is true: People learn homophobia and then look to
>the Bible for justification. Hence the phrase, "Whacking gay people on
>the head with Leviticus."

I'm sure it give homos warm fuzzies to think that this tripe is
correct. They've actually managed to convince themselves that the only
reason people oppose them is because they're widely feared so this
isn't that big a step for them.


--

"Whoever is advising them [Democrats] on gun control
should be shot."

Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence.

In article <7s5mgvkrbn6b0s9v3n0q3v6891ketfamtc[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:08:45 GMT, Woofbert
> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> chose to bless us with the following
> wisdom:
>
> >In article <iavlgv42tfc9v2b89dekuin6h00lgpba3k[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:05:01 GMT, Woofbert
> >> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article
> >> ><christopher.lund-68BA8D.12053708072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
> >> > C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <95skgvgv3p21fvtp1ah6ppblph1cvlg0p6[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >We've now had three different interpretations of what Xtian means.
> >> >> >That's why I'll stick with "Christian" since we can agree, ftmp, on
> >> >> >what that means.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh, and you forgot to answer my question:
> >> >>
> >> >> "So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to justify
> >> >> their homophobia are making a mistake?"
> >> >
> >> >Foo shied away from that when I turned the conversation back to that
> >> >topic. Foo, don't shy away again. Coudl you be mistaken in your biblical
> >> >basis for homophobia?
> >>
> >> Asked and answered. For your ease of reading, I'll repeat it here -
> >> what does the Bible say?
> >
> >What the Bible says is open to all kinds of argument and interpretation.
> >The Bible has been translated, edited, and interpreted to mean what the
> >editors wanted it to mean. The authority of the Old Testament is in
> >serious question, and what parts of it people choose to follow are
> >arbitrary. The Gospels of the New Testament are politically informed.
> >Jesus said nothing about homoseuxals. Modern Christian churches are not
> >in agreement on many things, including the question of homoseuxality.
> >There is no way to objectively determine a True Christian.
> >
> >In short, there can be no rational Biblical basis for homophobia.
> >Rather, the reverse is true: People learn homophobia and then look to
> >the Bible for justification. Hence the phrase, "Whacking gay people on
> >the head with Leviticus."
>
> I'm sure it give homos warm fuzzies to think that this tripe is
> correct. They've actually managed to convince themselves that the only
> reason people oppose them is because they're widely feared so this
> isn't that big a step for them.

I find is argument quite reasonable.

You say the christian bible declares homosexuality a sin, but you are
apparently very selective about which biblical prohibitions you accept.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:13:50 -0500, Mayor of R'lyeh
<ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:08:45 GMT, Woofbert
><woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> chose to bless us with the following
>wisdom:
>
>>In article <iavlgv42tfc9v2b89dekuin6h00lgpba3k[at]4ax.com>,
>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:05:01 GMT, Woofbert
>>> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article
>>> ><christopher.lund-68BA8D.12053708072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>> > C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> In article <95skgvgv3p21fvtp1ah6ppblph1cvlg0p6[at]4ax.com>,
>>> >> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >We've now had three different interpretations of what Xtian means.
>>> >> >That's why I'll stick with "Christian" since we can agree, ftmp, on
>>> >> >what that means.
>>> >>
>>> >> Oh, and you forgot to answer my question:
>>> >>
>>> >> "So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to justify
>>> >> their homophobia are making a mistake?"
>>> >
>>> >Foo shied away from that when I turned the conversation back to that
>>> >topic. Foo, don't shy away again. Coudl you be mistaken in your biblical
>>> >basis for homophobia?
>>>
>>> Asked and answered. For your ease of reading, I'll repeat it here -
>>> what does the Bible say?
>>
>>What the Bible says is open to all kinds of argument and interpretation.
>>The Bible has been translated, edited, and interpreted to mean what the
>>editors wanted it to mean. The authority of the Old Testament is in
>>serious question, and what parts of it people choose to follow are
>>arbitrary. The Gospels of the New Testament are politically informed.
>>Jesus said nothing about homoseuxals. Modern Christian churches are not
>>in agreement on many things, including the question of homoseuxality.
>>There is no way to objectively determine a True Christian.
>>
>>In short, there can be no rational Biblical basis for homophobia.
>>Rather, the reverse is true: People learn homophobia and then look to
>>the Bible for justification. Hence the phrase, "Whacking gay people on
>>the head with Leviticus."
>
>I'm sure it give homos warm fuzzies to think that this tripe is
>correct. They've actually managed to convince themselves that the only
>reason people oppose them is because they're widely feared so this
>isn't that big a step for them.

Spoken like a true homophobic redneck hick.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article <alangbaker-84284C.12205308072003[at]news.telus.net>,
Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net> wrote:

> In article <7s5mgvkrbn6b0s9v3n0q3v6891ketfamtc[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm sure it give homos warm fuzzies to think that this tripe is
> > correct. They've actually managed to convince themselves that the only
> > reason people oppose them is because they're widely feared so this
> > isn't that big a step for them.

You could list any number of reasons for opposing me as a homosexual. I
can refute them all as either ignorant or arrogant -- stupid or hateful.

But you have a fundamental right to cling to those beliefs ... as long
as you don't try to legislate against me on that basis. You can have
your quaint symbolic cannibalistic rites if you want to; that is part of
the freedom granted to you as a member of the larger society. But you
can't have crusades, progroms, or inquisitions: that's not nice, for it
imposes your lifestyle on other people.


> I find is argument quite reasonable.
>
> You say the christian bible declares homosexuality a sin, but you are
> apparently very selective about which biblical prohibitions you accept.

I think people have every right to contradictory or hypocritical beliefs
.... as long as they don't try to impose their lifestyle on me.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:20:52 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <7s5mgvkrbn6b0s9v3n0q3v6891ketfamtc[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:08:45 GMT, Woofbert
>> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> chose to bless us with the following
>> wisdom:
>>
>> >In article <iavlgv42tfc9v2b89dekuin6h00lgpba3k[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:05:01 GMT, Woofbert
>> >> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article
>> >> ><christopher.lund-68BA8D.12053708072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
>> >> > C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In article <95skgvgv3p21fvtp1ah6ppblph1cvlg0p6[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >We've now had three different interpretations of what Xtian means.
>> >> >> >That's why I'll stick with "Christian" since we can agree, ftmp, on
>> >> >> >what that means.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Oh, and you forgot to answer my question:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to justify
>> >> >> their homophobia are making a mistake?"
>> >> >
>> >> >Foo shied away from that when I turned the conversation back to that
>> >> >topic. Foo, don't shy away again. Coudl you be mistaken in your biblical
>> >> >basis for homophobia?
>> >>
>> >> Asked and answered. For your ease of reading, I'll repeat it here -
>> >> what does the Bible say?
>> >
>> >What the Bible says is open to all kinds of argument and interpretation.
>> >The Bible has been translated, edited, and interpreted to mean what the
>> >editors wanted it to mean. The authority of the Old Testament is in
>> >serious question, and what parts of it people choose to follow are
>> >arbitrary. The Gospels of the New Testament are politically informed.
>> >Jesus said nothing about homoseuxals. Modern Christian churches are not
>> >in agreement on many things, including the question of homoseuxality.
>> >There is no way to objectively determine a True Christian.
>> >
>> >In short, there can be no rational Biblical basis for homophobia.
>> >Rather, the reverse is true: People learn homophobia and then look to
>> >the Bible for justification. Hence the phrase, "Whacking gay people on
>> >the head with Leviticus."
>>
>> I'm sure it give homos warm fuzzies to think that this tripe is
>> correct. They've actually managed to convince themselves that the only
>> reason people oppose them is because they're widely feared so this
>> isn't that big a step for them.
>
>I find is argument quite reasonable.

His 'argument' consists entirely of 'Since Jesus didn't explicity
condemn homos then they're a-ok with Jesus'. He seems to forget that
Jesus didn't explicitly condemn a lot of stuff. Jesus didn't say to
never draw to an inside straight for instance. Its still a bad idea.
No what Woofie has done is dismiss out of hand all the condemnations
of homodom in the New Testament because' they weren't said by Jesus so
they don't count' and then continued on to pretending that there can
not possibly be any basis except the Old Testament which in his nearly
complete lack of Biblical and Christian understanding he's decided
either has to be accepted as is in toto or dismissed out of hand
entirely. He's dug up some of the weirder sections of Christianity
that think homos are a-ok without mentioning that a lot of them were
founded by homos. He also acts as if its totally unique to
Christianity for a large group to have a variety of opinions on a
topic. He makes the absolutely bizarre claim that since their isn't
100% unity and agreement amongst the members of group then anyone
coming to a conclusion on the matter is 'irrational'. By that standard
there isn't a single rational thing anywhere on any topic. In short
he's acting like a twelve year old smartass. I guess that would make
you the little dork that hangs around with him and giggles wildly at
everything he says.
>
>You say the christian bible declares homosexuality a sin,

Actually I never said that. It does but I wasn't using that as the
basis for my argument. I said that they're bad people because they've
chosen to be wanton perverts.

> but you are apparently very selective about which biblical prohibitions you accept.

No I've actually read the thing and studied on it. I'm sure its all
very confusing to twelve year lod smartasses and their giggling
sidekicks. Maybe one day you'll grow up and learn a bit about what
you're talking about. I won't be holding my breath.



--

"Whoever is advising them [Democrats] on gun control
should be shot."

Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:38:00 -0700, Josiah Fizer <jfizer[at]classy.com>
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:13:50 -0500, Mayor of R'lyeh
><ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:08:45 GMT, Woofbert
>><woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> chose to bless us with the following
>>wisdom:
>>
>>>In article <iavlgv42tfc9v2b89dekuin6h00lgpba3k[at]4ax.com>,
>>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:05:01 GMT, Woofbert
>>>> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >In article
>>>> ><christopher.lund-68BA8D.12053708072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>>> > C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> In article <95skgvgv3p21fvtp1ah6ppblph1cvlg0p6[at]4ax.com>,
>>>> >> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >We've now had three different interpretations of what Xtian means.
>>>> >> >That's why I'll stick with "Christian" since we can agree, ftmp, on
>>>> >> >what that means.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Oh, and you forgot to answer my question:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to justify
>>>> >> their homophobia are making a mistake?"
>>>> >
>>>> >Foo shied away from that when I turned the conversation back to that
>>>> >topic. Foo, don't shy away again. Coudl you be mistaken in your biblical
>>>> >basis for homophobia?
>>>>
>>>> Asked and answered. For your ease of reading, I'll repeat it here -
>>>> what does the Bible say?
>>>
>>>What the Bible says is open to all kinds of argument and interpretation.
>>>The Bible has been translated, edited, and interpreted to mean what the
>>>editors wanted it to mean. The authority of the Old Testament is in
>>>serious question, and what parts of it people choose to follow are
>>>arbitrary. The Gospels of the New Testament are politically informed.
>>>Jesus said nothing about homoseuxals. Modern Christian churches are not
>>>in agreement on many things, including the question of homoseuxality.
>>>There is no way to objectively determine a True Christian.
>>>
>>>In short, there can be no rational Biblical basis for homophobia.
>>>Rather, the reverse is true: People learn homophobia and then look to
>>>the Bible for justification. Hence the phrase, "Whacking gay people on
>>>the head with Leviticus."
>>
>>I'm sure it give homos warm fuzzies to think that this tripe is
>>correct. They've actually managed to convince themselves that the only
>>reason people oppose them is because they're widely feared so this
>>isn't that big a step for them.
>
>Spoken like a true homophobic redneck hick.

Spoken like a true useful idiot who prides himself on having his mind
opened so wide his brain fell out.


--

"Whoever is advising them [Democrats] on gun control
should be shot."

Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence.

In article <k61mgvcsjr1vu5r06j1o9iig0mte1cc08r[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

> >Foo shied away from that when I turned the conversation back to that
> >topic. Foo, don't shy away again. Coudl you be mistaken in your biblical
> >basis for homophobia?
>
> Of course the real question is could you be mistaken in choosing to be
> a homo?


You are assuming he did choose.


(I find it astonishing that woofbert can be so calm. The Mayor has
called homosexuals the equivalent of child molestors and animal fuckers.
Its like a black person having to stand next to a Klu Klux Klan.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:40:31 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <14vlgv0eu955pldqu4qd1m91ds3eh5ntte[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:55:16 GMT, Woofbert
>> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <r7slgv0am860b5j2u9hmhhem3ofcfj62r9[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:34:54 GMT, Woofbert
>> >> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <95skgvgv3p21fvtp1ah6ppblph1cvlg0p6[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:23:40 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article
>> >> >> ><christopher.lund-C8EB7A.09232307072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
>> >> >> > C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> In article <4hlggv8rkvsjdvo9fg8fsma8if9h5i199u[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> >> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:27:27 +0200, C Lund
>> >> >> >> ><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>> Anyway, I've never met a Christian who could cite the
>> >> >> >> >>>>> Bible passages that are against homsoxuality *and* who
>> >> >> >> >>>>> obeyed the other prohibitions in the neighboring
>> >> >> >> >>>>> passages.
>> >> >> >> >>>>The Amish, perhaps?
>> >> >> >> >>>Everyone, including the Amish, makes mistakes.
>> >> >> >> >>So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to
>> >> >> >> >>justify their homophobia are making a mistake?
>> >> >> >> >What are Xtians?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The letter "X" is a cross, so "Xtian" = "Christian".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Actually, the 'X' is short for 'Xristos' (means something close
>> >> >> >to 'anointed'),
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We've now had three different interpretations of what Xtian means.
>> >> >> That's why I'll stick with "Christian" since we can agree, ftmp,
>> >> >> on what that means.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > which is how the Hebrew word for 'Messiah' was usually
>> >> >> >translated into Greek. In other words, it's literally an
>> >> >> >abbreviation for 'Christ'. Lots of ignorant Christians who aren't
>> >> >> >aware of this get offended by it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's also part of today's fetish to put an X in front of
>> >> >> everything, and so since we call Christians Christians, I'd rather
>> >> >> see the correct (or normal) terminology used.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm fine with that. So there's a possibility that Christians who use
>> >> >the bible to justify their homophobia are making a mistake?
>> >>
>> >> Because of today's X-fetish? What does one have to do with the
>> >> other?
>> >
>> >Nothing. I'm returning the conversation to an earlier topic, one which
>> >you tried to steer away from because someone used a form of the word
>> >"Christian" that you didn't like. The context of that conversation has
>> >been faithfully copied above. Please read it and answer the question.
>>
>> Anything a person does can be a mistake, so I'd refer you to the Bible
>> for the answer. What does the Bible say on the matter?
>
>Cop-out.

Why is that a cop out?

>The Bible says whatever you want it to say.

You've yet to refute the text I quoted about homosexuality. I'd think
that would be the first thing you'd do if you could. Why haven't you?

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:08:45 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <iavlgv42tfc9v2b89dekuin6h00lgpba3k[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:05:01 GMT, Woofbert
>> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><christopher.lund-68BA8D.12053708072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
>> > C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <95skgvgv3p21fvtp1ah6ppblph1cvlg0p6[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >We've now had three different interpretations of what Xtian means.
>> >> >That's why I'll stick with "Christian" since we can agree, ftmp, on
>> >> >what that means.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, and you forgot to answer my question:
>> >>
>> >> "So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to justify
>> >> their homophobia are making a mistake?"
>> >
>> >Foo shied away from that when I turned the conversation back to that
>> >topic. Foo, don't shy away again. Coudl you be mistaken in your biblical
>> >basis for homophobia?
>>
>> Asked and answered. For your ease of reading, I'll repeat it here -
>> what does the Bible say?
>
>What the Bible says is open to all kinds of argument and interpretation.

To those with such an open mind that the wind blows thru it, sure.

>The Bible has been translated, edited, and interpreted to mean what the
>editors wanted it to mean.

Not really. The Bible is one of the most copied works in history,
with many old translations that could instantly discredit a modern
translation if differences were found, yet they haven't been.

>The authority of the Old Testament is in
>serious question, and what parts of it people choose to follow are
>arbitrary.

Not really. It's specified fairly well in the New Testament.

>The Gospels of the New Testament are politically informed.

Not really, the writings of a Historical Jesus writer that you happen
to like notwithstanding.

>Jesus said nothing about homoseuxals.

Correct. He said nothing about a lot of things. That doesn't change
the fact that the rest of the book did.

>Modern Christian churches are not
>in agreement on many things, including the question of homoseuxality.
>There is no way to objectively determine a True Christian.

What does the Bible say?

>In short, there can be no rational Biblical basis for homophobia.

Sure there can - the Bible says it's a problem.

>Rather, the reverse is true: People learn homophobia and then look to
>the Bible for justification. Hence the phrase, "Whacking gay people on
>the head with Leviticus."

If you feel like you got whacked, that's your problem. The Bible is
clear in what it says. You can argue all you want about what Jesus
didn't say, which is completely immaterial, but the Bible itself is
very clear.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:20:52 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
wrote:

>In article <7s5mgvkrbn6b0s9v3n0q3v6891ketfamtc[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:08:45 GMT, Woofbert
>> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> chose to bless us with the following
>> wisdom:
>>
>> >In article <iavlgv42tfc9v2b89dekuin6h00lgpba3k[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:05:01 GMT, Woofbert
>> >> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article
>> >> ><christopher.lund-68BA8D.12053708072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
>> >> > C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In article <95skgvgv3p21fvtp1ah6ppblph1cvlg0p6[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >We've now had three different interpretations of what Xtian means.
>> >> >> >That's why I'll stick with "Christian" since we can agree, ftmp, on
>> >> >> >what that means.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Oh, and you forgot to answer my question:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to justify
>> >> >> their homophobia are making a mistake?"
>> >> >
>> >> >Foo shied away from that when I turned the conversation back to that
>> >> >topic. Foo, don't shy away again. Coudl you be mistaken in your biblical
>> >> >basis for homophobia?
>> >>
>> >> Asked and answered. For your ease of reading, I'll repeat it here -
>> >> what does the Bible say?
>> >
>> >What the Bible says is open to all kinds of argument and interpretation.
>> >The Bible has been translated, edited, and interpreted to mean what the
>> >editors wanted it to mean. The authority of the Old Testament is in
>> >serious question, and what parts of it people choose to follow are
>> >arbitrary. The Gospels of the New Testament are politically informed.
>> >Jesus said nothing about homoseuxals. Modern Christian churches are not
>> >in agreement on many things, including the question of homoseuxality.
>> >There is no way to objectively determine a True Christian.
>> >
>> >In short, there can be no rational Biblical basis for homophobia.
>> >Rather, the reverse is true: People learn homophobia and then look to
>> >the Bible for justification. Hence the phrase, "Whacking gay people on
>> >the head with Leviticus."
>>
>> I'm sure it give homos warm fuzzies to think that this tripe is
>> correct. They've actually managed to convince themselves that the only
>> reason people oppose them is because they're widely feared so this
>> isn't that big a step for them.
>
>I find is argument quite reasonable.
>
>You say the christian bible declares homosexuality a sin, but you are
>apparently very selective about which biblical prohibitions you accept.

Why do you base what the Bible says on what a man does?

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 21:02:16 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <5h9mgvsmkornpile1jhuq55e7pgg8k59a4[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:40:31 GMT, Woofbert
>> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <14vlgv0eu955pldqu4qd1m91ds3eh5ntte[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:55:16 GMT, Woofbert
>> >> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <r7slgv0am860b5j2u9hmhhem3ofcfj62r9[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:34:54 GMT, Woofbert
>> >> >> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <95skgvgv3p21fvtp1ah6ppblph1cvlg0p6[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:23:40 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >In article
>> >> >> >> ><christopher.lund-C8EB7A.09232307072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
>> >> >> >> > C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> In article <4hlggv8rkvsjdvo9fg8fsma8if9h5i199u[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:27:27 +0200, C Lund
>> >> >> >> >> ><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> Anyway, I've never met a Christian who could cite the
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> Bible passages that are against homsoxuality *and* who
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> obeyed the other prohibitions in the neighboring
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> passages.
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>The Amish, perhaps?
>> >> >> >> >> >>>Everyone, including the Amish, makes mistakes.
>> >> >> >> >> >>So there's a possibility that Xtians who use the bible to
>> >> >> >> >> >>justify their homophobia are making a mistake?
>> >> >> >> >> >What are Xtians?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> The letter "X" is a cross, so "Xtian" = "Christian".
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Actually, the 'X' is short for 'Xristos' (means something close
>> >> >> >> >to 'anointed'),
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> We've now had three different interpretations of what Xtian means.
>> >> >> >> That's why I'll stick with "Christian" since we can agree, ftmp,
>> >> >> >> on what that means.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > which is how the Hebrew word for 'Messiah' was usually
>> >> >> >> >translated into Greek. In other words, it's literally an
>> >> >> >> >abbreviation for 'Christ'. Lots of ignorant Christians who aren't
>> >> >> >> >aware of this get offended by it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It's also part of today's fetish to put an X in front of
>> >> >> >> everything, and so since we call Christians Christians, I'd rather
>> >> >> >> see the correct (or normal) terminology used.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I'm fine with that. So there's a possibility that Christians who use
>> >> >> >the bible to justify their homophobia are making a mistake?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Because of today's X-fetish? What does one have to do with the
>> >> >> other?
>> >> >
>> >> >Nothing. I'm returning the conversation to an earlier topic, one which
>> >> >you tried to steer away from because someone used a form of the word
>> >> >"Christian" that you didn't like. The context of that conversation has
>> >> >been faithfully copied above. Please read it and answer the question.
>> >>
>> >> Anything a person does can be a mistake, so I'd refer you to the Bible
>> >> for the answer. What does the Bible say on the matter?
>> >
>> >Cop-out.
>>
>> Why is that a cop out?
>>
>> >The Bible says whatever you want it to say.
>>
>> You've yet to refute the text I quoted about homosexuality. I'd think
>> that would be the first thing you'd do if you could. Why haven't you?
>
>I did refute it. Go look for the post.

Actually, you haven't. Your answer, summed up, is that Jesus didn't
say so (why you think that's important is unknown) and the Bible isn't
properly translated (nevermind that it should be easy to prove current
versions aren't authentic, yet no one has) and the NT was made for
political reasons (nevermind that anyone alive at that time could've
easy condemned the entire thing - especially Jesus birth and death or
anything about Paul, but even Josephus couldn't...)

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 21:47:28 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <6ldmgvke1ogqqih63hl9ssrpa9cvft7hml[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> >I did refute it. Go look for the post.
>>
>> Actually, you haven't. Your answer, summed up, is that Jesus didn't
>> say so (why you think that's important is unknown)
>
>It has to do with the argument over whether you should stone your wife
>if she goes to church while unclean. The result was that since Jesus
>deprecated the Old Testament, one should follow his word instead.

You don't know who deprecated what, do you? You're making arguments
over incorrect facts, Woofbert.

>> and the Bible isn't
>> properly translated (nevermind that it should be easy to prove current
>> versions aren't authentic, yet no one has)
>
>Ah, so now it's the current versions. You never did answer which version
>you read.

I'll be happy to look at any version you'll present to me.

>> and the NT was made for
>> political reasons (nevermind that anyone alive at that time could've
>> easy condemned the entire thing - especially Jesus birth and death or
>> anything about Paul, but even Josephus couldn't...)
>
>Well, they did. But the Vatican Council excerpted those parts. They're
>not in the Bible now, so no one cares what they say.

I'm happy to look at whatever you've got. URL?

In article <0m8mgv099074khavqfo0i5dhebtlgkcumr[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

> >Its like a black person having to stand next to a Klu Klux Klan.
>
> Except for that whole black people having no choice in skin color
> unless they're as rich as Micheal Jackson thing.

And what do you call a 10 year old girl who is attracted to girls
instead of boys, yet has had no sexual activity? What about a 15 year
old girl? What about a 30 year old woman? A 30 year old lesbian who is
attracted to woman but is celibate because she thinks homosexual
BEHAVIOUR is wrong is *STILL* a homosexual.

In article <n7imgv8q9uo3e20b81he34a6najd5rt019[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 21:47:28 GMT, Woofbert
> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <6ldmgvke1ogqqih63hl9ssrpa9cvft7hml[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >I did refute it. Go look for the post.
> >>
> >> Actually, you haven't. Your answer, summed up, is that Jesus didn't
> >> say so (why you think that's important is unknown)
> >
> >It has to do with the argument over whether you should stone your wife
> >if she goes to church while unclean. The result was that since Jesus
> >deprecated the Old Testament, one should follow his word instead.
>
> You don't know who deprecated what, do you? You're making arguments
> over incorrect facts, Woofbert.
>
> >> and the Bible isn't
> >> properly translated (nevermind that it should be easy to prove current
> >> versions aren't authentic, yet no one has)
> >
> >Ah, so now it's the current versions. You never did answer which version
> >you read.
>
> I'll be happy to look at any version you'll present to me.

You still haven't answered which version you read.

> >> and the NT was made for
> >> political reasons (nevermind that anyone alive at that time could've
> >> easy condemned the entire thing - especially Jesus birth and death or
> >> anything about Paul, but even Josephus couldn't...)
> >
> >Well, they did. But the Vatican Council excerpted those parts. They're
> >not in the Bible now, so no one cares what they say.
>
> I'm happy to look at whatever you've got. URL?

You've already demonstrated that you don't, in fact, look at URLs I give
you. So what's the point?

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:38:44 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <n7imgv8q9uo3e20b81he34a6najd5rt019[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 21:47:28 GMT, Woofbert
>> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <6ldmgvke1ogqqih63hl9ssrpa9cvft7hml[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >I did refute it. Go look for the post.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, you haven't. Your answer, summed up, is that Jesus didn't
>> >> say so (why you think that's important is unknown)
>> >
>> >It has to do with the argument over whether you should stone your wife
>> >if she goes to church while unclean. The result was that since Jesus
>> >deprecated the Old Testament, one should follow his word instead.
>>
>> You don't know who deprecated what, do you? You're making arguments
>> over incorrect facts, Woofbert.
>>
>> >> and the Bible isn't
>> >> properly translated (nevermind that it should be easy to prove current
>> >> versions aren't authentic, yet no one has)
>> >
>> >Ah, so now it's the current versions. You never did answer which version
>> >you read.
>>
>> I'll be happy to look at any version you'll present to me.
>
>You still haven't answered which version you read.

I didn't think you cared; I read KJV mostly. A NIV's around here
somewhere too.

>> >> and the NT was made for
>> >> political reasons (nevermind that anyone alive at that time could've
>> >> easy condemned the entire thing - especially Jesus birth and death or
>> >> anything about Paul, but even Josephus couldn't...)
>> >
>> >Well, they did. But the Vatican Council excerpted those parts. They're
>> >not in the Bible now, so no one cares what they say.
>>
>> I'm happy to look at whatever you've got. URL?
>
>You've already demonstrated that you don't, in fact, look at URLs I give
>you. So what's the point?

Of course I look at the URLs you give. However, when I ask for a URL
and you toss a 398 page book at me, it is you that's being silly, not
I.

In article <lbomgv0eh5i9aujo6kv7tdf03ljiii4ks6[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:38:44 GMT, Woofbert
> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <n7imgv8q9uo3e20b81he34a6najd5rt019[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 21:47:28 GMT, Woofbert
> >> <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <6ldmgvke1ogqqih63hl9ssrpa9cvft7hml[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >I did refute it. Go look for the post.
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually, you haven't. Your answer, summed up, is that Jesus didn't
> >> >> say so (why you think that's important is unknown)
> >> >
> >> >It has to do with the argument over whether you should stone your wife
> >> >if she goes to church while unclean. The result was that since Jesus
> >> >deprecated the Old Testament, one should follow his word instead.
> >>
> >> You don't know who deprecated what, do you? You're making arguments
> >> over incorrect facts, Woofbert.
> >>
> >> >> and the Bible isn't
> >> >> properly translated (nevermind that it should be easy to prove current
> >> >> versions aren't authentic, yet no one has)
> >> >
> >> >Ah, so now it's the current versions. You never did answer which version
> >> >you read.
> >>
> >> I'll be happy to look at any version you'll present to me.
> >
> >You still haven't answered which version you read.
>
> I didn't think you cared; I read KJV mostly. A NIV's around here
> somewhere too.

Well, I only asked you about half a dozen times.

A new book has been published in which the author explains the history
of that Bible, including the comlex committee system that was used to
write it. I'm looking that book up now, and finding some interetsing
things along the way.

King James may have been gay:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~ournews/1999/may/0517book.html

Ah, here's a summary
http://www.tribulation.com/prt_kjv.htm

Oh, lookee here:

"The King James writers recognized the translation problems
they would encounter. In the King James Bible, the italicized
words are actually "extra" words inserted to make the meaning
clearer; these words are not actually found in the Hebrew or Greek
language. Let's look at the appendix in a King James Bible:

"Readers of the King James Version now and again
come upon words printed in italics; that is to say,
with slanting letters. Some have supposed, mistakenly,
that these words were printed in this fashion for
emphasis. This is not the case. The words in italics
are words which do not have any equivalents in the
Hebrew or Greek text. They are words which have been
supplied by the translators in order to make the
meaning of the sentence clearer, or in order to make
the passage read more smoothly in English."

Now what were you saying about Bible translations?


The book I washtinking of is "God's Secretaries : The Making of the King
James Bible" by Adam Nicolson (Author).


> >> >> and the NT was made for
> >> >> political reasons (nevermind that anyone alive at that time could've
> >> >> easy condemned the entire thing - especially Jesus birth and death or
> >> >> anything about Paul, but even Josephus couldn't...)
> >> >
> >> >Well, they did. But the Vatican Council excerpted those parts. They're
> >> >not in the Bible now, so no one cares what they say.
> >>
> >> I'm happy to look at whatever you've got. URL?
> >
> >You've already demonstrated that you don't, in fact, look at URLs I give
> >you. So what's the point?
>
> Of course I look at the URLs you give. However, when I ask for a URL
> and you toss a 398 page book at me, it is you that's being silly, not
> I.

Google is your friend. Read up on Albert Schweitzer if you're
interested.

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <d0logvkv9r9i3acp8hdo0ujc6pba29qal4[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:36:30 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <f3cogvsvkmq03bsmjftoatp7e0g7q4qe26[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:24:23 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <2pingvk1mbdjjjnit8go51mflqlfrte3qp[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 05:56:12 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <kbamgv0jje32ef8qe79660la6c3i2hir8s[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><snip>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >What the Bible says is open to all kinds of argument and
> >> >> >> >> >interpretation.
> >> >> >> >> >The Bible has been translated, edited, and interpreted to mean
> >> >> >> >> >what
> >> >> >> >> >the
> >> >> >> >> >editors wanted it to mean. The authority of the Old Testament is
> >> >> >> >> >in
> >> >> >> >> >serious question, and what parts of it people choose to follow
> >> >> >> >> >are
> >> >> >> >> >arbitrary. The Gospels of the New Testament are politically
> >> >> >> >> >informed.
> >> >> >> >> >Jesus said nothing about homoseuxals. Modern Christian churches
> >> >> >> >> >are
> >> >> >> >> >not
> >> >> >> >> >in agreement on many things, including the question of
> >> >> >> >> >homoseuxality.
> >> >> >> >> >There is no way to objectively determine a True Christian.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >In short, there can be no rational Biblical basis for
> >> >> >> >> >homophobia.
> >> >> >> >> >Rather, the reverse is true: People learn homophobia and then
> >> >> >> >> >look
> >> >> >> >> >to
> >> >> >> >> >the Bible for justification. Hence the phrase, "Whacking gay
> >> >> >> >> >people
> >> >> >> >> >on
> >> >> >> >> >the head with Leviticus."
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I'm sure it give homos warm fuzzies to think that this tripe is
> >> >> >> >> correct. They've actually managed to convince themselves that the
> >> >> >> >> only
> >> >> >> >> reason people oppose them is because they're widely feared so
> >> >> >> >> this
> >> >> >> >> isn't that big a step for them.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >I find is argument quite reasonable.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >You say the christian bible declares homosexuality a sin, but you
> >> >> >> >are
> >> >> >> >apparently very selective about which biblical prohibitions you
> >> >> >> >accept.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why do you base what the Bible says on what a man does?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I haven't any notion what you're talking about.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Answer these questions honestly:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Does the bible say that homosexuality is wrong?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Does it say that other things are also wrong?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Do you ignore the prohibitions against some of those other things?
> >> >>
> >> >> If it says so and one doesn't, that's imperfection. Are you perfect?
> >> >
> >> >No. What has that to do with anything. I don't believe in your fairy
> >> >tales.
> >> >
> >> >You, on the other hand, condemn homosexuality on biblical grounds at the
> >> >same time you *admit* you violate other biblical prohibitions.
> >>
> >> No one is perfect. Did you miss that the first time?
> >
> >I didn't miss that you pretend its relevant.
> >
> >Do you condemn yourself for your transgressions?
> >
> >Do you condemn others as you condemn homosexuals for making the same
> >trangressions as you?
>
> I recognize both as sin. I can't believe any of this is really news
> to you.

You keep avoiding the question.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Why do you feel justified in picking and choosing which biblical
> >> >> >injunctions you will accept?
> >> >>
> >> >> You are perfect?
> >> >>
> >>
>

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article <woofbert.spam-429628.16042709072003[at]typhoon.sonic.net>,
Woofbert <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

> In article <bei1og$pre$1[at]geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
> wheat <harvest-this[at]mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> > Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > Ding! Ding! Ding! Ladies and gentlemen we have a winner! 8)
> > > I was wondering when Woofie was going to pull that one out! Not THAT
> > > one, Woofie! Put that away! 8)
> > > The old homo standby. The only possible reason that you oppose homos
> > > is because you really are one. LOL! Setting aside the obvious
> > > ludicrousness of the argument (Do people with stuff only oppose
> > > thieves because they're afraid that they're really thieves themselves?
> > > Do people in general oppose murderers because they're afraid that
> > > they're murderers themselves? Of course not. Despite the homos best
> > > efforts to imply otherwise it is possible for them to have principled
> > > opposition.) we come to the real reason this argument is such a
> > > favorite of mine.
> > > When it comes down to it, the most horrendous insult homos can come up
> > > with is: You're one of us.
> > > Got some self-loathing issues there, Woofie?
> > > Better luck next time.
> > >
> > >
> > Actually you missed a major point here. The allusion to folks vocally
> > against the legal behaviour of another is quite different from folks
> > vocal about illegal behaviour.
> > When people are opposed to, say your example of thieves, they are taking
> > a stance against people that seek to hurt others. The same is true of
> > murderers. These are cases of people hurting others.
> >
> > When prophets come to campus and accuse random folks of wrong doing,
> > people may disagree with their take on right and wrong- but they also
> > wonder about the motivation. Their target is not someone hurting
> > another, their target is someone behaving in a way that these accusers
> > don't approve of. (I know, a preposition is something that you should
> > never end a sentence with)
>
> (Actually, that's a stupid rule invented by an American schoolteacher
> and amateur linguist who thought that it and other grammatical rules
> would "elevate" the English language. It is unfortunate that this
> silliness is something that we have to live with.)

To be fair to Samuel Webster (who, goodness knows, came up with plenty
of sill rules), I don't think he can be blamed for the rule regarding
ending sentences with prepositions.

>
> > It could equally be argued that pointing to others and stating that
> > their behaviour is wrong is wrong behaviour. In fact, the bible states
> > that very thing.
>
> And what the web site I pointed to shows is not just that, but a long
> list of instances where not only are the accusations false, but are
> about precisely the sort of things that the accusers themselves do. Most
> specifically, the bit about imposing lifestyles on others. I don't make
> other people be gay ... but Fundies sure want everyone to be Christian!

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:20:12 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
wrote:

>In article <d0logvkv9r9i3acp8hdo0ujc6pba29qal4[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:36:30 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <f3cogvsvkmq03bsmjftoatp7e0g7q4qe26[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:24:23 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <2pingvk1mbdjjjnit8go51mflqlfrte3qp[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 05:56:12 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <kbamgv0jje32ef8qe79660la6c3i2hir8s[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> ><snip>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >What the Bible says is open to all kinds of argument and
>> >> >> >> >> >interpretation.
>> >> >> >> >> >The Bible has been translated, edited, and interpreted to mean
>> >> >> >> >> >what
>> >> >> >> >> >the
>> >> >> >> >> >editors wanted it to mean. The authority of the Old Testament is
>> >> >> >> >> >in
>> >> >> >> >> >serious question, and what parts of it people choose to follow
>> >> >> >> >> >are
>> >> >> >> >> >arbitrary. The Gospels of the New Testament are politically
>> >> >> >> >> >informed.
>> >> >> >> >> >Jesus said nothing about homoseuxals. Modern Christian churches
>> >> >> >> >> >are
>> >> >> >> >> >not
>> >> >> >> >> >in agreement on many things, including the question of
>> >> >> >> >> >homoseuxality.
>> >> >> >> >> >There is no way to objectively determine a True Christian.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >In short, there can be no rational Biblical basis for
>> >> >> >> >> >homophobia.
>> >> >> >> >> >Rather, the reverse is true: People learn homophobia and then
>> >> >> >> >> >look
>> >> >> >> >> >to
>> >> >> >> >> >the Bible for justification. Hence the phrase, "Whacking gay
>> >> >> >> >> >people
>> >> >> >> >> >on
>> >> >> >> >> >the head with Leviticus."
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I'm sure it give homos warm fuzzies to think that this tripe is
>> >> >> >> >> correct. They've actually managed to convince themselves that the
>> >> >> >> >> only
>> >> >> >> >> reason people oppose them is because they're widely feared so
>> >> >> >> >> this
>> >> >> >> >> isn't that big a step for them.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >I find is argument quite reasonable.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >You say the christian bible declares homosexuality a sin, but you
>> >> >> >> >are
>> >> >> >> >apparently very selective about which biblical prohibitions you
>> >> >> >> >accept.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Why do you base what the Bible says on what a man does?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I haven't any notion what you're talking about.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Answer these questions honestly:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Does the bible say that homosexuality is wrong?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Does it say that other things are also wrong?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Do you ignore the prohibitions against some of those other things?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If it says so and one doesn't, that's imperfection. Are you perfect?
>> >> >
>> >> >No. What has that to do with anything. I don't believe in your fairy
>> >> >tales.
>> >> >
>> >> >You, on the other hand, condemn homosexuality on biblical grounds at the
>> >> >same time you *admit* you violate other biblical prohibitions.
>> >>
>> >> No one is perfect. Did you miss that the first time?
>> >
>> >I didn't miss that you pretend its relevant.
>> >
>> >Do you condemn yourself for your transgressions?
>> >
>> >Do you condemn others as you condemn homosexuals for making the same
>> >trangressions as you?
>>
>> I recognize both as sin. I can't believe any of this is really news
>> to you.
>
>You keep avoiding the question.

I've answered it quite a few times. Why can't you understand the
answer? We all sin, we all have problems.

>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Why do you feel justified in picking and choosing which biblical
>> >> >> >injunctions you will accept?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are perfect?
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>

In article <8lsrgvo7nksdf733bsh5tpsvqhlvm4s87c[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:20:12 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <d0logvkv9r9i3acp8hdo0ujc6pba29qal4[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:36:30 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <f3cogvsvkmq03bsmjftoatp7e0g7q4qe26[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:24:23 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <2pingvk1mbdjjjnit8go51mflqlfrte3qp[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 05:56:12 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >In article <kbamgv0jje32ef8qe79660la6c3i2hir8s[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> ><snip>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >What the Bible says is open to all kinds of argument and
> >> >> >> >> >> >interpretation.
> >> >> >> >> >> >The Bible has been translated, edited, and interpreted to
> >> >> >> >> >> >mean
> >> >> >> >> >> >what
> >> >> >> >> >> >the
> >> >> >> >> >> >editors wanted it to mean. The authority of the Old Testament
> >> >> >> >> >> >is
> >> >> >> >> >> >in
> >> >> >> >> >> >serious question, and what parts of it people choose to
> >> >> >> >> >> >follow
> >> >> >> >> >> >are
> >> >> >> >> >> >arbitrary. The Gospels of the New Testament are politically
> >> >> >> >> >> >informed.
> >> >> >> >> >> >Jesus said nothing about homoseuxals. Modern Christian
> >> >> >> >> >> >churches
> >> >> >> >> >> >are
> >> >> >> >> >> >not
> >> >> >> >> >> >in agreement on many things, including the question of
> >> >> >> >> >> >homoseuxality.
> >> >> >> >> >> >There is no way to objectively determine a True Christian.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >In short, there can be no rational Biblical basis for
> >> >> >> >> >> >homophobia.
> >> >> >> >> >> >Rather, the reverse is true: People learn homophobia and then
> >> >> >> >> >> >look
> >> >> >> >> >> >to
> >> >> >> >> >> >the Bible for justification. Hence the phrase, "Whacking gay
> >> >> >> >> >> >people
> >> >> >> >> >> >on
> >> >> >> >> >> >the head with Leviticus."
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> I'm sure it give homos warm fuzzies to think that this tripe
> >> >> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> >> >> correct. They've actually managed to convince themselves that
> >> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> >> only
> >> >> >> >> >> reason people oppose them is because they're widely feared so
> >> >> >> >> >> this
> >> >> >> >> >> isn't that big a step for them.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >I find is argument quite reasonable.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >You say the christian bible declares homosexuality a sin, but
> >> >> >> >> >you
> >> >> >> >> >are
> >> >> >> >> >apparently very selective about which biblical prohibitions you
> >> >> >> >> >accept.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Why do you base what the Bible says on what a man does?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >I haven't any notion what you're talking about.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Answer these questions honestly:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Does the bible say that homosexuality is wrong?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Does it say that other things are also wrong?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Do you ignore the prohibitions against some of those other things?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If it says so and one doesn't, that's imperfection. Are you
> >> >> >> perfect?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >No. What has that to do with anything. I don't believe in your fairy
> >> >> >tales.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You, on the other hand, condemn homosexuality on biblical grounds at
> >> >> >the
> >> >> >same time you *admit* you violate other biblical prohibitions.
> >> >>
> >> >> No one is perfect. Did you miss that the first time?
> >> >
> >> >I didn't miss that you pretend its relevant.
> >> >
> >> >Do you condemn yourself for your transgressions?
> >> >
> >> >Do you condemn others as you condemn homosexuals for making the same
> >> >trangressions as you?
> >>
> >> I recognize both as sin. I can't believe any of this is really news
> >> to you.
> >
> >You keep avoiding the question.
>
> I've answered it quite a few times. Why can't you understand the
> answer? We all sin, we all have problems.

Sorry. I'm satisfied that you have one rule for yourself and biblical
prohibitions that you feel are outdated/obsolete/less important, and
quite a different rule for homosexuality.

>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Why do you feel justified in picking and choosing which biblical
> >> >> >> >injunctions you will accept?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are perfect?
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
>

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article <i0urgvkip8iastpm7vtnm1vr9h42thftcr[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:15:30 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <8lsrgvo7nksdf733bsh5tpsvqhlvm4s87c[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:20:12 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <d0logvkv9r9i3acp8hdo0ujc6pba29qal4[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:36:30 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <f3cogvsvkmq03bsmjftoatp7e0g7q4qe26[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:24:23 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >In article <2pingvk1mbdjjjnit8go51mflqlfrte3qp[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 05:56:12 GMT, Alan Baker
> >> >> >> >> <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >In article <kbamgv0jje32ef8qe79660la6c3i2hir8s[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> ><snip>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >What the Bible says is open to all kinds of argument and
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >interpretation.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The Bible has been translated, edited, and interpreted to
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >mean
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >what
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >editors wanted it to mean. The authority of the Old
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Testament
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >is
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >in
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >serious question, and what parts of it people choose to
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >follow
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >are
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >arbitrary. The Gospels of the New Testament are
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >politically
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >informed.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Jesus said nothing about homoseuxals. Modern Christian
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >churches
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >are
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >not
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >in agreement on many things, including the question of
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >homoseuxality.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >There is no way to objectively determine a True Christian.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In short, there can be no rational Biblical basis for
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >homophobia.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Rather, the reverse is true: People learn homophobia and
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >then
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >look
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >to
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >the Bible for justification. Hence the phrase, "Whacking
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >gay
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >people
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >on
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >the head with Leviticus."
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm sure it give homos warm fuzzies to think that this
> >> >> >> >> >> >> tripe
> >> >> >> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> >> >> >> correct. They've actually managed to convince themselves
> >> >> >> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> only
> >> >> >> >> >> >> reason people oppose them is because they're widely feared
> >> >> >> >> >> >> so
> >> >> >> >> >> >> this
> >> >> >> >> >> >> isn't that big a step for them.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >I find is argument quite reasonable.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >You say the christian bible declares homosexuality a sin, but
> >> >> >> >> >> >you
> >> >> >> >> >> >are
> >> >> >> >> >> >apparently very selective about which biblical prohibitions
> >> >> >> >> >> >you
> >> >> >> >> >> >accept.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Why do you base what the Bible says on what a man does?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >I haven't any notion what you're talking about.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Answer these questions honestly:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Does the bible say that homosexuality is wrong?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Yes.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Does it say that other things are also wrong?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Yes.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Do you ignore the prohibitions against some of those other
> >> >> >> >> >things?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> If it says so and one doesn't, that's imperfection. Are you
> >> >> >> >> perfect?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >No. What has that to do with anything. I don't believe in your
> >> >> >> >fairy
> >> >> >> >tales.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >You, on the other hand, condemn homosexuality on biblical grounds
> >> >> >> >at
> >> >> >> >the
> >> >> >> >same time you *admit* you violate other biblical prohibitions.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No one is perfect. Did you miss that the first time?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I didn't miss that you pretend its relevant.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Do you condemn yourself for your transgressions?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Do you condemn others as you condemn homosexuals for making the same
> >> >> >trangressions as you?
> >> >>
> >> >> I recognize both as sin. I can't believe any of this is really news
> >> >> to you.
> >> >
> >> >You keep avoiding the question.
> >>
> >> I've answered it quite a few times. Why can't you understand the
> >> answer? We all sin, we all have problems.
> >
> >Sorry.
>
> No problem.
>
> >I'm satisfied that you have one rule for yourself and biblical
> >prohibitions that you feel are outdated/obsolete/less important, and
> >quite a different rule for homosexuality.
>
> You're wrong.

Really? Tell us again why you don't accept the bible's dietary
prohibitions...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 07:56:48 GMT, foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

>>Do you ignore the prohibitions against some of those other things?
>
>If it says so and one doesn't, that's imperfection. Are you perfect?

I'm sure