good point, but this is not an argument for the validity of astrology. In other words, just because it is there does not mean you have to adopt it as a guide to daily living....
Dana >From a scientific (non-Christian) point of view, we don't know where the universe came from, but it's still there, correct? > > Matthew Small > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 10:45 AM > Subject: Re: Yet another scumbag parent.... > > > > There is quite a lot in your note, some of it I'll address, some I'd > rather > > not due to time restrictions, and I don't want to do the research that > > would adequately address them at this point. And frankly at this time I > > don't have access to the research materials I'd need to reeasonably > address > > them. > > > > You do agree that we are all made in God's image, correct? If so, then if > > something is physiologically based, either due to prenatal environment (in > > the womb), genetic or hormonal influences, then that also is an aspect of > > God, and a part of us being made in God's image. Correct? > > > > Assuming that you agree with me so far, given the above propositions, then > > how can homosexuality, which is physiologically based, be considered a > sin, > > especially since it is an aspect of God's image. > > > > Another point, taking your point about Christ ruling that the Law of Moses > > has been superceded, and that from what I remember of my own bible > > readings, all but one of the prohibitions on homosexuality are in the Old > > Testament, then what does that do to the prohibitions on homosexuality? > > > > As another point, if sheer volume of prohibitions is an important point, > > bans on necromancy/witchcraft and poisoners, food restrictions, dress > > restrictions and associational restrictions are far more prominent in both > > the old and new testaments than prohibitions on homosexuality. Given that > > emphasis, shouldn't we give more attention to the other restrictions > first? > > > > Just some thoughts. > > > > larry > > > > At 10:15 AM 8/6/2003 -0400, Matthew Small wrote: > > >Actually, you need to read and study the Bible to understand which parts > of > > >it to follow. I'm not a Bible scholar, but I do go to Bible studies and > > >read the Word to know what it is trying to say to me. That's a major > point > > >of the religion that non-Christians don't seem to understand - you think > > >it's like a set of laws, when in reality it's a mostly set of guidelines > for > > >following your life, along with some laws, and the Lord guides each of us > in > > >his own way. Which are which? That's up to people more learned than me > to > > >figure out. > > > > > >But back to the real point - when Jesus the Messiah came, he ruled that > the > > >Law of Moses was in the past, and that His law - the doctrines of > > >forgiveness, acceptance, and love - are the new law. There are > definitely > > >some prohibitions as to some things to do and not do - I don't know what > > >they are offhand, as I don't know the Levitical laws - but it's not about > > >picking and choosing what you want to do or not do according to the > Bible. > > > > > >How does this affect the choosing of the homosexual Bishop? Let me try > to > > >explain as best as I understand the Bible and it's teachings (like I > said, > > >I'm no Bible scholar, but I try). To start with, there is a standard for > > >people who spread the Word - they must hold themselves to a much higher > > >standard than the people that they minister to, not meaning that they are > > >without sin, but that they walk the straight and narrow line as closely > as > > >possible. Next, there are prohibitions against having sexual relations > with > > >any person outside the bounds of matrimony. The fact alone that the > > >Bishop-elect lives with a sexual partner (male or female) outside of > > >marriage should be enough to exclude him from being a priest in the first > > >place. Thirdly, homosexuality is a sin in and of itself in the eyes of > God, > > >and whether anybody else agrees with Him is irrevelant, it's His decision > > >alone to make, and that's that. Openly promoting and living a sinful > life, > > >whatever the sin, whether it being sexual relations with a man or woman, > or > > >spreading hurtful gossip, or giving the finger to a driver who cuts you > off > > >in traffic, is not a trait that men of the Cloth should have. Again, this > is > > >not to say that these men are perfect, but rather held to a higher > standard, > > >I would say much like a job promotion - you are better at your job than > your > > >peers who did not get promoted, therefore are deserving of more > > >responsibility and respect because you embody the creed. > > > > > >One very important point to be made is in all of this, the law of > > >forgiveness and acceptance is still upheld. Jesus loves every person on > > >Earth, and wants them to follow His ways. He forgives everybody of all > of > > >their sins, although he hates the sin, and loves the sinner. There is no > > >prohibition against this man being a Christian, just against being a > priest > > >or bishop or whatever. God loves us all. > > > > > >Anyway, that's my take. > > >Matthew Small > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 4:37 PM > > >Subject: Re: Yet another scumbag parent.... > > > > > > > > > > So in that case its ok to pick and choose which parts of the bible to > > >follow. > > > > > > > > larry > > > > > > > > At 04:39 PM 8/5/2003 -0400, Matthew Small wrote: > > > > >Actually, Christians aren't supposed to follow Levitical law, but > rather > > >the > > > > >law of acceptance and forgiveness as told by Jesus Christ. > > > > > > > > > >Matthew Small > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > > > >From: "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 4:30 PM > > > > >Subject: Re: Yet another scumbag parent.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's for sure. Haven't been to a good stoning in years. And how > many > > > > > > Christian men follow the prescriptions in Leviticus and Exodus. > > > > > > > > > > > > larry > > > > > > > > > > > > At 03:09 PM 8/5/2003 -0500, Deanna Schneider wrote: > > > > > > >I think the rub lies in the fact that the bible says a lot of > things > > >that > > > > >no > > > > > > >one follows. I read a really good article about it once, which I, > of > > > > > > > >course, > > > > > > >can't find now. But, it basically went through all the things > that > > >people > > > > > > >couldn't do, or would have to do, if the bible was followed > verbatim. > > >The > > > > > > >point was that the bible was written a long time ago and parts of > it > > >are > > > > > > >accepted as no longer relevant. So, who's to say that the edicts > > >against > > > > > > >homosexuality are any more relevant than these other things > deemed > > > > > > >irrelevant now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-d > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > >From: "Heald, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > >To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > >Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:36 PM > > > > > > >Subject: RE: Yet another scumbag parent.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Umm I said catholic where? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If they want to say yes more power. I guess they haven't read > the > > > > >bible, > > > > > > > > but so be it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW I am a recently converted atheist, after being one of > those > > >flaky > > > > >feel > > > > > > > > good pagan types. I don't want it to be misunderstood. I do > not > > > > >believe > > > > > > > > what the book says, but if you claim it........... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Timothy Heald > > > > > > > > Information Systems Specialist > > > > > > > > Overseas Security Advisory Council > > > > > > > > U.S. Department of State > > > > > > > > 571.345.2235 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 3:32 PM > > > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Yet another scumbag parent.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In this particular case, it's the Episcopalian Church that was > > >about > > > > >to > > > > > > > > explicitly say "yes" to a gay bishop. Different Church than if > he > > >was > > > > > > > > Catholic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 1:49 PM > > > > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Yet another scumbag parent.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wait. I have no problem with anyone based on sexual > > > > > > > > > preference, however, how can one claim to be a "Christian" > > > > > > > > > after the bible says sodomy is a no go, and god killed a > > > > > > > > > bunch of those that practiced it? Not to mention is the > > > > > > > > > church free to make whatever bylaws it wants? Shouldn't > they > > > > > > > > > be able to say no gay ministers? I mean the military still > > > > > > > > > does and that's a government institution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Timothy Heald > > > > > > > > > Information Systems Specialist > > > > > > > > > Overseas Security Advisory Council > > > > > > > > > U.S. Department of State > > > > > > > > > 571.345.2235 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:40 PM > > > > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Yet another scumbag parent.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't that what's happening now, i.e., Laramie Wyoming and > > > > > > > > > the most recent > > > > > > > > > election fiasco with the Episcopalian Church. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 01:33 PM 8/5/2003 -0500, Doug White wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >If we decriminalized these so-called crimes what would be > > > > > > > > > left for the > > > > > > > > > >right-wing to do? Gang up on the homos? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
