lesbians need not apply

[RitaE]

Let me try to explain it this way Uncle Remus.
That is an opinion piece by a Presbyterian Minister. Presbyterians as a whole tend to be much more liberal than Lutherans, certainly much more liberal than the Wisconsin Synod of the Lutheran Church. They are both Christian denominations, yet they disagree on the topic of Homosexuality.

Saying that ALL Christians must agree on on theology is rather akin to saying ALL Americans must agree on all matters of politics. Democrats and Republicans and everyone else in this nation, they are all still Americans, in spite of their deep and often painful disagreements.

 

[lyeag]

Wow, so because a person doesn't agree with homosexuality that makes them a gay basher?

A very interesting point from the above post. Jesus didn't condemn, but he didn't condone either. So I guess you can disagree with something and not be a basher.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Let me try to explain it this way Uncle Remus.
That is an opinion piece by a Presbyterian Minister. Presbyterians as a whole tend to be much more liberal than Lutherans, certainly much more liberal than the Wisconsin Synod of the Lutheran Church. They are both Christian denominations, yet they disagree on the topic of Homosexuality.

Saying that ALL Christians must agree on on theology is rather akin to saying ALL Americans must agree on all matters of politics. Democrats and Republicans and everyone else in this nation, they are all still Americans, in spite of their deep and often painful disagreements.

Thank you very much.

Here's another one of those Christian guys talkin' about it too:

South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has criticised the Anglican Church and its leadership for its attitudes towards homosexuality.
In an interview with BBC Radio 4, he said the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, had failed to demonstrate that God is "welcoming".

He also repeated accusations that the Church was "obsessed" with the issue of gay priests.

He said it should rather be focusing on global problems such as Aids.

"Our world is facing problems - poverty, HIV and Aids - a devastating pandemic, and conflict," said Archbishop Tutu, 76.

"God must be weeping looking at some of the atrocities that we commit against one another.

"In the face of all of that, our Church, especially the Anglican Church, at this time is almost obsessed with questions of human sexuality."

Criticising Dr Williams, he said: "Why doesn't he demonstrate a particular attribute of God's which is that God is a welcoming God."

'Extraordinarily homophobic'

Archbishop Tutu referred to the debate about whether Gene Robinson, who is openly gay, could serve as the bishop of New Hampshire.

He said the Anglican Church had seemed "extraordinarily homophobic" in its handling of the issue, and that he had felt "saddened" and "ashamed" of his church at the time.

Asked if he still felt ashamed, he said: "If we are going to not welcome or invite people because of sexual orientation, yes.

"If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God."

Dr Williams has been working to limit divisions between liberal and traditionalist Anglicans that came to the fore following Bishop Robinson's consecration in 2003.

Following his plea for compromise, leaders of the Episcopal Church in the US agreed to halt the consecration of gay priests as bishops, to prevent a split in the Anglican Communion.

In the interview, Archbishop Tutu also rebuked religious conservatives who said homosexuality was a choice.

"It is a perversion if you say to me that a person chooses to be homosexual.

"You must be crazy to choose a way of life that exposes you to a kind of hatred.

"It's like saying you choose to be black in a race-infected society."

South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu

 

[Goofyluver]

Wow, so because a person doesn't agree with homosexuality that makes them a gay basher?

A very interesting point from the above post. Jesus didn't condemn, but he didn't condone either. So I guess you can disagree with something and not be a basher.

I took away a different message. I particularly liked this part...

I believe the time has come to say that genuine followers of Jesus Christ do not participate in discrimination against gay and lesbian persons.

 

[lisadr]

Wow, so because a person doesn't agree with homosexuality that makes them a gay basher?

A very interesting point from the above post. Jesus didn't condemn, but he didn't condone either. So I guess you can disagree with something and not be a basher.

What exactly did Jesus say about homosexuality? Just curious.

 

[lyeag]

What exactly did Jesus say about homosexuality? Just curious.

I didn't say anything about homosexuality. The excerpt was about how Jesus didn't condem the woman for adultery. He didn't condemn her, but he didn't condone her actions either.

The idea fromt the excerpt was that Jesus didn't condemn people, or judge them, therefore we shouldn't either. Conversely, he did tell her to sin no more, therefore he was able to not condemn, but yet not condone. I do think it is possible to not condone homosexuality without being labeled a basher.

 

[Uncle Remus]

What exactly did Jesus say about homosexuality? Just curious.

Here's what another one of those Christian guys had to say:

What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality

 

[Uncle Remus]

I didn't say anything about homosexuality. The excerpt was about how Jesus didn't condem the woman for adultery. He didn't condemn her, but he didn't condone her actions either.

The idea fromt the excerpt was that Jesus didn't condemn people, or judge them, therefore we shouldn't either. Conversely, he did tell her to sin no more, therefore he was able to not condemn, but yet not condone. I do think it is possible to not condone homosexuality without being labeled a basher.

Would you be in favor of withholding certain rights from all sinners?

 

[lisadr]

I didn't say anything about homosexuality. The excerpt was about how Jesus didn't condem the woman for adultery. He didn't condemn her, but he didn't condone her actions either.

The idea fromt the excerpt was that Jesus didn't condemn people, or judge them, therefore we shouldn't either. Conversely, he did tell her to sin no more, therefore he was able to not condemn, but yet not condone. I do think it is possible to not condone homosexuality without being labeled a basher.

I think that unless it says somewhere that Jesus said to do or not do something specifically and you make leaps of "reason", you are doing him a great disservice.

Just seems to me if Jesus had an issue with it-he wold have said so.

 

[Anewman]

Would you be in favor of withholding certain rights from all sinners?

Just for the record...

Going to a PRIVATE school is not a "right".

 

[lyeag]

I think that unless it says somewhere that Jesus said to do or not do something specifically and you make leaps of "reason", you are doing him a great disservice.

Just seems to me if Jesus had an issue with it-he wold have said so.

Wow, so if Jesus didn't outright mention something word for word, then he must be okay with it? He often spoke in parables and in general ideas to apply to your whole life, why would the story of the adulterous woman be any different?

 

[Uncle Remus]

Just for the record...

Going to a PRIVATE school is not a "right".

Education is a right.

 

[lisadr]

Wow, so if Jesus didn't outright mention something word for word, then he must be okay with it? He often spoke in parables and in general ideas to apply to your whole life, why would the story of the adulterous woman be any different?

Maybe he is-who knows. But it seems to me if it isn't actually in there somewhere, and you take a stand against it and call it a sin-aren't you speaking for him? Isn't that a no-no? I honestly don't get it.

 

[RitaE]

Education is a right.

mmm

a free and appropriate Public School education is a right. Private School, not so much.

 

[Master Mason]

So take out the ones I posted from Leviticus. That still leaves several.

And I do like to think I know a little about Christianity. Unless my 8 years of Catholic school were for nothing. And yes, I recognize that Catholic school =/= Christian teaching. But a lot of the "values" I learned there can be paralleled. And considering that before we even started learning about the foundation of Catholicism we had to study the foundation of the Christian religion.

Well your catholic school should have tought you that jesus released everyone of his followers from the Old Laws that's all of them, although Leviticus has the most. He replaced them with 2 new laws.

Education is a right.

Really? A private School education is a right? A Religious School Education is a right? How on earth did I miss it when those became rights.

 

[mouseears4life]

Education is a right.

Actually, its a privilege, not a right. Up until only a few decades ago, most education was done by the parents or communities would band together for a common cause of education, and it was never government mandated or overseen. While it is available to each and every person in this country (both citizen and illegal immigrant, another topic in and of itself), it is not promised to us.

If you feel these girls "rights" have been violated, they can always go to a public school.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

I believe the statement was, "Education is a right." If it isn't considered an entitlement, they why are children required by law to be educated either at home, or in public school?

 

[Uncle Remus]

I believe the statement was, "Education is a right." If it isn't considered an entitlement, they why are children required by law to be educated either at home, or in public school?

And we have this:

Quality Education as a Constitutional Right (QECR) is a national organization that works with students, parents, teachers, school administrators, public officials, legal experts, and community members to transform American public education into an international model of excellence for all of America’s students. Through local organizing strategies that are school and community based, QECR seeks to build popular support and political will for a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing all children the right to an education that supports them to fully develop and use their talent, skills, and intelligence to fulfill their dreams and contribute to the betterment of their communities, the nation, and the world.

http://www.qecr.org/

Nother one of those librul ideas.

Course, that's another topic.

 

[mouseears4life]

Until said constitutional amendment is added to the US Constitution, it is not a right.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Go ahead and keep a child out of school without participating in a state sanctioned home schooling program and see how far that gets you.

Education is a requirement for children up to a certain age group in this country.