JamesHackerMP

Don't forget that Hungary didn't technically cease to be a monarchy. They appointed Admiral Horthy as "regent" of the Kingdom of Hungary, in which post he remained for a while. Republics, monarchies...today these words are little more than two-dimensional terms for what can be very similar, sometimes very different, things.

This is well past starting to get ridiculous. I don't know why I bothered to respond to this. It's not so much your homophobia masquerading as religion, it's that you try to shut down every argument against you. This isn't a thread on a discussion board, it's a sermon. As I said, you should write a blog or something. I don't participate in one-way conversations (which, by definition, aren't conversations). Your evidence (bible passages above) show at most very weak support for your views. It mystifies me that Christianity has been dumbed-down these days to equate to "as long as you say the queers are going to hell, that qualifies you as a Christian." It has not been dumbed-down by PC'ness, or by the left, or any such force. The greatest threat to Christianity is those who devalue it by ignoring its central message and putting all their eggs into the gay basket. I know more gays who go to church regularly than I do heterosexuals. I'ts funny how more of us go to church than ever before, but that still isn't good enough for people of your intellectual persuasion (i.e., homophobic Christians). As for the rest of you, I think the best thing is not to argue with Betsy. It only empowers her, and it's extending the length of a thread that I, and others, should not have bothered to give a moment's notice in the first place. I shall leave this thread, and shake the dust from my feet. (See? I went to Sunday school too).

Betsy, for one who understands Christianity so much better than the rest of us, you'd think you'd be aware that mankind does not turn away from sin. It's inherited. We all sin, otherwise why would anyone have died for our sins in the first place? Duh. Billy Graham once said "The Bible teaches us, that all of us are wrong." That includes you, Betsy. You seem to think that everyone else is wrong---except you. Second of all, I don't have a NIV bible or a Jerusalem Bible, so I'm not interested in the mistakes that may be in that one. Third, I'll check back in a few days (as I have some work to do right now) after looking up what you've quoted. Just remember, not everything can be taken literally in the bible; if you TRY to do precisely that, it will come up with contradictions, contradictions of your own making. You seem rather concerned with orgies. What does that have to do with homosexuality? Do you believe in the Calvinist theory of predestination by the way?

After reviewing the last 7 pp of this thread, I notice you've only mentioned three things: Matthew 19, about marriage, Genesis 1-2 about Adam & Eve, and some episode from the NT about Jesus & Peter and foot-washing. (I have no idea what part of the gospel that came from so throw me a bone here.) If that's all you're basing your interpretation on that homosexuality is evil, just those three passages from the bible, then it's a weak argument. As far as Genesis 2 is concerned, that's the part of the OT, genesis particularly, that is essentially the creation myths, the flood, and its aftermath. Prior to Gen. 12 (Abraham's history) it's really nothing more than ancient Hebrew explanations about the world. NONE of it, is meant to explain marriage. As far as Matthew 19, it doesn't actually PROHIBIT homosexuality, does it? It really doesn't touch on the issue of homosexuality at all.

yes, threads on MLW do tend to get a bit off topic now and then. I'll go back and check the verses. I'll also look in the footnotes. I have a bible that has a dictionary in the back, and an index, and there wasn't any particular entry for "homosexuality". The OT however is full of arcane, sexual rules. (One is particularly hilarious but I won't mention it right now for fear of getting too far off topic, but it's a gem. Unfortunately I forgot to write down where it was otherwise I'd at least drop the chapter & verse.) But to me the NT is far more important to Christians. It mystifies me why Christian preaches, particularly those who rail against homosexuality, will typically quote the OT. It's odd because they're ministers or priests---not rabbis, who would actually be qualified to interpret the OT. So yes, I'll check back. The only one I had so far was the creation story about Adam & Eve. (and at the risk of getting off topic again, I do not think science has 'proven" anything that is in the bible is true. This is because--as you yourself agreed---that's it not a scientific text. So if it isn't, then it's pointless trying to point out that verse xyz has been "proven true" by science after the fact. Religion and science are meant to explain two different realms of thought, the unproveable, and the proveable, respectively. Faith, I thought, was supposed to mean you bellieve something that's unproveable or proveable. But I won't spend time on this issue as it doesn't have to do with homosexuality, the topic of this thread.)

Betsy you say that the bible predicted things that we know today to be scientific, correct? You've certainly reiterated something to that effect (Over and over again, unfortunately). It's scientifically confirmed that it's not a mental illness, it just happens. It's the way people are wired. If the bible has predicted otherwise, then prove it. If you refuse to, then I can't be of any assistance. If you want to brush me off that easily because of a disagreement between us, rather than trying to explain your--or the Bible's--argument, you're little different than the average "snowflake" who can't tolerate someone having a differing view. Disappointing. MLW is a discussion board. Discussion is not the same as lecture or sermon. You're right, there is "interest' in the subject. Interest does not mean being dictated to, it means they're willing to discuss it. Now, you've perpetually dodged my request for the verses that actually condemn homosexuality, or indicate that it's actually a sin. If you really believe the Bible speaks for itself, then let it. We're listening.

Then it's not a discussion thread, Betsy. You should be delivering this from a pulpit inside of a church if you don't want anyone to disagree. My advice is, to write a Christian blog. Don't post on MLW and then get pissed off when people disagree with you. Excuse me, with the Bible. Disagreement is going to happen here, Betsy, that's the nature of a website like this. Otherwise you're behaving like a certain young lady on here whose screen name I shan't mention. But not for anyone else, it seems. Like gays. Could it be that you want to expiate the guilt of your sins by condemning that of others you feel are "worse" somehow? All right, I missed the point of your post; I apologize. You've actually got a point though. There is racism in the gay community I'll admit. Plenty of it, I'm sure. Most other gays I know aren't racists, but there are plenty of phony "liberals" out there: people who claim to be some kind of social justice warrior---for their own personal cause.

Well you're only looking at one side of the aisle, there. Still, what I am getting at is a reality show billionaire winning the presidency. If you remember, Ross Perot wasn't successful. But you missed my point completely. And in so doing, perpetuate their ignorance of what they're making fun of. Yes it is true. The executive and legislative being separated, if the president wants his promised agenda to get through he has to have Congress on his side. They don't have to be chummy, just have some interests aligned. The situation where you have an executive of one party and a legislative of the other, cannot happen in countries like Canada; where the prime minister is literally God.

Are you saying that with a great deal of levity, taxme, or are you that seriously homophobic? And I take it Betsy that you don't feel like hearing what you don't want to hear?

Oh, ok sorry. Part of the reason for the rise of Donald Trump isn't so much his win in the general election, it was a question of how someone like him got even that far to begin with; specificially, how the hell did a billionaire businessman win a republican primary. But that's probably a topic for another thread. It's just always fascinated me that people around the world take an interest in our politics--but they don't go all the way. It's a half-assed interest. It's always seen through their eyes, rather than taking the facts in context of the American political system which, despite their intense interest, they do not seem to understand very much. Like the fact that he's nowhere near as powerful as any of their prime ministers, for example. They seem, from what I have read, to perceive the president as extremely powerful because he's a singular executive. But the American system is far more collegial, and its head of government far less powerful, than any of his counterparts in Europe (or Canada).

OK, that is startng to make some sense. If you have better stability, and more money (or wealth, rather) you can field a better army and fend off the barbarians, even when they intrude as far south as Athens, or park themselves right outside of Constantinople. What's really weird is the situation at the "end" of the western empire. There really weren't any western emperors after a certain point that weren't just the puppet of barbarian strongmen who, not being "roman", couldn't take the crown themselves. I forgot who the last western augustus was who was actually nominated by the one in Constantinople rather than propped up by one of the aforementioned strongmen. Naturally, the "fall" was a gradual process. Norwich hints that nothing really changed when Romulus abdicated. It was a case of SSDD in Italy.

Always a mistake to underestimate the opponents.

I was being fecitious. Jeeze.

I think maybe the original poster doesn't want to discuss this any further?

So, what you're saying is that that Eastern portion of the empire had a better manpower base than the western military legions?

Yeah when you have more money you can equip yourselves better....OK, makes sense so far. Reply on the other thread please if you wish to discuss the topic further. I accidentally made a duplicate post, and I asked if this one could be removed but the moderator hasn't done it.

er, what's that have to do with the fall of the western Roman Empire?

Hmmm. THe OT does seem to take a lot of time telling us where we can stick our weiners....and how. Well, I do not mean to trivialize. But Jesus of course did outright discard stuff from the OT. For example, when he says that under Mosaic law you could present a wife with a bill of divorce. Jesus proceeds to say it's wrong, that anyone marrying a divorced woman has ipso facto comitted adultery.

You've been ignoring what I have said plenty. I asked you for verses that say homosexuality is wrong, and that it's a sin we bring on ourselves. If I have missed your actual point, then please clarify it for me. Sorry I'm so incredibly dogdy. (Geeze.....) Your original post said that the Adam & Eve story is more than about procreation. True. But it does not, in and of itself, really say anything damning about homosexuality. In fact, it doesn't mention it at all. I've got the book right in front of me, I've read both creation stories (Gen 1, Gen 2.) There's quite a lot in the rest of the Pentateuch (or Torah, if you like) about sexual rules. However, the Torah becomes less relevant for Christians as St. Paul began to convert Gentiles to Christianity in the first century. Jesus was a Jew, yes but in the gospels, he is already jettisoning some of the old laws. Does it not follow that at least some of the old laws had become obselete, at least in the context of the New Testament? It puzzles me why some Christians, especially of the more conservative bent, rely so heavily on the Old Testament. Yes, it's part of the canon, but in the context of Christianity, it isn't as important when you get right down to it. If it is still important, it needs to be taken in its context, because no modern Christian I am familiar with follows all the old Jewish laws in the OT. Why should the matter of homosexuality be any different? And as far as the NT, is it not conceivable that, because the oldest available scriptures we have in the original languages are but copies of copies of copies, maybe someone slipped something in about homosexuality that maybe Jesus or one of his disciples didn't actually say? I doubt we're actually going to convince each other, however. But we can at least try to state our respective rationales as to why we believe what we believe. As a homosexual myself, I cannot fathom why people really thik the Bible meant to damn homosexuality. My reason for stating about "choice" was that, if homosexuality really and truly is a sin, there would be something in the Bible that explains not just WHAT is wrong (homosexuality itself), but WHY it is wrong.

At ant rate; the barbarians rolled in and it fell like a house of cards? Is that the basic answer as far as tactical reasons? (Tactical, mind you.) I am concentrating on the western empire's fall; though not in a vacuum. I have brought up the eastern or Byzantine Empire for a good reason, however. Byzantium was having rapid regime changes as well at the same time. The reason for Theodoric entering Italy to overthrow Odovacer was because Zeno (eastern Emperor) had to get rid of the goths (and Theodoric). The abdication of Romulus as last western Emperor occurred during the reign of Emperor Basiliscus, who overthrew Zeno, and then Zeno returned. Clearly, the eastern remnant, in my opinion, was experiencing the same instability as the west. Yet it survived, and the west collapsed. There has to be a better reason than the invading barbarians, since the east experienced the same invasions but survived, whereas the west foundered. Perhaps there were some strategic decisions the western emperors made that were critical errors in judgment, and the eastern emperors did not make those mistakes? I know of the third century crisis: but that crisis was all over the empire, east and west. Again, they shared many of the same crises. In fact, the east was at the end of what Jonathan Harris referred to as "an ethnic bowling alley". Just like the west. The Goth Alaric, before sacking Rome, sacked cities in the Peloponese ara of Greece (eastern half). Yes, there were the "bread and circuses" of Rome; but the same was in the eastern empire with its famed chariot races. In fact, the two factions of chariot teams-come-political demes, known as the Blues and the Greens, were often rowdy, disruptive, and outright rebellious. The only thing keeping them from overthrowing the government in Constantinople was the fact that they almost never worked together. (Eventually of course they DID, in an episode known as the Nika Revolt, work together in revolt, and damn near ended the reign of Justinian I.) So again, you see what I mean? The halves of the empire shared the same problems: instability, barbarians on the loose, financial problems, emperors who were stupid (Viscount Norwich describes eastern Emperor Arcadius as "in fact stupider than he looked...people who met him found it surprising that he was actually his father's [Theodosius] son...") From what I have read, you would think Constantinople would have fallen long before Rome (or Ravenna). The west may have had the Visigoths and the Vandals to worry about, but the east had the Sassanid Persians. Eventually, they did manage to swallow about half of the Byzantine empire before Heraclius managed to recover it. (Short lived it was, as the Muslims invaded soon after.) And then there is Harris's "ethnic bowling alley" to consider. I fully understand Argus' statement about "too far too fast". That's probably why Diocletian reorganized the empire and divided into four prefectures with four "tetrarchs". (Didn't last too long, of course.) Some people still think "Christianity" toppled the empire. I disagree, and so do most historians. It gave strength to the empire, and breathed new life into it. The barbarians who sacked Rome were Christians, even though they were Arian rather than Nicean/Chalcedonian Christians. It anchored the eastern empire for centuries to come. Again, it didn't help in the west, and there were likely as many Christians in the west by the time of Alaric's sack of Rome (under emperor Honorius) as there were in the east. Constantine's conversion didn't automatically make the whole Roman world Christian, but it started a gradual process by which the entire empire threw off paganism for Christianity. BTW I think we've started a really good intellectual discussion here. I hope we can keep it going!!! Sorry for the verbosity of this post, by the way.... I guess remove the OTHER THREAD with the same title, now. Or perhaps combine the threads, can that be done? I again apologise that I ended up duplicating the OP into two separate threads. That's what happens when you try to do this stuff on a tablet.

No, under internet etiquette it's considering to be SHOUTING. You confuse someone "disagreeing" with you, with "overlooking/ignoring" your points. I think you'll find it turns people off less if you just write normally. Besides, if you're talking about the Bible, the words should speak for themselves, no? Can you tell me which verses in the Old or New Testament actually say "homosexuality is a choice"? I've got a copy of it with me.

Have you ever stopped to consider that people may have had different reasons for voting for whom they did? Like maybe they found Hillary almost equally unpalatable? I myself try to keep an open mind when it comes to other people's political systems. Have you met every one of those 46% who voted for Trump? How can you tell they're all ignorant and spiteful? This election year was the worst I've ever seen. It doesn't have so much to do with the fact that Trump was elected, but that the nominees that year were absolute s****. Polls done before the election show that most people voted for their candidate of choice because they disliked them less than the opposition, not because they actually liked them at all. It was one of those elections--where you have to choose between dumb and dumber. Think before you judge.

you didn't just say "zionist" did you?

I like how The Windsors portrays the minor royals, like Beatrice & Eugene, the daughers of Andrew & Fergie. Wow, I hope they aren't like that in real life.

Michael, this is the one I asked the moderators to remove. Are you still a moderator? I guess now the only option is to combine both threads or something. Something weird happened after I posted this thread and it duplicated it.