betsy

And if I am a Christian I'm not allowed to question authority of the "holy" book, or have my own interpretations? Just because you cannot prove anything you say (other than with a book that hasn't been proven) does not make your arguement and more valid or true than what I have to say.You say I can't understand "it." Please start a biblical thread. I'd love to go verse and chapter with you. I should have said, "just because ONE does not understand it does not mean it is not true." Whose authority do you question? A Christian accepts the bible as the word of Christ.

But let's be practical. I agree with Sharkman. There is no way that I would change my mind and my belief....and I think, so will you. The Chirstian Church is not the only religion that practices some of these so-called "political incorrectness"....and yet, it is blatantly being singled out by liberal thinkers. So there's really no point in going on unless it's just for entertainment purpose

There was an uproar about those Catholic priests who were exposed in the sex scandal. And I think the Catholic Church had spoken of some sort of rehabilitation or therapy. But I think priests are told to stop what they're doing. Most parishioners would want them taken out of the service. If it happened to the Catholic Church (these two priest who married from Church of England), I think they will be given the chance to denounce and repent for their sins. The likely scenario would most likely to transfer them to different far-off parishes. I must insist that the Church is not condemning and judging the persons. What is being judged and condemned is the action.

In the Anglican Church of Canada, six parishes in the Diocese of New Westminster bless same sex unions, and Dean Peter Elliott of that diocese is a gay man in a committed relationship. [/i] My husband is Anglican. We are married in an Anglican Church long before this happened, and since at the time marriage vows were already being "customed design" to suit each and every one, we insisted on the the old traditional vows. We know that in the end, the Anglican Church had capitulated about homosexuality and that there was bitter dissension between parishioners. In my view, even if the WHOLE Anglican Church had decided to drastically distort the teachings of Christ ...it doesn't make it right. But then, that is between those who are responsible for it and God. They know (of all people since they've had special schooling to become priests) what their important responsibility was, according to God and the bible. We do not attend Anglican services.

Well I don't know if you are a Christian. Just because the passages in this book does not agree to the liberal ideas does not mean its teachings and words are not facts. Just because you cannot understand it does not mean it is not true. Just because something has not been proven does not mean it is not a fact. I quoted exactly from the bible what supports my argument. There maybe different translations out there (mine is in today's English version).....but you cannot say that just because there are many translations does not mean they were not translated as accurately as possible. Since we are arguing about the acceptance of homosexuality....how can it be that this practice is also not considered acceptable in other religions, even though some of these religion find it acceptable to have more than one wife. They must consider sex between same gender an un-natural act too. So why is it so doubtful...and so difficult to accept that Jesus did say this about homosexuality? Given the example of Bubermiley as to the "evidence" of Jesus' acceptance of homosexuality, it only shows all the more how some liberal thinkers can distort what is just a simple description and mould it to however they wish it to be just so to support their ideas...and the amazing thing is I do not doubt that they do end up eventually truly believing their own "translation."

Then it would've been New France or the 51st State of the US (probably named Canada). But that being said, you'd still be in the same situation if that indeed had happened.

What great law was that before the Europeans arrived?

I dunno. When I see the initial posting dated like say jun 24 04, I just automatically don't feel like bothering. It means having to read most, if some of the whole thread just so to ensure not to be redundant with what we say. But then, of course it can't be helped to end up re-hashing old povs. I think I prefer a fresh thread. That it exists in the past...actually makes a very interesting comparison if for whatever reasons, views had actually changed from then.

If jbg had not posted it here, I wouldn't have known that the same message existed elsewhere. And if you had not posted the link above, I wouldn't even know that the other forum existed at all. I do not know why cross-posting is prohibited if it is written by the same author/poster and posted in another site. At least I know that I gained this interesting insight from THIS particular message board....that I did not have to cross over to the other message board in order to read it.

Yes we wonder about the authenticity in translation done through the years. The bible that I used is translated in "today's English"...and I've had it since a school girl. But it is not for me to question its authenticity of translation from actual words of Christ...for then one gets the seed of doubt ingrained in one's mind. And having doubt is one way of losing faith. Besides, somewhere in the bible, Christ had said we should be like children in our belief and faith.

I don't know if He deliberately throws temptation in our way. But I know that we are faced with situations when our faith in God is tested (just off-hand I recall when one of the apostles denied Christ three times, or the man who had lost everything. The temptation of Christ by the devil in the desert is another....for in our belief, the devil does exists).

Just now I opened up the bible (the same one I've used with the others)....and the version of the Lord's Prayer did say: "Our Father in Heaven: may your holy name be honoured; may your kingdom come; may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today the food we need. Forgive us the wrongs that we have done, as we forgive the wrongs that others have done us Do not bring us to hard testing, but keep us safe from the Evil One." Matthew 6: 10 This was probably in our subconscious (we both have not read the Holy Bible in years)...thus it automatically came out as our "guess" in translation. At least this discussion had me opening the book. I wish to read it page by page.

Interesting given that the Lord's prayer talks about "Lead us not into temptation." The prayer is to God, so who would be doing the leading? Funny you should mention that. My husband and I were pondering about that very same thing not too long ago. One of our guesses was that "lead us not into temptation"...means..."not to put us to the test." I sometimes pray, adding "I'm afraid that I might fail."

I have posted straight from the bible. As a Christian it is my belief that those were the words of Jesus. Can you show me where Jesus Himself said that homosexuality is natural...and therefore should be accepted as such?

But if He was giving a very clear list of do's and don'ts for His church elders...it would make more sense to have used the word "spouse." ESPECIALLY IF, according to you, most priest had been married to women.... then all the more He had reason to be very precise to include homosexual marriages! If it was normally accepted (though not as rampant), I imagine one of the apostles would've raised his hand and asked, "But my Lord, what about the "others?" But there is none! Nada!

How do you know what is being preached in each and every pulpit of every church? So how can you say that the priests had not called for calm and forgiveness? How do you know that the gospel of some mass was not about loving thine enemy? From the Catholic Church, did the Pope not call for peace and restraint? Did the Pope not forgive the man who tried to assassinate him? If I remember correctly, the pope even personally visited this man.

No. He said he must have only one wife. Meaning he must not have more than one wife. A homosexual does not have more than one wife, he has zero wives, which is the same number of wives as an unmarried person. Then why didn't He say "he must have only one spouse?" There's at least two possibilities: 1. It's ok for a man to have more than one husband or more likely: Being married to a woman is much more common than a man being married to a man. If a man tells you he's going to get married, dont' you automatically assume it's to a woman? Although it is written that homosexuality is considered an unnatural act by Jesus (which of course logically means He wouldn't validate it, much more endorse it)....assuming it was acceptable: Why would He not use a word other than "wife" when He clearly gave His instructions as to the conduct of church elders? If He was clear and precise with His instructions, He would have been clear about this too.

Please don't put words in Jesus' mouth. He said nothing of the kind. I only posted what was written in the bible, word for word.

Did Jesus himself say this? That's what it said in the bible.

No. He said he must have only one wife. Meaning he must not have more than one wife. A homosexual does not have more than one wife, he has zero wives, which is the same number of wives as an unmarried person. Then why didn't He say "he must have only one spouse?"

And here is what He had to say about temptation. "If anyone should cause one of these little ones to turn away from his faith in me, it would be better for that man to have a large millstone tied round his neck and be thrown into the sea. So if your hand makes you turn away, cut it off! It is better for you to enter life without a hand than to keep both hands and go off to hell, to the fire that never goes out." Mark 9:42

This is what Jesus had said of homosexuality. "Because men do this, God had given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they themselves are punished as they deserve for their wrongdoing." Romans 1:26

Why? Where did you get that?

Where does it say anything about homosexuality here? Aside from saying he must have only one wife, not that he must have a wife, and if that's the case not being married is as much of a sin as homosexuality. Well, he didn't say..."He must have one SPOUSE." He didn't say "he must be married." So it is a given that if he is indeed married, he must have only one wife.

Sometimes, those "unguarded" little tirades reveal the inner self. I like Mel Gibson, don't get me wrong...and I still do. But I think he's struggling with himself. I think he is part looney...that's why he does those looney characters so well (Lethal Weapons and Conspiracy Theory). At least let's give him credit for apologizing. One cannot switch personality, thoughts and shake off hardened convictions overnight. I think he is trying.