jefferiah

Because it defended against the Canadians. "I see I see" said the blind man. I dont always agree with M Dancer, but I dont think its fair to call him an asshole, nor does it make any point, Ft Niagara. You are from Buffalo, I think you said. Sabres have a good team this year. I dont know if you are a hockey fan, but I think they are doing pretty hot. I think they probably would have ousted Carolina last year if it wasnt for the fact that all their good defensemen were injured. Re-reading this again I see that u were referring to M Dancer calling himself an asshole. My bad.

Because it defended against the Canadians. "I see I see" said the blind man. I dont always agree with M Dancer, but I dont think its fair to call him an asshole, nor does it make any point, Ft Niagara. You are from Buffalo, I think you said. Sabres have a good team this year. I dont know if you are a hockey fan, but I think they are doing pretty hot. I think they probably would have ousted Carolina last year if it wasnt for the fact that all their good defensemen were injured.

lol....well this is a good point. its not intentional though its just over the years the word liberal has lost its meaning in the popular world through its association with people calling themselves liberal. Even people who know what a classical liberal is, forget, and probably would be misunderstood in a lot of cases if they talked about liberals (meaning classical ones rather than the modern popular meaning). But the point is taken. From now on there will be liberals and the Liberals. The party gets the capital letter cuz its a proper noun. But you gotta forgive people when they forget you know. Lol

I wonder if you and I will still be arguing when we are 80. Lol. Anyways, yeah I dont agree with the church on everything M Dancer either. But I dont think the Church should have to perform marriages it considers sinful though. If you dont feel its sinful, thats your opinion. But gays can get married. And do I think there are many self-righteous hypocrites in the Church. Certainly I do. I think there as many self-righteous hypocrites in this world as there are humans. That does not mean I hate humanity, but I recognize human nature. One main opposition to the churches beliefs on sex in general is that it is repressive to sexuality. Saying homosexuality is wrong is repressive to homosexuals and could cause damage to them and confusion etc etc. I dont know. I mean, no one is forcing you to believe it is wrong. If you dont like that stance you dont have to subscribe to it. The church will not kick you out for disagreeing either, but they wont change their stance. And you can go out the same door you entered by just as freely. And also there are ex-homosexuals who believe in the church's stance on this, and they are glad the church had this stance because they feel it helped anchor their own lives. Do all homosexuals have to agree with these former homosexuals? No. No one is forcing them to.

If you dont want to shave your head and give up meat at a Rinzai monastery, or dont even like their position on meat eating, you dont have to join the monastery. They wont exclude you. They wont dislike you. They wont refuse to talk to you. But if you want to join the monastery they will tell you what they believe. If you dont like hearing what they believe is wrong, and you feel this is all malarky. And that saying a certain thing is wrong is giving you guilt problems when you really dont believe it is wrong, then you dont have to join. They wont kick you out M Dancer. The church's stance is that homosexuality is a sin therefore like other sins it should be worked on between the sinner and God, and that the church should be merciful towards the struggling sinner as he tries to change his life and habits. But this mercy does not mean they would allow and encourage gays to get married. If you dont agree with this, thats ok. But the Church does not have to agree with you either.

Oh so you would be okay with gays taking communion, getting married or becoming priests........ All righty....... .....but you assume they would be bad parents because..no particular reason.....becasue they litter? No I dont support gay marriage either. But once again I cannot stop them can I. It is legal. One does not have to go to a Church to be married. But since the Church does not condone gay marriage the church should not have to perform one. The church will allow homosexuals in the doors, but you cant force the church to take part in an activity it believes is sinful. The same way you cant hold a ham dinner at a synagogue.

The early church was made of all kinds of sinners including adulterers, hookers, homosexuals, and murderers. They were all welcome there. But they all agreed that their previous lifestyles were sinful. There are ex-Gay baptist ministers. Most churches dont require you to be straight, to have never touched marijuana or drugs, to get in the doors. If you do these things and continue to do these things you will not be thrown out. I dont go to church, and the truth is like you I have many beefs against organized religion. And when I was younger I saw everything as established as always wrong all the time. But now I have seen that although establishment is often wrong it is not always wrong. All the church will do is say that these things are sinful. I used to smoke pot, and during that time I didnt like church very much as I saw them as all out to get me and just another part of the "man". But I was being just as stereotypical during that phase of my life as we believe many far right Christians are. The church is still filled with people who are addicted to drugs, have committed adultery, are homosexual, etc. The church doesnt tell you you cant come in, they just tell you these things are wrong. If you dont like their stance, thats when you can exclude yourself if you wish.

. However the reason I do not support adoption is not because I want to stick it to homosexuals, and deny them the right to have children. Its because I believe it is not good for them. You don't think children are good for homosexuals? Curious..... Where I stand is I don't think we should condone prejudice when it affects peoples lived...regardless if it hides behind a cross or not. Feel free to exclude gays in your church, put outside your personal private beliefs should not infringe others. Unfortunately, I see politicians pandering to the public's prejudice....while Christ would not condemn, thousands will I dont think homosexual parents are good for the children. This is my opinion. My conscience. If I had a vote on the matter like a Proposition 21 thing--- I would vote no. This is not because I am trying to stick it to homosexuals personally though. I never said gays should be excluded from Church either. Actually I dont go to church M Dancer. Everyone is welcome in church. Once again everyone is a sinner, right. So everyone sitting in a Church including the man at the pulpit has to endure the fact that the Church calls something you do or have done in life a sin. I am saying that if the church says homosexuality is a sin and a gay person doesnt like it, he can leave if he likes.

Well personally M Dancer as far as getting jobs, getting EI, getting anything else I will support them. With the adoption issue I dont believe it is good for the children, so I do not support it. But my support will probably mean little in the long run anyway, right. However the reason I do not support adoption is not because I want to stick it to homosexuals, and deny them the right to have children. Its because I believe it is not good for them. You can argue this with me all you want, but this is what I believe. When it comes down to a persons right to believe this is a sin and to profess it (as long as they are not violent about it, or encouraging violence) which side of the fence do you stand on?

Yeah metric makes a lot of sense. Being all divisible by tens you know. But still the old system has something about it that people cant shake you know. I live up here in kilometre land, but I weigh myself in pounds, and I often describe thicknesses in inches. And in Canada where we order Pizza by the diameter, not by the slice, we measure it in inches too. I could not imaging ordering a 35 centimeter pizza. The earth rotates, but I still like to watch "the sun rise".

I am Jefferiah, cuz I am Jeff and well I just thought Jefferiah sounded cool. I use Jefferiah for a lot of things online cuz jeff is always taken. Sometimes I find everything is taken, like on Yahoo, and you have to come up with a name like RedBlueMonsterPickleTreeStamper. Then yahoo says "sorry that name is taken try RedBlueMonsterPickleTreeStamper134". So then you give in. And thats your ID henceforth.

Lol...why do you call yourself Ft Niagara

I cannot stop someone from being gay M Dancer, anymore than the Church was able to stop me and others from committing adultery by saying they believe it is wrong. I cannot stop anyone from being gay. But if a gay person were to ask me do I condone homosexual relationships, I would say no. I would not go out and physically stop them, or drag them to the town square for a lynching. And if a gay couple came to my house to stay the night I would ask them not to have sex here. My house, my rules. The same way you would not want someone smoking in your home perhaps, which is also not as bad as corporations raping the land of other countries and the constant chemical waste produces by large factories. If you like eating pork you dont have to do it in a Synagogue right?

The definition you have just given defeats your whole argument. Here it calls condemning a judgement as in punishment. When Jesus was merciful to sinners and did not condemn them or exercise judgement over them, it was not because he thought what they were doing is A-OK. When your children do something wrong do you condemn them. No, of course not. But do you say "Hey kids, I am happy you stole the car and wrecked it. This is the kind of thing I wish you would do more of." Are you aware of the functions of colons and semi colons? I dont agree with the far right M Dancer. Maybe your beef is with them. I am not overly concerned about homosexuals, I am just defending those who believe it is a sin. Just because the far right also has this belief does not mean it is wrong. Both Jesus and the men who were about to stone the woman believed adultery was wrong. But there is still a difference in their attitudes about mercy, right. On one extreme there are the people who would react and attack everything they think is wrong and punish those sinners they consider more sinful themselves. This is wrong. But it is equally wrong to adopt the other extreme and say that we should not only be merciful to other sinners, but we should also declare the term sin a crime in itself, and permit everything. Now once again there is the question of whether homosexuality falls into the category of being immoral. You and I will continue to disagree on this matter, I am sure. But I do not support those who would make fun of gays or assault them. To make fun of a something you think is a sin, does not show concern for the sinner, but that you get joy out of seeing someone doing something dirty you can frown on, right? This is clearly wrong, M Dancer. But the fact that I believe homosexuality is a sin, and that I assert my right to say so, does not mean that I hate homosexuals or that I feel they should be "condemned" by society. So I ask you to look at my opinion honestly, even though it may not be your own, and admit that my thinking homosexuality is a sin does not mean I am "phobic" of it. The bible says we are all sinners, so that would make anyone who believes anything is a sin at all phobic of that sin. I just believe it is wrong. This is not self-righteous either, and I think you are honest and intelligent enough to admit that, even though you may not share my view.

That is indeed one definition....in this case it means judged In this case? In your mind. Thank you. My mind is a beautiful thing. Apparently we are to use it to worship, rather than worship mindlessly....... con·demn Listen: [ kn-dm ] tr.v. con·demned, con·demn·ing, con·demns The wonderful and dangerous thing about the bible and the KJV is the language is beyond most people....like Hamlet telling his mother to go to the nunnery, the nuance is lost........ To express strong disapproval of: condemned the needless waste of food. To pronounce judgment against; sentence: condemned the felons to prison. To judge or declare to be unfit for use or consumption, usually by official order: condemn an old building . To lend credence to or provide evidence for an adverse judgment against: were condemned by their actions. Law To appropriate (property) for public use. The definition you have just given defeats your whole argument. Here it calls condemning a judgement as in punishment. When Jesus was merciful to sinners and did not condemn them or exercise judgement over them, it was not because he thought what they were doing is A-OK. When your children do something wrong do you condemn them. No, of course not. But do you say "Hey kids, I am happy you stole the car and wrecked it. This is the kind of thing I wish you would do more of." The fact that Jesus is merciful to me or the woman who was brought to be stoned, does not mean he didnt think she had not sinned or that I have not sinned.

That is indeed one definition....in this case it means judged In this case? In your mind. Thank you. My mind is a beautiful thing. Apparently we are to use it to worship, rather than worship mindlessly....... con·demn Listen: [ kn-dm ] tr.v. con·demned, con·demn·ing, con·demns The wonderful and dangerous thing about the bible and the KJV is the language is beyond most people....like Hamlet telling his mother to go to the nunnery, the nuance is lost........ To express strong disapproval of: condemned the needless waste of food. To pronounce judgment against; sentence: condemned the felons to prison. To judge or declare to be unfit for use or consumption, usually by official order: condemn an old building . To lend credence to or provide evidence for an adverse judgment against: were condemned by their actions. Law To appropriate (property) for public use. The definition you have just given defeats your whole argument. Here it calls condemning a judgement as in punishment. When Jesus was merciful to sinners and did not condemn them or exercise judgement over them, it was not because he thought what they were doing is A-OK. When your children do something wrong do you condemn them. No, of course not. But do you say "Hey kids, I am happy you stole the car and wrecked it. This is the kind of thing I wish you would do more of."

Once again M Dancer, I must say there is a fine line between being "merciful and non-judgemental" and being "permissive and condoning". Jesus said adultery was a sin, but he knew that not one of us was better than that woman. Since I am also a sinner and a criminal in God's sight my mercy depends on the mercy he shows to other sinners. If there is no mercy for that woman, for homosexuals, for criminals (from J Walker to what have you)---there is no mercy for me. This is not the same as saying sin doesnt exist. Forgiveness isnt saying "go ahead have sex with whoever you want, i really dont think its bad for you". Forgiveness says "I have mercy on you, I know you have weaknesses and I love you and pity you and I will continue to give you another chance."

That is indeed one definition....in this case it means judged In this case? In your mind.

Which is why I thought you were speaking none too politely of me. On another point..... The woman caught in the act of adultery......interestingly, jesus did not forgive her.....in fact, he didn't even accuse her....... Here's what I think.....given that there are hundreds of references to the abuse of power, the ill treatment of the poor and the wrath of god against those who do and only a few cryptic passages about gays....I think the attention the "church" as you call it (which church, who's church?) is over blown.....the right amount of attention given the outrages against God and nature.....with graneries overflowing and children starving........would be somewhere between J-walking and litterbugging...... Condemned means punished. Adultery is still a sin. I am not saying people who are straight, monogamous and meanwhile destroy the environment and exploit nations are better either. I am saying that the fact that we call homosexuality a sin is neither self-righteous, nor does it mean that we hate homosexuals. Who is stoning homosexuals?

So you approve of stoning persons for all the "sins" listed in Leviticus and Deuteronomy? You have to be consistent if you're going to pull that "the Bible says so" stuff. And again, Jesus didn't say ANYTHING about homosexuality. I am glad you brought this point up. If you read all of my posts I said that while Jesus did not soften his view on sin (he made the standard even stricter), he also increased mercy toward the sinner (all of us). Don't you see that. He stopped the stoning of the adulteress, not because the law was wrong in saying that adultery was wrong, but because he was merciful, and not one of those men had the right to throw that stone. According to Jesus whoever looked at a woman lustfully was committing the same crime. Mercy is not Leniency. He was not promoting free love when he chose to be merciful. Now you say Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. He never said anything about pedophilia or necrophilia either, mind you. But Jesus was a Jewish person, and he said not one iota of the law would disappear. He did say that laws concerning ritual cleanliness were superficial, and that people who thought of themselves as better because they washed their hands before eating needed to rethink things. The early Church which was comprised of the men Jesus taught personally did not condone homosexuality. If you read the first Chapter of Pauls letter to the Romans, you will see that men exchaning natural relation for unnatural ones and doing perverted acts with other men, is one of the many sins of mankind mentioned. If you read this you will see that Paul does not single this sin out, but mentions many other sins as well, and then later says "We all have done these things." Paul was not being self-righteous. He never said one sin was better than another. He just said sin was sin.

Actually if you re-read my post M Dancer, you will see that I said "someone" asserted that Jesus was a pacifist socialist. Then I said that M Dancer called me presumptious after that.

Nah...he's too uninspiring, uncharismatic and insincere to be scary... Not as inspiring or charasmatic as Jean Chretien or Paul Martin? Hee hee. I would choose Harper as more in touch with the regular joe than either of them.

Given your propensity for referring to Moslems as goat-herders, Argus, we can only conclude that you are a liberal. Ah, but my contempt is based on their lack of polish and sophistication, not their colouring. I hold them to the same standards I set for everyone else, and I find them wanting - to say the least. I wouldn't refer to you any more kindly, for the same reason. You should consider holding yourself to those standards and you won't come off sounding like an ignorant backwoods hick See? There it is again. someone points out obvious facts about deficiencies in a certain culture....for example Muslims marching in the streets carrying "death to jews" placards, and if you criticize it you are referred to as a "backwards hick". This is a prime example of how, more and more, it is lefty multiculties who are guilty of mass stereotypes without weighing the facts. Bigoted behavior. I obvioulsy don't have the same kind of technocolour imagination as you. All I saw was someone posing as an ignorant fool making a racist remark. But if you suggest then that when muslims march through the streets waving signs, that they represent all muslims.....then I gotta ask...(mass stereo types aside) what colour are the sheets in your compound? Ah yes - the old stadby "no jihad to see here" line commonly used by law enforcement, politicians and lefty posters. I always get a kick out of the "watch out for backlash against Muslims" routine after muslims blow themselves up in pizzarias, too. Great line: "Muslims fear repercussions from tommorrow's train bombing" hahahhaaaa. But I must ask you this: wouldn't you think there is something wrong in our society if we saw 10,000 white people marching through the streets yelling "Death to all Muslims"? We're not talking about 2-3 nutjobs with websites. We're takling about 10,000 people. That's disturbing. Hey, did Uncle Leo ever give your mother that 50 dollars?

If Ignatieff is elected leader I motion that all liberals vote for Harper next time. Other than that pray for Mr Rae.

Just for the record I believe the definition of self-righteous is believing that you aremore righteous than someone else. Believing that homosexuality, or that anything, is wrong does not mean you believe you are better, because we have all done wrong. I never once said I was less a sinner than anyone, homosexual, straight, self-righteous, criminal, addict, Hitler, or anyone.