GA Thompson is probably part of the Mafia department of a group like
Focus on the Family who's task it is to bombard us with this rubbish.
We all know his arguments are bogus and this way of thinking belongs
in the dark ages.
These type of people do not help those who are struggling to come to
terms with their sexuality, there have been too many suicides as a
result. I expect GA Thompson, whomever hiself/herself/itself is, is
happy with themselves.
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:57:48 GMT, "G.A. Thompson"
<g_a_thompson@no-spam> wrote:
>To see the pervert mind laid out like a frog on a dissecting table,
>examine the posts of clowns like Brissie below, where he/she/it attempts
>another favourite pervert lobby diversion: obfuscation about the
>unchangeable biological and physiological determination of normal
>sexuality. Meanwhile, the following facts remain ...
>
>Homosexuality clearly is not normal or healthy sexual orientation. This
>is a matter of universal, unchangeable scientific fact -- not of
>debatable opinion. Sexuality in all life forms, from single cells to
>plants and mammals, is defined only by reproductive potential. Human
>sexuality is biologically and physiologically defined only by two
>genders, male and female. Homosexuals differ from normal men and women
>only in psychological and behavioural terms. Homosexuality, therefore,
>is objectively a psychological and behavioural abnormality.
>
>The abnormality of homosexuality has been widely recognised since the
>dawn of history. It is strongly proscribed behaviour in Judaic,
>Christian and Islamic doctrine. The great pioneer of psychoanalysis,
>Sigmund Freud, defined homosexuality as a disorder of psychosexual
>development. Homosexuality was classified in the American Psychiatric
>Association's influential tome, the 'Diagnostic And Statistical Manual
>Of Mental Disorders' (DSM) until the third edition (DSM-III) of the
>early 1970s -- when it was removed by disreputable and unscientific
>political pressure. The consequent opportunities for the delusional
>behavioural disorders of homosexuality to find political expression have
>been exploited to the point of being a pervert revolutionary menace to
>healthy society. Pervert revolutionaries already are attacking marriage
>and the institutions and values which support it; reproductive
>technology; and the custody and education of vulnerable children.
>
>Homosexuality must be restored to its proper status as a mental disorder.
>
>[Vote against the insane pervert revolution and against the ACT Nohope
>pervert revolutionary junta in BigPulse online polls at www.bigpulse.com]
>
>
>Brissie wrote:
>
>>>Sexuality in all life forms, from single cells to plants and mammals, is defined only by reproductive potential.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>So men & women who have sex with a condom on, or unable to conceive
>>(whether by problems they have always had or vasectomy,tubes tied,etc)
>>are also mentally ill because they can't reproduce?
>>
>>
It's quite sad that such irrational and fear ridden people still exist in a
world where there is so much information available isn't it.
"Leee" <leeee_greeeeeeenwich@no-spam> wrote in message
news:7na5tv8pvl0c30vp1trlrn3ndelkl2fm96@no-spam
> GA Thompson is probably part of the Mafia department of a group like
> Focus on the Family who's task it is to bombard us with this rubbish.
>
> We all know his arguments are bogus and this way of thinking belongs
> in the dark ages.
>
> These type of people do not help those who are struggling to come to
> terms with their sexuality, there have been too many suicides as a
> result. I expect GA Thompson, whomever hiself/herself/itself is, is
> happy with themselves.
>
>
>
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:57:48 GMT, "G.A. Thompson"
> <g_a_thompson@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >To see the pervert mind laid out like a frog on a dissecting table,
> >examine the posts of clowns like Brissie below, where he/she/it attempts
> >another favourite pervert lobby diversion: obfuscation about the
> >unchangeable biological and physiological determination of normal
> >sexuality. Meanwhile, the following facts remain ...
> >
> >Homosexuality clearly is not normal or healthy sexual orientation. This
> >is a matter of universal, unchangeable scientific fact -- not of
> >debatable opinion. Sexuality in all life forms, from single cells to
> >plants and mammals, is defined only by reproductive potential. Human
> >sexuality is biologically and physiologically defined only by two
> >genders, male and female. Homosexuals differ from normal men and women
> >only in psychological and behavioural terms. Homosexuality, therefore,
> >is objectively a psychological and behavioural abnormality.
> >
> >The abnormality of homosexuality has been widely recognised since the
> >dawn of history. It is strongly proscribed behaviour in Judaic,
> >Christian and Islamic doctrine. The great pioneer of psychoanalysis,
> >Sigmund Freud, defined homosexuality as a disorder of psychosexual
> >development. Homosexuality was classified in the American Psychiatric
> >Association's influential tome, the 'Diagnostic And Statistical Manual
> >Of Mental Disorders' (DSM) until the third edition (DSM-III) of the
> >early 1970s -- when it was removed by disreputable and unscientific
> >political pressure. The consequent opportunities for the delusional
> >behavioural disorders of homosexuality to find political expression have
> >been exploited to the point of being a pervert revolutionary menace to
> >healthy society. Pervert revolutionaries already are attacking marriage
> >and the institutions and values which support it; reproductive
> >technology; and the custody and education of vulnerable children.
> >
> >Homosexuality must be restored to its proper status as a mental disorder.
> >
> >[Vote against the insane pervert revolution and against the ACT Nohope
> >pervert revolutionary junta in BigPulse online polls at www.bigpulse.com]
> >
> >
> >Brissie wrote:
> >
> >>>Sexuality in all life forms, from single cells to plants and mammals,
is defined only by reproductive potential.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>So men & women who have sex with a condom on, or unable to conceive
> >>(whether by problems they have always had or vasectomy,tubes tied,etc)
> >>are also mentally ill because they can't reproduce?
> >>
> >>
>
VH-CBR wrote:
> It's quite sad that such irrational and fear ridden people still exist in a
> world where there is so much information available isn't it.
Ah, tis still the woman deceived by the snake's lie that a tree of
knowledge will improve their world...
..ahem, not that I would align myself with GAT's opinions based on hatred.
But you're both wrong. It's right to hate the sin of homosexuality and
it's wrong to hate the homosexual. Hate should only ever be directed at
evil, not the evil-doer.
In article <Y5AAb.42675$aT.33743@no-spam>,
TyBreaker <tybreakerNO@no-spam> wrote:
> It's right to hate the sin of homosexuality and
> it's wrong to hate the homosexual. Hate should only ever be directed at
> evil, not the evil-doer.
It's right to hate the delusion of a deity and it's wrong to hate the
sufferer of the delusion. Hate should only ever be directed at the
delusion, not the delusional.
Letao wrote in message ...
>In article <Y5AAb.42675$aT.33743@no-spam>,
> TyBreaker <tybreakerNO@no-spam> wrote:
>
>> It's right to hate the sin of homosexuality and
>> it's wrong to hate the homosexual. Hate should only ever be directed at
>> evil, not the evil-doer.
>
>It's right to hate the delusion of a deity and it's wrong to hate the
>sufferer of the delusion. Hate should only ever be directed at the
>delusion, not the delusional.
Erm - so does that mean we should hate poofters or not?
In article <bqvipt$246r96$1@no-spam>,
"RT" <r.thomas@no-spam> wrote:
> Letao wrote in message ...
> >In article <Y5AAb.42675$aT.33743@no-spam>,
> > TyBreaker <tybreakerNO@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> >> It's right to hate the sin of homosexuality and
> >> it's wrong to hate the homosexual. Hate should only ever be directed at
> >> evil, not the evil-doer.
> >
> >It's right to hate the delusion of a deity and it's wrong to hate the
> >sufferer of the delusion. Hate should only ever be directed at the
> >delusion, not the delusional.
>
> Erm - so does that mean we should hate poofters or not?
It means you should invest in a remedial reading course that includes a
class discussion of the meaning of irony and satire.
Leee wrote:
> GA Thompson is probably part of the Mafia department of a group like
> Focus on the Family who's task it is to bombard us with this rubbish.
He reminds me of a reformed smoker who has become an anti-smoking nazi.
Maybe he is just missing his bum-on-a-stick?
E
RT wrote:
> Letao wrote in message ...
>
>>In article <Y5AAb.42675$aT.33743@no-spam>,
>>TyBreaker <tybreakerNO@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's right to hate the sin of homosexuality and
>>>it's wrong to hate the homosexual. Hate should only ever be directed at
>>>evil, not the evil-doer.
>>
>>It's right to hate the delusion of a deity and it's wrong to hate the
>>sufferer of the delusion. Hate should only ever be directed at the
>>delusion, not the delusional.
>
>
> Erm - so does that mean we should hate poofters or not?
No, but you can still beat them up. Unless they're bigger than you, in
which case they can beat you up.
E.
"TyBreaker" <tybreakerNO@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Y5AAb.42675$aT.33743@no-spam
> VH-CBR wrote:
> But you're both wrong. It's right to hate the sin of homosexuality and
> it's wrong to hate the homosexual. Hate should only ever be directed at
> evil, not the evil-doer.
>
You fall to a 400 year old work of fiction to justify a stand? How
desparate is that?
"RT" <r.thomas@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bqvipt$246r96$1@no-spam
>
> Erm - so does that mean we should hate poofters or not?
>
It says we should hate the bible, not the idiots who believe in it.
"E." <laughing@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3fd37cfc@no-spam
> RT wrote:
>
> No, but you can still beat them up. Unless they're bigger than you, in
> which case they can beat you up.
:o)
The original post does not mention hate or poofters, RT. It speaks for
itself. Read it again, as you clearly have not got the message...
Homosexuality clearly is not normal or healthy sexual orientation. This
is a matter of universal, unchangeable scientific fact -- not of
debatable opinion. Sexuality in all life forms, from single cells to
plants and mammals, is defined only by reproductive potential. Human
sexuality is biologically and physiologically defined only by two
genders, male and female. Homosexuals differ from normal men and women
only in psychological and behavioural terms. Homosexuality, therefore,
is objectively a psychological and behavioural abnormality.
The abnormality of homosexuality has been widely recognised since the
dawn of history. It is strongly proscribed behaviour in Judaic,
Christian and Islamic doctrine. The great pioneer of psychoanalysis,
Sigmund Freud, defined homosexuality as a disorder of psychosexual
development. Homosexuality was classified in the American Psychiatric
Association's influential tome, the 'Diagnostic And Statistical Manual
Of Mental Disorders' (DSM) until the third edition (DSM-III) of the
early 1970s -- when it was removed by disreputable and unscientific
political pressure. The consequent opportunities for the delusional
behavioural disorders of homosexuality to find political expression have
been exploited to the point of being a pervert revolutionary menace to
healthy society. Pervert revolutionaries already are attacking marriage
and the institutions and values which support it; reproductive
technology; and the custody and education of vulnerable children.
Homosexuality must be restored to its proper status as a mental disorder.
[Vote against the insane pervert revolution and against the ACT Nohope
pervert revolutionary junta in BigPulse online polls at www.bigpulse.com]
RT wrote:
>Letao wrote in message ...
>
>
>>In article <Y5AAb.42675$aT.33743@no-spam>,
>>TyBreaker <tybreakerNO@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>It's right to hate the sin of homosexuality and
>>>it's wrong to hate the homosexual. Hate should only ever be directed at
>>>evil, not the evil-doer.
>>>
>>>
>>It's right to hate the delusion of a deity and it's wrong to hate the
>>sufferer of the delusion. Hate should only ever be directed at the
>>delusion, not the delusional.
>>
>>
>
>Erm - so does that mean we should hate poofters or not?
>
>
>
>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
The original post does not mention hate or poofters, RT. It speaks for itself.
Read it again, as you clearly have not got the message...<br>
<br>
Homosexuality clearly is not normal or healthy sexual orientation. This
is a matter of universal, unchangeable scientific fact -- not of debatable
opinion. Sexuality in all life forms, from single cells to plants and mammals,
is defined only by reproductive potential. Human sexuality is biologically
and physiologically defined only by two genders, male and female. Homosexuals
differ from normal men and women only in psychological and behavioural terms.
Homosexuality, therefore, is objectively a psychological and behavioural
abnormality.<br>
<br>
The abnormality of homosexuality has been widely recognised since the dawn
of history. It is strongly proscribed behaviour in Judaic, Christian and
Islamic doctrine. The great pioneer of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, defined
homosexuality as a disorder of psychosexual development. Homosexuality was
classified in the American Psychiatric Association's influential tome, the
'Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders' (DSM) until the third
edition (DSM-III) of the early 1970s -- when it was removed by disreputable
and unscientific political pressure. The consequent opportunities for the
delusional behavioural disorders of homosexuality to find political expression
have been exploited to the point of being a pervert revolutionary menace
to healthy society. Pervert revolutionaries already are attacking marriage
and the institutions and values which support it; reproductive technology;
and the custody and education of vulnerable children.<br>
<br>
Homosexuality must be restored to its proper status as a mental disorder.<br>
<br>
[Vote against the insane pervert revolution and against the ACT Nohope pervert
revolutionary junta in BigPulse online polls at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.bigpulse.com">www.bigpulse.com</a>]<br>
<br>
<br>
RT wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midbqvipt$246r96$1@no-spam">
<pre wrap="">Letao wrote in message ...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In article <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Y5AAb.42675$aT.33743@no-spam"><Y5AAb.42675$aT.33743@no-spam</a>,
TyBreaker <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tybreakerNO@no-spam"><tybreakerNO@no-spam</a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It's right to hate the sin of homosexuality and
it's wrong to hate the homosexual. Hate should only ever be directed at
evil, not the evil-doer.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">It's right to hate the delusion of a deity and it's wrong to hate the
sufferer of the delusion. Hate should only ever be directed at the
delusion, not the delusional.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Erm - so does that mean we should hate poofters or not?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
"G.A. Thompson" <g_a_thompson@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FD39026.7070002@no-spam
> Homosexuality must be restored to its proper status as a mental disorder.
Since that's not about to happen, now what?
"G.A. Thompson" <g_a_thompson@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FD39026.7070002@no-spam
The original post does not mention hate or poofters, RT. It speaks for
itself. Read it again, as you clearly have not got the message...
A common problem obviously becasue clearly "the message" is something your
tiny delusional mind is incapable of grasping ...
"Light Templar" <I@no-spam> wrote in message
news:BqNAb.4761$rP6.3081@no-spam
>
> "G.A. Thompson" <g_a_thompson@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3FD39026.7070002@no-spam
>
>
> > Homosexuality must be restored to its proper status as a mental
disorder.
>
>
> Since that's not about to happen, now what?
More incessant whining no doubt.....
> You fall to a 400 year old work of fiction to justify a stand? How
> desparate is that?
The books that comprise the Bible may have been combined as a single
unit that long ago but each of the 66 books included vary in age by
thousands of years, the youngest being those in the New Testament which
experts estimate to be written a matter of decades after the life of
Jesus. That makes the youngest books around 2000 years old give or take
a few decades.
It is well accepted, even in the secular world, that the Bible has been
used to validate archeological digs and vice versa. Viewing any
documentary on historical or archeological studies in the Middle East
will almost always refer to the Bible as supporting discoveries made or
vice versa. Even historical writings written by non-Christians eg the
Jewish historian Josephus parallel events in the life of Jesus as
recorded in the Bible. Declaring it to be fiction is just ignorance and
due to the critical nature of the contents to each of our eternal
destinations, I would recommend at least reading it first. Even if you
choose to reject God afterwards as some do, at least you can give some
thought-out reasons when you are asked.
Here is the verse that probably is the clearest in denouncing
homosexuality as a sin:
Leviticus 18:22: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that
is detestable."
But if anyone like GAT comes along wanting to focus on anothers sin,
then the Bible teaches:
Matthew 7:3: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's
eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
So instead, God calls every one of us to:
1 John 1:9: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will
forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."
John 3:17: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the
world, but to save the world through him."
So why reject Jesus who came to save us? Because we love our sin and
don't want to turn away from it.
"VH-CBR" <fake@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3fd43079@no-spam
>
> "Light Templar" <I@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:BqNAb.4761$rP6.3081@no-spam
> >
> > "G.A. Thompson" <g_a_thompson@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3FD39026.7070002@no-spam
> >
> >
> > > Homosexuality must be restored to its proper status as a mental
> disorder.
> >
> >
> > Since that's not about to happen, now what?
>
> More incessant whining no doubt.....
Exactly. :c)
"TyBreaker" <tybreakerNO@no-spam> wrote in message
news:FoXAb.44350$aT.4603@no-spam
> > You fall to a 400 year old work of fiction to justify a stand? How
> > desparate is that?
>
> The books that comprise the Bible may have been combined as a single
> unit that long ago but each of the 66 books included vary in age by
> thousands of years, the youngest being those in the New Testament which
> experts estimate to be written a matter of decades after the life of
> Jesus. That makes the youngest books around 2000 years old give or take
> a few decades.
>
> It is well accepted, even in the secular world, that the Bible has been
> used to validate archeological digs and vice versa. Viewing any
> documentary on historical or archeological studies in the Middle East
> will almost always refer to the Bible as supporting discoveries made or
> vice versa. Even historical writings written by non-Christians eg the
> Jewish historian Josephus parallel events in the life of Jesus as
> recorded in the Bible. Declaring it to be fiction is just ignorance and
> due to the critical nature of the contents to each of our eternal
> destinations, I would recommend at least reading it first. Even if you
> choose to reject God afterwards as some do, at least you can give some
> thought-out reasons when you are asked.
>
> Here is the verse that probably is the clearest in denouncing
> homosexuality as a sin:
> Leviticus 18:22: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that
> is detestable."
>
Which might actually mean something, except that Levitical Law was a
specific
pact of laws made between God, and "The Children of Israel". Moses would
have
considered it a grievous sin to so much as teach these laws to Gentiles,
much
less expected them to follow it. It might also carry a bit more weight if
modern
day Christians followed ALL of the laws in Leviticus instead of the few that
they like.
> But if anyone like GAT comes along wanting to focus on anothers sin,
> then the Bible teaches:
> Matthew 7:3: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's
> eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
>
> So instead, God calls every one of us to:
> 1 John 1:9: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will
> forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."
>
> John 3:17: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the
> world, but to save the world through him."
>
> So why reject Jesus who came to save us? Because we love our sin and
> don't want to turn away from it.
>
"TyBreaker" <tybreakerNO@no-spam> wrote in message
news:FoXAb.44350$aT.4603@no-spam
> > You fall to a 400 year old work of fiction to justify a stand? How
> > desparate is that?
>
> The books that comprise the Bible may have been combined as a single
> unit that long ago but each of the 66 books included vary in age by
> thousands of years, the youngest being those in the New Testament which
> experts estimate to be written a matter of decades after the life of
> Jesus. That makes the youngest books around 2000 years old give or take
> a few decades.
Matter of opinion.
> So why reject Jesus who came to save us? Because we love our sin and
> don't want to turn away from it.
Court in the USofA has decreed the bible to be a work of fiction .. i'd
rather base my opinions in life on the present knowledge rather than some
work of fiction that cannot be validated and is zealously protected by
religious scholars ...
2000 years ago they said the world was flat .... do you still believe that?
X - poster
"VH-CBR" <fake@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3fd4d82b@no-spam
>
> "TyBreaker" <tybreakerNO@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:FoXAb.44350$aT.4603@no-spam
> > > You fall to a 400 year old work of fiction to justify a stand? How
> > > desparate is that?
> >
> > The books that comprise the Bible may have been combined as a single
> > unit that long ago but each of the 66 books included vary in age by
> > thousands of years, the youngest being those in the New Testament which
> > experts estimate to be written a matter of decades after the life of
> > Jesus. That makes the youngest books around 2000 years old give or take
> > a few decades.
>
> Matter of opinion.
>
> > So why reject Jesus who came to save us? Because we love our sin and
> > don't want to turn away from it.
>
> Court in the USofA has decreed the bible to be a work of fiction .. i'd
> rather base my opinions in life on the present knowledge rather than some
> work of fiction that cannot be validated and is zealously protected by
> religious scholars ...
>
> 2000 years ago they said the world was flat .... do you still believe
that?
>
>
>>The books that comprise the Bible may have been combined as a single
>>unit that long ago but each of the 66 books included vary in age by
>>thousands of years, the youngest being those in the New Testament which
>>experts estimate to be written a matter of decades after the life of
>>Jesus. That makes the youngest books around 2000 years old give or take
>>a few decades.
>
> Matter of opinion.
Scientific analysis rather. The bible's texts have been well documented
and exposed to public scrutiny for quite some time and nobody has proven
them wrong. Age is often the very first thing validated before any
further studying of ancient texts happens.
> Court in the USofA has decreed the bible to be a work of fiction .. i'd
> rather base my opinions in life on the present knowledge rather than some
> work of fiction that cannot be validated and is zealously protected by
> religious scholars ...
Well, I would have to ask you what exactly is "present knowledge"?
Isn't it the aggregate of knowledge that man has collected since the
dawn of time? Everything we know now wasn't just learned in modern
times. The Bible has also contributed to man's knowledge of many other
things besides God such as knowledge of cultures, history etc.
I'm unsure of the accuracy of your reference to a USA court declaring
the Bible to be a work of fiction, it may help if you could include a
reference. It sounds unlikely to me when their constitution is firmly
entrenched in the bible. It is psychologically easier to ignore God if
you can declare him a fiction - except that whether we choose to believe
or not will not change the fact that we will all stand before God one
day. Our commission as Christians is to proclaim the good news of Jesus
as our saviour, who died on the cross to pay for our sins and then rose
again, so all who believe He has paid for their sins will be saved. It
won't be some court in the USA adjudicating on that day, Jesus alone
will be judge.
> 2000 years ago they said the world was flat .... do you still believe that?
I probably would have believed that then but my belief in the shape of
the world is independant to my belief in God. Also God would not reject
anyone if they did not understand all the laws of physics (as I'm sure
we still don't). God loves each one of us and seeks restoration to the
relationship we have broken when we reject Him.
> Which might actually mean something, except that Levitical Law was a
> specific
> pact of laws made between God, and "The Children of Israel". Moses would
> have
> considered it a grievous sin to so much as teach these laws to Gentiles,
> much
> less expected them to follow it. It might also carry a bit more weight if
> modern
> day Christians followed ALL of the laws in Leviticus instead of the few that
> they like.
These scripture references show the Bible is meant for all peoples, not
just the Jews:
Genesis 12:1-3: "The LORD had said to Abram, Leave your country, your
people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.
I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make
your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who
bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."
So even in Genesis, God has indicated He wants to bless all people.
Then in the New Testament:
Galatians 3:8: "The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the
Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: All
nations will be blessed through you."
So this scripture echoes again that Abraham, and God's people, simply
got the gospel in advance, not in exclusivity.
As for following the laws, nobody can claim they are completely
successful at it because that is not why God gave us the law. The law
is there to make us understand how we fall short of God's Holiness and
need Jesus as our saviour, it was never meant as an achieveable goal for
man:
Romans 3:20: "Therefore no-one will be declared righteous in his sight
by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."
"TyBreaker" <tybreakerNO@no-spam> wrote in message
news:fWfBb.45672$aT.29850@no-spam
> > Which might actually mean something, except that Levitical Law was a
> > specific
> > pact of laws made between God, and "The Children of Israel". Moses
would
> > have
> > considered it a grievous sin to so much as teach these laws to Gentiles,
> > much
> > less expected them to follow it. It might also carry a bit more
weight if
> > modern
> > day Christians followed ALL of the laws in Leviticus instead of the few
that
> > they like.
>
> These scripture references show the Bible is meant for all peoples, not
> just the Jews:
>
> Genesis 12:1-3: "The LORD had said to Abram, Leave your country, your
> people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.
> I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make
> your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who
> bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth
> will be blessed through you."
No mention of Hebrew Law applying to all people here.
>
> So even in Genesis, God has indicated He wants to bless all people.
> Then in the New Testament:
>
> Galatians 3:8: "The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the
> Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: All
> nations will be blessed through you."
No mention of Hebrew Law applying to all people here.
>
> So this scripture echoes again that Abraham, and God's people, simply
> got the gospel in advance, not in exclusivity.
>
> As for following the laws, nobody can claim they are completely
> successful at it because that is not why God gave us the law. The law
> is there to make us understand how we fall short of God's Holiness and
> need Jesus as our saviour, it was never meant as an achieveable goal for
> man:
>
> Romans 3:20: "Therefore no-one will be declared righteous in his sight
> by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."
>
No mention of Hebrew Law applying to all people here.
Leviticus SPECIFICALLY addresses "The Children of Israel" at least twice.
No mention of
Gentiles. It wouldn't be until St. Paul, after Jesus's death, that the
idea that Hebrew law should
apply to all people came about.
"TyBreaker" <tybreakerNO@no-spam> wrote in message
news:0EfBb.45644$aT.15511@no-spam
> >>The books that comprise the Bible may have been combined as a single
> >>unit that long ago but each of the 66 books included vary in age by
> >>thousands of years, the youngest being those in the New Testament which
> >>experts estimate to be written a matter of decades after the life of
> >>Jesus. That makes the youngest books around 2000 years old give or take
> >>a few decades.
> >
> > Matter of opinion.
>
> Scientific analysis rather. The bible's texts have been well documented
> and exposed to public scrutiny for quite some time and nobody has proven
> them wrong. Age is often the very first thing validated before any
> further studying of ancient texts happens.
So you should be able to cite the scientific analysis or research that has
established the age of the New Testament pretty easily then.
In article <0EfBb.45644$aT.15511@no-spam>,
TyBreaker <tybreakerNO@no-spam> wrote:
> It is psychologically easier to ignore God if
> you can declare him a fiction - except that whether we choose to believe
> or not will not change the fact that we will all stand before God one
> day.
...except that your "fact" is nothing more than your wishful delusion.
I suppose that assuming your conclusion makes you less fearful of the
world around you, but it is no more a "fact" than assuming that Zeus is
superior to your particular deity. Feel free to live your life
according to whatever delusion you wish, but don't insist that others
must also live by them.
TyBreaker wrote:
> >>The books that comprise the Bible may have been combined as a single
> >>unit that long ago but each of the 66 books included vary in age by
> >>thousands of years, the youngest being those in the New Testament which
> >>experts estimate to be written a matter of decades after the life of
> >>Jesus. That makes the youngest books around 2000 years old give or take
> >>a few decades.
> >
> > Matter of opinion.
>
> Scientific analysis rather. The bible's texts have been well documented
> and exposed to public scrutiny for quite some time and nobody has proven
> them wrong. Age is often the very first thing validated before any
> further studying of ancient texts happens.
>
> > Court in the USofA has decreed the bible to be a work of fiction .. i'd
> > rather base my opinions in life on the present knowledge rather than some
> > work of fiction that cannot be validated and is zealously protected by
> > religious scholars ...
>
> Well, I would have to ask you what exactly is "present knowledge"?
> Isn't it the aggregate of knowledge that man has collected since the
> dawn of time? Everything we know now wasn't just learned in modern
> times. The Bible has also contributed to man's knowledge of many other
> things besides God such as knowledge of cultures, history etc.
>
> I'm unsure of the accuracy of your reference to a USA court declaring
> the Bible to be a work of fiction, it may help if you could include a
> reference. It sounds unlikely to me when their constitution is firmly
> entrenched in the bible. It is psychologically easier to ignore God if
> you can declare him a fiction -
Try this last statement replacing the word 'God' with gays, really
strange, huh?
> except that whether we choose to believe
> or not will not change the fact that we will all stand before God one
> day.
Ignoring gays seems a little pointless also.
> Our commission as Christians is to proclaim the good news of Jesus
> as our saviour, who died on the cross to pay for our sins and then rose
> again, so all who believe He has paid for their sins will be saved. It
> won't be some court in the USA adjudicating on that day, Jesus alone
> will be judge.
That sounds good, but I'll bet you can't get some of your "christian" friends
too accept that idea.
--
Fritz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Religion = dictator.
"TyBreaker" <tybreakerNO@no-spam> wrote in message
news:0EfBb.45644$aT.15511@no-spam
>
> Scientific analysis rather. The bible's texts have been well documented
> and exposed to public scrutiny for quite some time and nobody has proven
> them wrong. Age is often the very first thing validated before any
> further studying of ancient texts happens.
Nor have they been proven right.
> Well, I would have to ask you what exactly is "present knowledge"?
> Isn't it the aggregate of knowledge that man has collected since the
> dawn of time? Everything we know now wasn't just learned in modern
> times. The Bible has also contributed to man's knowledge of many other
> things besides God such as knowledge of cultures, history etc.
Again, given the questionable history of the bible it should not be used as
a historical guide ... it is simply a crutch for those who appear to need
something simply to survive.
> It is psychologically easier to ignore God if
> you can declare him a fiction - except that whether we choose to believe
Actually it's easier to ignore god because he doesn't exist.
> or not will not change the fact that we will all stand before God one
> day.
Actually, many of us believe that you guys are in for a severe
dissapointment at some stage.
> Our commission as Christians is to proclaim the good news of Jesus
> as our saviour, who died on the cross to pay for our sins and then rose
> again, so all who believe He has paid for their sins will be saved. It
> won't be some court in the USA adjudicating on that day, Jesus alone
> will be judge.
Ah .. god botherers ... love them all :o)
> I probably would have believed that then but my belief in the shape of
> the world is independant to my belief in God.
Irrelevant. Fact is that many years ago people believed based upon what
they thought were the facts. Facts have been proven to be different now and
we need to move with the times. Hanging onto the ignorant past doesn't get
us anywhere ...
> Also God would not reject
> anyone if they did not understand all the laws of physics (as I'm sure
> we still don't). God loves each one of us and seeks restoration to the
> relationship we have broken when we reject Him.
Actually, according to the bible, this fictional gods love is quite
conditional and thus, people reject the existance as nothing more than an
attempt by the church to control people who need something such as god to
justify existance. Yuo can believe what you like, but I pity people who
can't make their own decisions and who grasp at a work of fiction to allow
themselves to sleep at night.
>>Scientific analysis rather. The bible's texts have been well documented
>>and exposed to public scrutiny for quite some time and nobody has proven
>>them wrong. Age is often the very first thing validated before any
>>further studying of ancient texts happens.
>
>
> So you should be able to cite the scientific analysis or research that has
> established the age of the New Testament pretty easily then.
This is one of many places on the net. It's quite a mouthful but
suitably illustrates that complex, scientific thought has been used
rather than a group of Christians who may be considered biased:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible
So, you have turned to advocating scientific thought, Tybreaker?
Congratulations -- you must be making wonderful progress in therapy!
But for scientific thought on the issue at hand you need go no further
than the original post in this thread...
Homosexuality clearly is not normal or healthy sexual orientation. This
is a matter of universal, unchangeable scientific fact -- not of
debatable opinion. Sexuality in all life forms, from single cells to
plants and mammals, is defined only by reproductive potential. Human
sexuality is biologically and physiologically defined only by two
genders, male and female. Homosexuals differ from normal men and women
only in psychological and behavioural terms. Homosexuality, therefore,
is objectively a psychological and behavioural abnormality.
The abnormality of homosexuality has been widely recognised since the
dawn of history. It is strongly proscribed behaviour in Judaic,
Christian and Islamic doctrine. The great pioneer of psychoanalysis,
Sigmund Freud, defined homosexuality as a disorder of psychosexual
development. Homosexuality was classified in the American Psychiatric
Association's influential tome, the 'Diagnostic And Statistical Manual
Of Mental Disorders' (DSM) until the third edition (DSM-III) of the
early 1970s -- when it was removed by disreputable and unscientific
political pressure. The consequent opportunities for the delusional
behavioural disorders of homosexuality to find political expression have
been exploited to the point of being a pervert revolutionary menace to
healthy society. Pervert revolutionaries already are attacking marriage
and the institutions and values which support it; reproductive
technology; and the custody and education of vulnerable children.
Homosexuality must be restored to its proper status as a mental disorder.
[Vote against the insane pervert revolution and against the ACT Nohope
pervert revolutionary junta in BigPulse online polls at www.bigpulse.com]
TyBreaker wrote:
>>> Scientific analysis rather. The bible's texts have been well documented
>>> and exposed to public scrutiny for quite some time and nobody has proven
>>> them wrong. Age is often the very first thing validated before any
>>> further studying of ancient texts happens.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you should be able to cite the scientific analysis or research
>> that has
>> established the age of the New Testament pretty easily then.
>
>
> This is one of many places on the net. It's quite a mouthful but
> suitably illustrates that complex, scientific thought has been used
> rather than a group of Christians who may be considered biased:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible
>
"TyBreaker" <tybreakerNO@no-spam> wrote in message
news:HQXBb.48364$aT.13569@no-spam
> >>Scientific analysis rather. The bible's texts have been well documented
> >>and exposed to public scrutiny for quite some time and nobody has proven
> >>them wrong. Age is often the very first thing validated before any
> >>further studying of ancient texts happens.
> >
> >
> > So you should be able to cite the scientific analysis or research that
has
> > established the age of the New Testament pretty easily then.
>
> This is one of many places on the net. It's quite a mouthful but
> suitably illustrates that complex, scientific thought has been used
> rather than a group of Christians who may be considered biased:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible
>
As far as I can tell from reading that "scientific thought" is that they
really aren't sure when the New Testament was written, but are guessing at
some dates. So the age isn't reallly "validated". That's the same place
they were when I studied the matter thirty years ago.
"Dating and authorship of the New Testament is the subject of much study,
and much controversy. The traditional view is that the works were completed
within the lifetimes of the contemporaries of Jesus Christ. Some scholars
believe the dating to be much later. The situation is further complicated by
the fact that the Gospels draw on earlier sources. "
Saying something is "the traditional view" does not, by definition, make it
accurate.
> Again, given the questionable history of the bible it should not be used as
> a historical guide ... it is simply a crutch for those who appear to need
> something simply to survive.
Well it's true that archeologists wouldn't take the events in the Bible
as "a given" but it is true that they do find it a valuable resource as
they refer to it frequently. I have seen several documentaries on the
ABC and SBS where they have drawn on it to validate their theories on
ancient history.
Christians don't view it as a crutch, we view it as a stretcher. The
main reason for the Bible is to reveal God to us and how He plans to
save us.
> Actually it's easier to ignore god because he doesn't exist.
This verse indicates we all are aware God exists because of the miracle
of all He has created, despite not wanting to admit it perhaps:
Romans 1:20: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible
qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
I have seen enough documentaries of the human body and general wildlife
and nature etc to be convinced nothing so complex could be the result of
a series of flukes.
> Actually, many of us believe that you guys are in for a severe
> dissapointment at some stage.
We hope that as many come to know Jesus as possible because God has
promised eternity with Him in heaven. As beautiful as the earth is,
nothing can compare to heaven where sin is absent.
If I have to be purely logical, a big disappointment is still a lot
better than being wrong in the other camp. I mean, come on and check it
out at least. You will find a loving God who sent His only Son, Jesus
to save you because He loves you. If you have been turned off by
looking at the followers of Jesus, then take your eyes off them and look
at Jesus Himself. You will find nothing offensive in Him. God is Good.
> Ah .. god botherers ... love them all :o)
If you're in the neighborhood, the church I'm in is putting on Christmas
Carols at Callwell shops this Sunday 14th from 6:00-7:30pm. Come on
down and listen.
> we need to move with the times. Hanging onto the ignorant past doesn't get
> us anywhere ...
As the Bible is God's Word, it does not age. As essential as it was, it
still is. Is there anything you have in mind when you refer to it as dated?
> Actually, according to the bible, this fictional gods love is quite
> conditional and thus, people reject the existance as nothing more than an
This verse shows God's love is unconditional in that He chose to act
first to bring about reconciliation with us:
Romans 5:8: "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we
were still sinners, Christ died for us."
> justify existance. Yuo can believe what you like, but I pity
> people who can't make their own decisions and who grasp at a work of
> fiction to allow themselves to sleep at night.
Well I'm sure I could "get to sleep at night" without God as many do but
I have made my own decision and it is based on God whom I find to be a
sure thing. What is your decision and what is it based on?
Identification of homosexuality as a disorder does not begin with
religion. The opposition of all major religious doctrine to
homosexuality is merely a derivative of its objective abnormality. The
longstanding religious proscriptions of homosexuality are important,
even to the non-religious, as markers in the eternal social recognition
of homosexuality as perversion.
Homosexuality clearly is not normal or healthy sexual orientation. This
is a matter of universal, unchangeable scientific fact -- not of
debatable opinion. Sexuality in all life forms, from single cells to
plants and mammals, is defined only by reproductive potential. Human
sexuality is biologically and physiologically defined only by two
genders, male and female. Homosexuals differ from normal men and women
only in psychological and behavioural terms. Homosexuality, therefore,
is objectively a psychological and behavioural abnormality.
The abnormality of homosexuality has been widely recognised since the
dawn of history. It is strongly proscribed behaviour in Judaic,
Christian and Islamic doctrine. The great pioneer of psychoanalysis,
Sigmund Freud, defined homosexuality as a disorder of psychosexual
development. Homosexuality was classified in the American Psychiatric
Association's influential tome, the 'Diagnostic And Statistical Manual
Of Mental Disorders' (DSM) until the third edition (DSM-III) of the
early 1970s -- when it was removed by disreputable and unscientific
political pressure. The consequent opportunities for the delusional
behavioural disorders of homosexuality to find political expression have
been exploited to the point of being a pervert revolutionary menace to
healthy society. Pervert revolutionaries already are attacking marriage
and the institutions and values which support it; reproductive
technology; and the custody and education of vulnerable children.
Homosexuality must be restored to its proper status as a mental disorder.
[Vote against the insane pervert revolution and against the ACT Nohope
pervert revolutionary junta in BigPulse online polls at www.bigpulse.com]
TyBreaker wrote:
>>> Scientific analysis rather. The bible's texts have been well documented
>>> and exposed to public scrutiny for quite some time and nobody has proven
>>> them wrong. Age is often the very first thing validated before any
>>> further studying of ancient texts happens.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you should be able to cite the scientific analysis or research
>> that has
>> established the age of the New Testament pretty easily then.
>
>
> This is one of many places on the net. It's quite a mouthful but
> suitably illustrates that complex, scientific thought has been used
> rather than a group of Christians who may be considered biased:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible
>
Identification of homosexuality as a disorder does not begin with
religion. The opposition of all major religious doctrine to
homosexuality is merely derivative of its objective abnormality. The
longstanding religious proscriptions of homosexuality are important,
even to the non-religious, as markers in the eternal social recognition
of homosexuality as perversion. (To better understand perversion, see
post(s) below.)
Homosexuality clearly is not normal or healthy sexual orientation. This
is a matter of universal, unchangeable scientific fact -- not of
debatable opinion. Sexuality in all life forms, from single cells to
plants and mammals, is defined only by reproductive potential. Human
sexuality is biologically and physiologically defined only by two
genders, male and female. Homosexuals differ from normal men and women
only in psychological and behavioural terms. Homosexuality, therefore,
is objectively a psychological and behavioural abnormality.
The abnormality of homosexuality has been widely recognised since the
dawn of history. It is strongly proscribed behaviour in Judaic,
Christian and Islamic doctrine. The great pioneer of psychoanalysis,
Sigmund Freud, defined homosexuality as a disorder of psychosexual
development. Homosexuality was classified in the American Psychiatric
Association's influential tome, the 'Diagnostic And Statistical Manual
Of Mental Disorders' (DSM) until the third edition (DSM-III) of the
early 1970s -- when it was removed by disreputable and unscientific
political pressure. The consequent opportunities for the delusional
behavioural disorders of homosexuality to find political expression have
been exploited to the point of being a pervert revolutionary menace to
healthy society. Pervert revolutionaries already are attacking marriage
and the institutions and values which support it; reproductive
technology; and the custody and education of vulnerable children.
Homosexuality must be restored to its proper status as a mental disorder.
[Vote against the insane pervert revolution and against the ACT Nohope
pervert revolutionary junta in BigPulse online polls at www.bigpulse.com]
TyBreaker wrote:
>> Again, given the questionable history of the bible it should not be
>> used as
>> a historical guide ... it is simply a crutch for those who appear to need
>> something simply to survive.
>
>
> Well it's true that archeologists wouldn't take the events in the
> Bible as "a given" but it is true that they do find it a valuable
> resource as they refer to it frequently. I have seen several
> documentaries on the ABC and SBS where they have drawn on it to
> validate their theories on ancient history.
>
> Christians don't view it as a crutch, we view it as a stretcher. The
> main reason for the Bible is to reveal God to us and how He plans to
> save us.
>
>> Actually it's easier to ignore god because he doesn't exist.
>
>
> This verse indicates we all are aware God exists because of the
> miracle of all He has created, despite not wanting to admit it perhaps:
>
> Romans 1:20: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible
> qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly
> seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are
> without excuse."
>
> I have seen enough documentaries of the human body and general
> wildlife and nature etc to be convinced nothing so complex could be
> the result of a series of flukes.
>
>> Actually, many of us believe that you guys are in for a severe
>> dissapointment at some stage.
>
>
> We hope that as many come to know Jesus as possible because God has
> promised eternity with Him in heaven. As beautiful as the earth is,
> nothing can compare to heaven where sin is absent.
>
> If I have to be purely logical, a big disappointment is still a lot
> better than being wrong in the other camp. I mean, come on and check
> it out at least. You will find a loving God who sent His only Son,
> Jesus to save you because He loves you. If you have been turned off
> by looking at the followers of Jesus, then take your eyes off them and
> look at Jesus Himself. You will find nothing offensive in Him. God
> is Good.
>
>> Ah .. god botherers ... love them all :o)
>
>
> If you're in the neighborhood, the church I'm in is putting on
> Christmas Carols at Callwell shops this Sunday 14th from 6:00-7:30pm.
> Come on down and listen.
>
>> we need to move with the times. Hanging onto the ignorant past
>> doesn't get
>> us anywhere ...
>
>
> As the Bible is God's Word, it does not age. As essential as it was,
> it still is. Is there anything you have in mind when you refer to it
> as dated?
>
>> Actually, according to the bible, this fictional gods love is quite
>> conditional and thus, people reject the existance as nothing more than an
>
>
> This verse shows God's love is unconditional in that He chose to act
> first to bring about reconciliation with us:
>
> Romans 5:8: "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While
> we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
>
> > justify existance. Yuo can believe what you like, but I pity
> > people who can't make their own decisions and who grasp at a work of
> > fiction to allow themselves to sleep at night.
>
> Well I'm sure I could "get to sleep at night" without God as many do
> but I have made my own decision and it is based on God whom I find to
> be a sure thing. What is your decision and what is it based on?
>
Identification of homosexuality as a disorder does not begin with
religion. The opposition of all major religious doctrine to
homosexuality is merely derivative of its objective abnormality. The
longstanding religious proscriptions of homosexuality therefore are
important, even to the non-religious, as markers in the eternal social
recognition of homosexuality as perversion. (To better understand
homosexual perversion and delusional behavioural disorders, see posts
below from two classic pervert lobbyists.)
Homosexuality clearly is not normal or healthy sexual orientation. This
is a matter of universal, unchangeable scientific fact -- not of
debatable opinion. Sexuality in all life forms, from single cells to
plants and mammals, is defined only by reproductive potential. Human
sexuality is biologically and physiologically defined only by two
genders, male and female. Homosexuals differ from normal men and women
only in psychological and behavioural terms. Homosexuality, therefore,
is objectively a psychological and behavioural abnormality.
The abnormality of homosexuality has been widely recognised since the
dawn of history. It is strongly proscribed behaviour in Judaic,
Christian and Islamic doctrine. The great pioneer of psychoanalysis,
Sigmund Freud, defined homosexuality as a disorder of psychosexual
development. Homosexuality was classified in the American Psychiatric
Association's influential tome, the 'Diagnostic And Statistical Manual
Of Mental Disorders' (DSM) until the third edition (DSM-III) of the
early 1970s -- when it was removed by disreputable and unscientific
political pressure. The consequent opportunities for the delusional
behavioural disorders of homosexuality to find political expression have
been exploited to the point of being a pervert revolutionary menace to
healthy society. Pervert revolutionaries already are attacking marriage
and the institutions and values which support it; reproductive
technology; and the custody and education of vulnerable children.
Homosexuality must be restored to its proper status as a mental disorder.
[Vote against the insane pervert revolution and against the ACT Nohope
pervert revolutionary junta in BigPulse online polls at www.bigpulse.com]
Light Templar wrote:
>"TyBreaker" <tybreakerNO@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:HQXBb.48364$aT.13569@no-spam
>
>
>>>>Scientific analysis rather. The bible's texts have been well documented
>>>>and exposed to public scrutiny for quite some time and nobody has proven
>>>>them wrong. Age is often the very first thing validated before any
>>>>further studying of ancient texts happens.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>So you should be able to cite the scientific analysis or research that
>>>
>>>
>has
>
>
>>>established the age of the New Testament pretty easily then.
>>>
>>>
>>This is one of many places on the net. It's quite a mouthful but
>>suitably illustrates that complex, scientific thought has been used
>>rather than a group of Christians who may be considered biased:
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible
>>
>>
>>
>
>As far as I can tell from reading that "scientific thought" is that they
>really aren't sure when the New Testament was written, but are guessing at
>some dates. So the age isn't reallly "validated". That's the same place
>they were when I studied the matter thirty years ago.
>
>"Dating and authorship of the New Testament is the subject of much study,
>and much controversy. The traditional view is that the works were completed
>within the lifetimes of the contemporaries of Jesus Christ. Some scholars
>believe the dating to be much later. The situation is further complicated by
>the fact that the Gospels draw on earlier sources. "
>
>Saying something is "the traditional view" does not, by definition, make it
>accurate.
>
>
>
>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
Identification of homosexuality as a disorder does not begin with religion.
The opposition of all major religious doctrine to homosexuality is merely
derivative of its objective abnormality. The longstanding religious proscriptions
of homosexuality therefore are important, even to the non-religious, as markers
in the eternal social recognition of homosexuality as perversion. (To better
understand homosexual perversion and delusional behavioural disorders, see
posts below from two classic pervert lobbyists.)<br>
<br>
Homosexuality clearly is not normal or healthy sexual orientation. This
is a matter of universal, unchangeable scientific fact -- not of debatable
opinion. Sexuality in all life forms, from single cells to plants and mammals,
is defined only by reproductive potential. Human sexuality is biologically
and physiologically defined only by two genders, male and female. Homosexuals
differ from normal men and women only in psychological and behavioural terms.
Homosexuality, therefore, is objectively a psychological and behavioural
abnormality.<br>
<br>
The abnormality of homosexuality has been widely recognised since the dawn
of history. It is strongly proscribed behaviour in Judaic, Christian and
Islamic doctrine. The great pioneer of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, defined
homosexuality as a disorder of psychosexual development. Homosexuality was
classified in the American Psychiatric Association's influential tome, the
'Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders' (DSM) until the third
edition (DSM-III) of the early 1970s -- when it was removed by disreputable
and unscientific political pressure. The consequent opportunities for the
delusional behavioural disorders of homosexuality to find political expression
have been exploited to the point of being a pervert revolutionary menace
to healthy society. Pervert revolutionaries already are attacking marriage
and the institutions and values which support it; reproductive technology;
and the custody and education of vulnerable children.<br>
<br>
Homosexuality must be restored to its proper status as a mental disorder.<br>
<br>
[Vote against the insane pervert revolution and against the ACT Nohope pervert
revolutionary junta in BigPulse online polls at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.bigpulse.com">www.bigpulse.com</a>]<br>
<br>
<br>
Light Templar wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midZnYBb.9844$rP6.4577@no-spam">
<pre wrap="">"TyBreaker" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tybreakerNO@no-spam"><tybreakerNO@no-spam</a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:HQXBb.48364$aT.13569@no-spam">news:HQXBb.48364$aT.13569@no-spam</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Scientific analysis rather. The bible's texts have been well documented
and exposed to public scrutiny for quite some time and nobody has proven
them wrong. Age is often the very first thing validated before any
further studying of ancient texts happens.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
So you should be able to cite the scientific analysis or research that
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->has
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">established the age of the New Testament pretty easily then.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">This is one of many places on the net. It's quite a mouthful but
suitably illustrates that complex, scientific thought has been used
rather than a group of Christians who may be considered biased:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
As far as I can tell from reading that "scientific thought" is that they
really aren't sure when the New Testament was written, but are guessing at
some dates. So the age isn't reallly "validated". That's the same place
they were when I studied the matter thirty years ago.
"Dating and authorship of the New Testament is the subject of much study,
and much controversy. The traditional view is that the works were completed
within the lifetimes of the contemporaries of Jesus Christ. Some scholars
believe the dating to be much later. The situation is further complicated by
the fact that the Gospels draw on earlier sources. "
Saying something is "the traditional view" does not, by definition, make it
accurate.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
"God is so weak he can't stand up to the truth"....
"G.A. Thompson" <g_a_thompson@no-spam> wrote
> Identification of homosexuality as a disorder does not begin
> with religion.
Religion wasn't invented until 1932. Everybody knows that.
> The opposition of all major religious doctrine to homosexuality
You need to pretend that all so-called "Christians" belong to the
same religions, in order to claim that "Christianity" is a major
religion.
The Southern Baptist, for example, totally disagree with your
position. They claim that Catholics do not practice the same
religion as they do.
In addition to pretending that all "Christians" practice the same
religion, you'd also have to pretend that all Christian sects share
your views on homosexuality. They do not.
But, just the same, here's a list of the world's "Major" religions.
Restricting yourself to the top ten, which do you imagine are
opposing gay people?
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
JTEM's post (see below), speaks for itself, especially when compared to
the full text of the message to which it responds:
Identification of homosexuality as a disorder does not begin with
religion. The opposition of all major religious doctrine to
homosexuality is merely a derivative of its objective abnormality. The
longstanding religious proscriptions of homosexuality are important,
even to the non-religious, as markers in the eternal social recognition
of homosexuality as perversion.
Homosexuality clearly is not normal or healthy sexual orientation. This
is a matter of universal, unchangeable scientific fact -- not of
debatable opinion. Sexuality in all life forms, from single cells to
plants and mammals, is defined only by reproductive potential. Human
sexuality is biologically and physiologically defined only by two
genders, male and female. Homosexuals differ from normal men and women
only in psychological and behavioural terms. Homosexuality, therefore,
is objectively a psychological and behavioural abnormality.
The abnormality of homosexuality has been widely recognised since the
dawn of history. It is strongly proscribed behaviour in Judaic,
Christian and Islamic doctrine. The great pioneer of psychoanalysis,
Sigmund Freud, defined homosexuality as a disorder of psychosexual
development. Homosexuality was classified in the American Psychiatric
Association's influential tome, the 'Diagnostic And Statistical Manual
Of Mental Disorders' (DSM) until the third edition (DSM-III) of the
early 1970s -- when it was removed by disreputable and unscientific
political pressure. The consequent opportunities for the delusional
behavioural disorders of homosexuality to find political expression have
been exploited to the point of being a pervert revolutionary menace to
healthy society. Pervert revolutionaries already are attacking marriage
and the institutions and values which support it; reproductive
technology; and the custody and education of vulnerable children.
Homosexuality must be restored to its proper status as a mental disorder.
[Vote against the insane pervert revolution and against the ACT Nohope
pervert revolutionary junta in BigPulse online polls at www.bigpulse.com]
JTEM wrote:
>"God is so weak he can't stand up to the truth"....
>
>"G.A. Thompson" <g_a_thompson@no-spam> wrote
>
>
>>Identification of homosexuality as a disorder does not begin
>>with religion.
>>
>>
>
>Religion wasn't invented until 1932. Everybody knows that.
>
>
>
>>The opposition of all major religious doctrine to homosexuality
>>
>>
>
>You need to pretend that all so-called "Christians" belong to the
>same religions, in order to claim that "Christianity" is a major
>religion.
>
>The Southern Baptist, for example, totally disagree with your
>position. They claim that Catholics do not practice the same
>religion as they do.
>
>In addition to pretending that all "Christians" practice the same
>religion, you'd also have to pretend that all Christian sects share
>your views on homosexuality. They do not.
>
>But, just the same, here's a list of the world's "Major" religions.
>Restricting yourself to the top ten, which do you imagine are
>opposing gay people?
>
>http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
JTEM's post (see below), speaks for itself, especially when compared to
the full text of the message to which it responds:<br>
<br>
Identification of homosexuality as a disorder does not begin with religion.
The opposition of all major religious doctrine to homosexuality is merely
a derivative of its objective abnormality. The longstanding religious proscriptions
of homosexuality are important, even to the non-religious, as markers in
the eternal social recognition of homosexuality as perversion.<br>
<br>
Homosexuality clearly is not normal or healthy sexual orientation. This
is a matter of universal, unchangeable scientific fact -- not of debatable
opinion. Sexuality in all life forms, from single cells to plants and mammals,
is defined only by reproductive potential. Human sexuality is biologically
and physiologically defined only by two genders, male and female. Homosexuals
differ from normal men and women only in psychological and behavioural terms.
Homosexuality, therefore, is objectively a psychological and behavioural
abnormality.<br>
<br>
The abnormality of homosexuality has been widely recognised since the dawn
of history. It is strongly proscribed behaviour in Judaic, Christian and
Islamic doctrine. The great pioneer of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, defined
homosexuality as a disorder of psychosexual development. Homosexuality was
classified in the American Psychiatric Association's influential tome, the
'Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders' (DSM) until the third
edition (DSM-III) of the early 1970s -- when it was removed by disreputable
and unscientific political pressure. The consequent opportunities for the
delusional behavioural disorders of homosexuality to find political expression
have been exploited to the point of being a pervert revolutionary menace
to healthy society. Pervert revolutionaries already are attacking marriage
and the institutions and values which support it; reproductive technology;
and the custody and education of vulnerable children.<br>
<br>
Homosexuality must be restored to its proper status as a mental disorder.<br>
<br>
[Vote against the insane pervert revolution and against the ACT Nohope pervert
revolutionary junta in BigPulse online polls at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.bigpulse.com">www.bigpulse.com</a>]<br>
<br>
<br>
JTEM wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid7_Sdnelpi4jq7kWiRVn-tA@no-spam">
<pre wrap="">"God is so weak he can't stand up to the truth"....
"G.A. Thompson" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:g_a_thompson@no-spam"><g_a_thompson@no-spam</a> wrote
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Identification of homosexuality as a disorder does not begin
with religion.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Religion wasn't invented until 1932. Everybody knows that.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The opposition of all major religious doctrine to homosexuality
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
You need to pretend that all so-called "Christians" belong to the
same religions, in order to claim that "Christianity" is a major
religion.
The Southern Baptist, for example, totally disagree with your
position. They claim that Catholics do not practice the same
religion as they do.
In addition to pretending that all "Christians" practice the same
religion, you'd also have to pretend that all Christian sects share
your views on homosexuality. They do not.
But, just the same, here's a list of the world's "Major" religions.
Restricting yourself to the top ten, which do you imagine are
opposing gay people?
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html">http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
"VH-CBR" <fake@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3fd43063@no-spam>...
> "G.A. Thompson" <g_a_thompson@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3FD39026.7070002@no-spam
> The original post does not mention hate or poofters, RT. It speaks for
> itself. Read it again, as you clearly have not got the message...
>
>
>
>
> A common problem obviously becasue clearly "the message" is something your
> tiny delusional mind is incapable of grasping ...
Hmmm..that kind of language reminds me of those angry underachievers
in high school...kind of Year8 level.
Tell me, is this moniker you seem so proud of "VH-CBR" the code
printed on the side of your Action-Man [TM] motorbike?
"G.A. Thompson" <g_a_thompson@no-spam> wrote
> JTEM's post (see below), speaks for itself,
You believe that your "God" is so weak & pathetic that "He"
dare not stand up to the truth. This is why you have to lie.
> Identification of homosexuality as a disorder does not begin with
> religion.
Your own conclusion is that it does. Sure, you have to rape the truth
in order to get at your conclusion, but that didn't stop you. Here, I'll
demonstrate:
> The opposition of all major religious doctrine to homosexuality
So, here we see that you pretend that all major religions are against
homosexuality -- a demonstrable lie, and one that flies in the face
of your own dishonest conclusion. You begin by pretending that
your religion isn't used to justify your homophobia, and then
immediately introduce religion in justification of your homophobia.
Pretend that all self-described "Christians" belong to the same
religion -- something the so-called "Christians" claim is not true
at all (Southern Baptists & Catholics, for example) -- and further
pretending that all Christian sects worship your homophobia (they
do not), why don't you identify which of the top ten religions you
believe have a problem with homosexuality:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
> Homosexuality clearly is not normal or healthy sexual orientation.
Of course it's normal! It's every bit as "normal" as blond hair and being
left-handed. Another comparison that holds is blue eyes, a rarity
(at best) for the vast majority of the world's population.... including all
Africans, Asains and the native peoples of North & South America.
Blue eyes are almost exclusively limited to a subset of Europians.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is found everywhere, on every
continent and in every culture. You can't get any more "normal" than
that.
As for "healthy," there is nothing unhealthy about homosexuality.
Sleeping around is risky to your health, yeah, but it's risky to your
health weather you're gay or straight. Homosexuality itself doesn't
add any risks.
You're just plain dishonest.
> The abnormality of homosexuality has been widely recognised
> since the dawn of history.
This is demonstrably false, even ignoring the fact that the ancient
world didn't share our concept of homosexuality. Their sexual
taboos weren't so much based on the gender of your partner as
they were on sexual roles, and how these related to class &
standing.
The Greeks, Romans & Egyptians, for example, left us with numerous
examples of socially-approved behavior that we (in our modern
world) associate with "homosexuality." Their view on homosexuality
was no different than their (or your) view on heterosexuality. There
were certain behaviors that were socially unacceptable (or "sinful")
and there were others which were not. It's not the fact that they were
homosexual or heterosexual that was socially unacceptable
(or "sinful"), it was the type of behavior they engaged in.
> Homosexuality must be restored to its proper status as a mental disorder.
Oddly, homosexuality was never a mental disorder. It was once mistaken
as such -- the same way Polio was mistakenly believed to be associated
with the water -- but that error did not change reality.
"G.A. Thompson" wrote:
> So, you have turned to advocating scientific thought, Tybreaker?
> Congratulations -- you must be making wonderful progress in therapy!
> But for scientific thought on the issue at hand you need go no further
> than the original post in this thread...
>
> Homosexuality clearly is not normal or healthy sexual orientation. This
> is a matter of universal, unchangeable scientific fact -- not of
> debatable opinion.
But you give your opinion anyway.
> Sexuality in all life forms, from single cells to
> plants and mammals, is defined only by reproductive potential. Human
> sexuality is biologically and physiologically defined only by two
> genders, male and female. Homosexuals differ from normal men and women
> only in psychological and behavioural terms. Homosexuality, therefore,
> is objectively a psychological and behavioural abnormality.
So then, why all this prurient interest in the sex lives of gays?
Unless you're gay yourself, or just another homophobe?
Or maybe you have some other reason for pointing out, so called,
defects in others.
> The abnormality of homosexuality has been widely recognised since the
> dawn of history.
If, as you say, homosexuality has been around since the dawn of
history, then how can it be 'abnormal' ? I guess you're saying that
because some people didn't like it, it's considered abnormal? Now
there's a thought.
> It is strongly proscribed behaviour in Judaic,
> Christian and Islamic doctrine.
Some people didn't like it.
> The great pioneer of psychoanalysis,
> Sigmund Freud, defined homosexuality as a disorder of psychosexual
> development. Homosexuality was classified in the American Psychiatric
> Association's influential tome, the 'Diagnostic And Statistical Manual
> Of Mental Disorders' (DSM) until the third edition (DSM-III) of the
> early 1970s -- when it was removed by disreputable and unscientific
> political pressure.
That should tell you something right there.
> The consequent opportunities for the delusional
> behavioural disorders of homosexuality to find political expression have
> been exploited to the point of being a pervert revolutionary menace to
> healthy society.
Yes, the christian right in particular.
> Pervert revolutionaries already are attacking marriage
> and the institutions and values which support it; reproductive
> technology; and the custody and education of vulnerable children.
>
> Homosexuality must be restored to its proper status as a mental disorder.
You mean like, putting the genie back in the bottle ?
--
Fritz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Religion = dictator.
"Arthur Brain" <Arthur_Brain_1@no-spam> wrote in message
news:f3125902.0312110656.270aa35a@no-spam
> "VH-CBR" <fake@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<3fd43063@no-spam>...
>
> Hmmm..that kind of language reminds me of those angry underachievers
> in high school...kind of Year8 level.
>
> Tell me, is this moniker you seem so proud of "VH-CBR" the code
> printed on the side of your Action-Man [TM] motorbike?
To hard to stick to the subject at hand eh?
I'm now happy in the knowledge that I stand superior in this discussion ....
game over.
"VH-CBR" <fake@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3fd8ced1@no-spam
>
> "Arthur Brain" <Arthur_Brain_1@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:f3125902.0312110656.270aa35a@no-spam
> > "VH-CBR" <fake@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:<3fd43063@no-spam>...
> >
> > Hmmm..that kind of language reminds me of those angry underachievers
> > in high school...kind of Year8 level.
> >
> > Tell me, is this moniker you seem so proud of "VH-CBR" the code
> > printed on the side of your Action-Man [TM] motorbike?
>
> To hard to stick to the subject at hand eh?
>
> I'm now happy in the knowledge that I stand superior in this discussion
....
> game over.
>
>
He seems rather angry and bitter, doesn't he? Well, if you cant convince,
then insult I guess.
"G.A. Thompson" <g_a_thompson@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FD84D7A.7020403@no-spam
> So, you have turned to advocating scientific thought, Tybreaker?
well it's one step up from ranting the same illogical, inaccurate garbage
that dribbles from your mouth....
"G.A. Thompson" <g_a_thompson@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FD8681A.20706@no-spam
Identification of homosexuality as a disorder does not begin with religion.
Correct. It begins with homophobia.... but you are using religion to
justify your fear of what you don't understand....
"G.A. Thompson" <g_a_thompson@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FD866D4.5090309@no-spam
You do realise that you'd look less of a complete idiot if you actually
wrote your own stuff rather than quoting ad nauseum stuff written by others?
right now I can picture you on a street corner with one of those "the end is
nigh" plakards
"Light Templar" <I@no-spam> wrote in message
news:oo6Cb.10440$rP6.6522@no-spam
>
> He seems rather angry and bitter, doesn't he? Well, if you cant
convince,
> then insult I guess.
Personally, i just don't get it .. it's not like homosexuals jump out of
alleys and drag hetrosexuals in there and force us to be homosexuals or
anything .. live and let live I reckon ... and as for adoption, even if it's
legal it is still not going to be easy for a gay couple to adopt. I reckon
if they get through the adoption process then the kids will be far better
off than with 1/2 the bloody parents out there today.
"VH-CBR" <fake@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3fd9549f$1@no-spam
>
> "Light Templar" <I@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:oo6Cb.10440$rP6.6522@no-spam
> >
> > He seems rather angry and bitter, doesn't he? Well, if you cant
> convince,
> > then insult I guess.
>
> Personally, i just don't get it .. it's not like homosexuals jump out of
> alleys and drag hetrosexuals in there and force us to be homosexuals or
> anything .. live and let live I reckon ... and as for adoption, even if
it's
> legal it is still not going to be easy for a gay couple to adopt. I
reckon
> if they get through the adoption process then the kids will be far better
> off than with 1/2 the bloody parents out there today.
>
>
It's not easy for anyone to adopt. Heterosexual and homosexual couples
should
simply have an equal opportunity to adopt, but neither should have the
automatic
right to adopt and should have to meet equal criteria for adoption to at
least try to
ensure that the kids are going to good homes.
"VH-CBR" <fake@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3fd9549f$1@no-spam>...
> "Light Templar" <I@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:oo6Cb.10440$rP6.6522@no-spam
> >
> > He seems rather angry and bitter, doesn't he? Well, if you cant
> convince,
> > then insult I guess.
>
> Personally, i just don't get it .. it's not like homosexuals jump out of
> alleys and drag hetrosexuals in there and force us to be homosexuals or
> anything .. live and let live I reckon ... and as for adoption, even if it's
> legal it is still not going to be easy for a gay couple to adopt. I reckon
> if they get through the adoption process then the kids will be far better
> off than with 1/2 the bloody parents out there today.
You still on about your disgusting perversion, are you?
Look, we don't hate you, we aren't scared of you, we just care.
We feel your suffering, and we wish people didn't have to suffer from
a mental disorder that causes so many people to think so little of
themselves that they go to public toilets to have sex with strangers.
And in return for our caring attitude, what do we get?
Vilification, insults, and general all-round nastiness.
Even worse, some homsoexuals are actually using their influence to
create a kind of Stalinesque intolerance to diversity of opinion as
evidenced by the Bishop who had to put up with a police interrogation
after suggesting homosexuals should seek help:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3255461.stm
"Arthur Brain" <Arthur_Brain_1@no-spam> wrote in message
news:f3125902.0312120350.2df5ce6@no-spam
> "VH-CBR" <fake@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<3fd9549f$1@no-spam>...
> > "Light Templar" <I@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:oo6Cb.10440$rP6.6522@no-spam
> > >
> > > He seems rather angry and bitter, doesn't he? Well, if you cant
> > convince,
> > > then insult I guess.
> >
> > Personally, i just don't get it .. it's not like homosexuals jump out of
> > alleys and drag hetrosexuals in there and force us to be homosexuals or
> > anything .. live and let live I reckon ... and as for adoption, even if
it's
> > legal it is still not going to be easy for a gay couple to adopt. I
reckon
> > if they get through the adoption process then the kids will be far
better
> > off than with 1/2 the bloody parents out there today.
>
> You still on about your disgusting perversion, are you?
Did you have anything to say after that? Sorry, can't seem to hear you.
"Light Templar" <I@no-spam> wrote in message news:<I3iCb.87$0s2.45@no-spam>...
> "Arthur Brain" <Arthur_Brain_1@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:f3125902.0312120350.2df5ce6@no-spam
> > "VH-CBR" <fake@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:<3fd9549f$1@no-spam>...
> > > "Light Templar" <I@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:oo6Cb.10440$rP6.6522@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > He seems rather angry and bitter, doesn't he? Well, if you cant
> convince,
> > > > then insult I guess.
> > >
> > > Personally, i just don't get it .. it's not like homosexuals jump out of
> > > alleys and drag hetrosexuals in there and force us to be homosexuals or
> > > anything .. live and let live I reckon ... and as for adoption, even if
> it's
> > > legal it is still not going to be easy for a gay couple to adopt. I
> reckon
> > > if they get through the adoption process then the kids will be far
> better
> > > off than with 1/2 the bloody parents out there today.
> >
> > You still on about your disgusting perversion, are you?
>
> Did you have anything to say after that? Sorry, can't seem to hear you.
Hmmm, denial, delusion, sexual perversion....please get help.
Look, we don't hate you, we aren't scared of you, we just care.
We feel your suffering, and we wish people didn't have to suffer from
a mental disorder that causes so many people to think so little of
themselves that they go to public toilets to have sex with strangers.
And in return for our caring attitude, what do we get?
Vilification, insults, and general all-round nastiness.
Even worse, some homsoexuals are actually using their influence to
create a kind of Stalinesque intolerance to diversity of opinion as
evidenced by the Bishop who had to put up with a police interrogation
after suggesting homosexuals should seek help:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3255461.stm
Arthur Brain wrote:
> "VH-CBR" <fake@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3fd9549f$1@no-spam>...
> > "Light Templar" <I@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:oo6Cb.10440$rP6.6522@no-spam
> > >
> > > He seems rather angry and bitter, doesn't he? Well, if you cant
> > convince,
> > > then insult I guess.
> >
> > Personally, i just don't get it .. it's not like homosexuals jump out of
> > alleys and drag hetrosexuals in there and force us to be homosexuals or
> > anything .. live and let live I reckon ... and as for adoption, even if it's
> > legal it is still not going to be easy for a gay couple to adopt. I reckon
> > if they get through the adoption process then the kids will be far better
> > off than with 1/2 the bloody parents out there today.
>
> You still on about your disgusting perversion, are you?
>
> Look, we don't hate you, we aren't scared of you, we just care.
>
> We feel your suffering, and we wish people didn't have to suffer from
> a mental disorder that causes so many people to think so little of
> themselves that they go to public toilets to have sex with strangers.
>
> And in return for our caring attitude, what do we get?
> Vilification, insults, and general all-round nastiness.
> Even worse, some homsoexuals are actually using their influence to
> create a kind of Stalinesque intolerance to diversity of opinion as
> evidenced by the Bishop who had to put up with a police interrogation
> after suggesting homosexuals should seek help:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3255461.stm
One difference between him and your self is, he admitted
that he didn't know what the hell he was talking about.
--
Fritz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Religion = dictator.
"Arthur Brain" <Arthur_Brain_1@no-spam> wrote in message
news:f3125902.0312120350.2df5ce6@no-spam
> "VH-CBR" <fake@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<3fd9549f$1@no-spam>...
>
> You still on about your disgusting perversion, are you?
Which disgusting perversion is that .. I have so many ....
> Look, we don't hate you, we aren't scared of you, we just care.
ROFL ... i am so pleased to hear that .....
> We feel your suffering, and we wish people didn't have to suffer from
> a mental disorder that causes so many people to think so little of
> themselves that they go to public toilets to have sex with strangers.
I suspect the mental disorder is yours ... not only that .. you're
obviously a complete idiot.
> And in return for our caring attitude, what do we get?
Caring? Your attitude is insulting, ignorant and lacking any basis in
fact. You care only about yourself and your fear ridden attitude to life.
You are a pathetic individual who's an embarrasment to society. You are
the one with the mental defect, and you are the one who needs medical
attention.
> Vilification, insults, and general all-round nastiness.
Why not, your behaviour not only breaches all moral codes, it breaches the
law in this country. Your behaviour in these forums opens you up for legal
action and I hope one day someone does that for you.
> Even worse, some homsoexuals are actually using their influence to
> create a kind of Stalinesque intolerance to diversity of opinion as
> evidenced by the Bishop who had to put up with a police interrogation
> after suggesting homosexuals should seek help:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3255461.stm
So what .. if they give a little back than they get from f.ckwits like you
... I say good on them. Bishops who are anti-homosexual should be
sacked, just as those who vehemently and ignorantly attack homosexuals as
you do should be silenced as well. (in a legal manner of course)
"Arthur Brain" <Arthur_Brain_1@no-spam> wrote in message
news:f3125902.0312120644.5f93bd66@no-spam
>
> Hmmm, denial, delusion, sexual perversion....please get help.
as opposed to your ignorance, ASSumptions and fear ridden rants?
> Look, we don't hate you, we aren't scared of you, we just care.
Yes you do, yes you are, no you don't.
"Arthur Brain" <Arthur_Brain_1@no-spam> wrote in message
news:f3125902.0312120644.5f93bd66@no-spam
> "Light Templar" <I@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<I3iCb.87$0s2.45@no-spam>...
> > "Arthur Brain" <Arthur_Brain_1@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:f3125902.0312120350.2df5ce6@no-spam
> > > "VH-CBR" <fake@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:<3fd9549f$1@no-spam>...
> > > > "Light Templar" <I@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:oo6Cb.10440$rP6.6522@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > > He seems rather angry and bitter, doesn't he? Well, if you cant
> > convince,
> > > > > then insult I guess.
> > > >
> > > > Personally, i just don't get it .. it's not like homosexuals jump
out of
> > > > alleys and drag hetrosexuals in there and force us to be homosexuals
or
> > > > anything .. live and let live I reckon ... and as for adoption, even
if
> > it's
> > > > legal it is still not going to be easy for a gay couple to adopt.
I
> > reckon
> > > > if they get through the adoption process then the kids will be far
> > better
> > > > off than with 1/2 the bloody parents out there today.
> > >
> > > You still on about your disgusting perversion, are you?
> >
> > Did you have anything to say after that? Sorry, can't seem to hear you.
>
What? You'll have to speak up boy! I can't hear insults these days.
"VH-CBR" <fake@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3fda3e71@no-spam>...
> "Arthur Brain" <Arthur_Brain_1@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:f3125902.0312120350.2df5ce6@no-spam
>
> > And in return for our caring attitude, what do we get?
>
> Caring? Your attitude is insulting, ignorant and lacking any basis in
> fact.
1/ You are unable to provide any facts that prove me wrong - because
as we all know, there aren't any.
2/ Recognising a disorder/medical condition does not equate with
insulting somebody.
Or are you saying that people who have mental disorders are inferior
or somehow vile?
