King james was gay!

[thebrucebeat]

Whether I do or not doesn't attribute the rise or fall to gays having rights.

Damn, you're right. I remember homosexuals riding in the back of buses, the water fountains that declared "no cocksuckers" and the straight only lunch counters...

Gays have a long history of persecution in this country, thoroughly documented.
You can start by going to Matthew Sheppard's grave and asking what he thinks.

So, Sheppard died because it was legal to drag him behind a pickup?

Wow, the things I learn from zealots who are not bound by factual dissertation...

Lynchings also were not legal.
What does this have to do with persecution?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Homosexuals have never been persecuted in my lifetime.

Lack of special privilege is not, nor has ever been "persecution."



Do you believe America is healthy and on the rise?

Whether I do or not doesn't attribute the rise or fall to gays having rights.
Gays have a long history of persecution in this country, thoroughly documented.
You can start by going to Matthew Sheppard's grave and asking what he thinks.

The Matthew Sheppard story changed and was never reported correctly so it is just a slam on anyone who doesn't think homosexually.

How does one "think homosexually"?
LOLOLOL!!!!
What changes to the story indicate a slam on hate?

 

[Newby]

I don't think it matters a whit that KJ was gay. Many gays are closeted because of the bigotry of their fellow congregants. No big news story. Leaders pander to their constituents.
No big news story there.

As to justifying bad behavior, Christians do that constantly on these threads.
Paul states clearly how a truly indwelt believer should appear.
Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
The Fruits of the Spirit.
How incredibly infrequent it is to find a believer on here that exhibits these traits, or corrects to them when this is pointed out. They always tend to make excuses for why that just doesn't apply to them.
As for having a loving relationship with another consenting adult, maybe scripture just plain got it wrong.
Or more likely it represents a moment in cultural time as people tried to understand god and desperately find a way to beat their mortality, as man has always done.

Are you contending that Paul was saying that once indwelt by the spirit that you are without sin?

I am saying, just as clearly as Paul did, that these are the traits of a person who has been truly indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Why is this confusing, and why is it not what you and other angry Christians aspire to?
I never understand this.

Why does Paul spend much of his time teaching Christians and/or admonishing Christians about their behavior? According to you, once 'indwelt by the spirit' there should be no such need? So, it's either one way or the other according to you, you're either indwelt and therefore 'perfect', or you're still a sinner showing that you're not really a true Christian. Unfotunately for you, that's not how it works.

And I haven't seen anyone angry here? Perhaps it's your definition of 'anger' that should be held up to the light?

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's not an answer.
You haven't shown where anything has been altered.
You have STATED they have, but provided no reason for anyone to give that statement any credibility.

The technique of gathering snippets and building a slanderous picture is well known. The difference here is the concerted effort of an agenda driven lobby to create a fabricated presentation of a historical figure.

I know you desire that I do battle with your straw man, but I have little interest. Your argument regarding King James is based on hearsay and innuendo from the Catholic Church. I pointed out at the start that using the Catholics to Impugn James is about as valid as Obama offering a critique of Ayn Rand.

Where you jump the tracks Bruce, is in assuming I lend credence to your argments; which I don't. You are an ideologue promoting an agenda. I always pull on threads from those such as you.

 

[Chuckt]

I don't think it matters a whit that KJ was gay. Many gays are closeted because of the bigotry of their fellow congregants. No big news story. Leaders pander to their constituents.
No big news story there.

As to justifying bad behavior, Christians do that constantly on these threads.
Paul states clearly how a truly indwelt believer should appear.
Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
The Fruits of the Spirit.
How incredibly infrequent it is to find a believer on here that exhibits these traits, or corrects to them when this is pointed out. They always tend to make excuses for why that just doesn't apply to them.
As for having a loving relationship with another consenting adult, maybe scripture just plain got it wrong.
Or more likely it represents a moment in cultural time as people tried to understand god and desperately find a way to beat their mortality, as man has always done.

Are you contending that Paul was saying that once indwelt by the spirit that you are without sin?

I am saying, just as clearly as Paul did, that these are the traits of a person who has been truly indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Why is this confusing, and why is it not what you and other angry Christians aspire to?
I never understand this.

The Holy Spirit wasn't given until Pentecost. Uh oh. Your theory collapses.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Lynchings also were not legal.

Yeah, all those homosexuals lynched for doing nothing except being born gay...

What does this have to do with persecution?

You're a fraud, you know it and I know it.

You cynically coopt the very real persecution of people over the color of their skin to promote the goals of a movement based on behavior.

Even if I accept that homosexuality is based on brain chemistry, it still tracks closer to alcoholism than it does to race. Maybe alcoholics are born with addictive personalities, but no one is persecuted for being an alcoholic. They might face consequence for their behavior, but that is not persecution.

People not accepting your behavior is not persecution.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Are you contending that Paul was saying that once indwelt by the spirit that you are without sin?

I am saying, just as clearly as Paul did, that these are the traits of a person who has been truly indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Why is this confusing, and why is it not what you and other angry Christians aspire to?
I never understand this.

Why does Paul spend much of his time teaching Christians and/or admonishing Christians about their behavior? According to you, once 'indwelt by the spirit' there should be no such need? So, it's either one way or the other according to you, you're either indwelt and therefore 'perfect', or you're still a sinner showing that you're not really a true Christian. Unfotunately for you, that's not how it works.

And I haven't seen anyone angry here? Perhaps it's your definition of 'anger' that should be held up to the light?

I think the swearing and name calling were a hint. Maybe that's normal discourse to you. If it is, I find that sad.
The Fruits are what someone on the path should be aspiring to.
Why are they always rejected when I bring them up?
Every single time.
Why don't Christians want to be held accountable for the clearest description of how they should look if they have fully realized the internalization of the message?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Lynchings also were not legal.

Yeah, all those homosexuals lynched for doing nothing except being born gay...

What does this have to do with persecution?

You're a fraud, you know it and I know it.

You cynically coopt the very real persecution of people over the color of their skin to promote the goals of a movement based on behavior.

Even if I accept that homosexuality is based on brain chemistry, it still tracks closer to alcoholism than it does to race. Maybe alcoholics are born with addictive personalities, but no one is persecuted for being an alcoholic. They might face consequence for their behavior, but that is not persecution.

People not accepting your behavior is not persecution.

More like left-handedness.
Let's string up that Sandy Koufax!

 

[thebrucebeat]

Are you contending that Paul was saying that once indwelt by the spirit that you are without sin?

I am saying, just as clearly as Paul did, that these are the traits of a person who has been truly indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Why is this confusing, and why is it not what you and other angry Christians aspire to?
I never understand this.

The Holy Spirit wasn't given until Pentecost. Uh oh. Your theory collapses.

How does that change anything?

 

[Newby]

I am saying, just as clearly as Paul did, that these are the traits of a person who has been truly indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Why is this confusing, and why is it not what you and other angry Christians aspire to?
I never understand this.

Why does Paul spend much of his time teaching Christians and/or admonishing Christians about their behavior? According to you, once 'indwelt by the spirit' there should be no such need? So, it's either one way or the other according to you, you're either indwelt and therefore 'perfect', or you're still a sinner showing that you're not really a true Christian. Unfotunately for you, that's not how it works.

And I haven't seen anyone angry here? Perhaps it's your definition of 'anger' that should be held up to the light?

I think the swearing and name calling were a hint. Maybe that's normal discourse to you. If it is, I find that sad.
The Fruits are what someone on the path should be aspiring to.
Why are they always rejected when I bring them up?
Every single time.
Why don't Christians want to be held accountable for the clearest description of how they should look if they have fully realized the internalization of the message?

Swearing is a sign of being angry? Maybe for you it is, not quite true for most people I know however. I very rarely swear, I'd guess that you will see me swear in maybe 2% of my total posts, if that even.

Yes, it's what they should be aspiring too, that doesn't mean that people will not fall short at different times, we are human, we do sin. So, I'm still not sure what your point is? We should be perfect? We shouldn't sin at all? Only Christ was capable of that.

Who has 'rejected' it, I've seen you use the very same line about 'the fruits' time after time on here with different people, most of them have explained to you that they're not Christian, making you look like a fool.

And where do you get that Christians don't want to be held accountable? And held accountable by whom? By you? Are you God, i.e. judge and jurty? You want them to want to be held accountable by you? I'm guessing most don't really care what you think.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Why does Paul spend much of his time teaching Christians and/or admonishing Christians about their behavior? According to you, once 'indwelt by the spirit' there should be no such need? So, it's either one way or the other according to you, you're either indwelt and therefore 'perfect', or you're still a sinner showing that you're not really a true Christian. Unfotunately for you, that's not how it works.

And I haven't seen anyone angry here? Perhaps it's your definition of 'anger' that should be held up to the light?

I think the swearing and name calling were a hint. Maybe that's normal discourse to you. If it is, I find that sad.
The Fruits are what someone on the path should be aspiring to.
Why are they always rejected when I bring them up?
Every single time.
Why don't Christians want to be held accountable for the clearest description of how they should look if they have fully realized the internalization of the message?

Swearing is a sign of being angry? Maybe for you it is, not quite true for most people I know however. I very rarely swear, I'd guess that you will see me swear in maybe 2% of my total posts, if that even.

Yes, it's what they should be aspiring too, that doesn't mean that people will not fall short at different times, we are human, we do sin. So, I'm still not sure what your point is? We should be perfect? We shouldn't sin at all? Only Christ was capable of that.

Who has 'rejected' it, I've seen you use the very same line about 'the fruits' time after time on here with different people, most of them have explained to you that they're not Christian, making you look like a fool.

And where do you get that Christians don't want to be held accountable? And held accountable by whom? By you? Are you God, i.e. judge and jurty? You want them to want to be held accountable by you? I'm guessing most don't really care what you think.

Accountable to scripture.

 

[koshergrl]

Do you mean accountable ACCORDING to scripture?

Or accountable TO scripture (which is what you said).
We aren't accountable TO scripture...we're accountable to God.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Do you mean accountable ACCORDING to scripture?

Or accountable TO scripture (which is what you said).
We aren't accountable TO scripture...we're accountable to God.

You don't appear to be accountable to either.

 

[Uncensored2008]

More like left-handedness.
Let's string up that Sandy Koufax!

Nope, more like alcoholism.

Now, list all the people legally "strung up" for being homosexuals?

See, you're agenda driven with little to no regard for facts, yet we should believe you about 600 year old rumors?

 

[thebrucebeat]

More like left-handedness.
Let's string up that Sandy Koufax!

Nope, more like alcoholism.

Now, list all the people legally "strung up" for being homosexuals?

See, you're agenda driven with little to no regard for facts, yet we should believe you about 600 year old rumors?

What does "legal" have to do with persecution?
I already specifically addressed this.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What does "legal" have to do with persecution?
I already specifically addressed this.

So, Bubba locked in county is being persecuted? He does strong arm robberies. But you say that behavior is now protected, I mean, his orientation toward crime is just as legitimate as another persons orientation toward civility...

Hey, Bubba was born aggressive, who are you to judge?

 

[thebrucebeat]

What does "legal" have to do with persecution?
I already specifically addressed this.

So, Bubba locked in county is being persecuted? He does strong arm robberies. But you say that behavior is now protected, I mean, his orientation toward crime is just as legitimate as another persons orientation toward civility...

Hey, Bubba was born aggressive, who are you to judge?

So you think homosexuality is akin to criminal behavior?
Your a sad man.
Your argument doesn't address you asking how many gays have been legally lynched.
It is completely unrelated.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you think homosexuality is akin to criminal behavior?

So, there are levels of behavior? Some is okay, some is not?

Doesn't that contradict your whole premise?

Your a sad man.
Your argument doesn't address you asking how many gays have been legally lynched.
It is completely unrelated.

You have made a spurious claim that homosexual behavior is the same as skin color. This is absurd and insulting to anyone that was actually persecuted for the color of their skin.

You make the bullshit claim of homosexual persecution, then bring up a criminal act of murder, where the perpetrators were prosecuted and imprisoned, as justification.

You're an agenda driven hack, spewing idiocy.

Fact.

 

[thebrucebeat]

So you think homosexuality is akin to criminal behavior?

So, there are levels of behavior? Some is okay, some is not?

Doesn't that contradict your whole premise?

Your a sad man.
Your argument doesn't address you asking how many gays have been legally lynched.
It is completely unrelated.

You have made a spurious claim that homosexual behavior is the same as skin color. This is absurd and insulting to anyone that was actually persecuted for the color of their skin.

You make the bullshit claim of homosexual persecution, then bring up a criminal act of murder, where the perpetrators were prosecuted and imprisoned, as justification.

You're an agenda driven hack, spewing idiocy.

Fact.

I'm afraid you just proved...nothing.
Is the fact the murderers were prosectued relevant to whether Matthew was persecuted?
You are a very poor thinker, and the logic of your arguments is completely tortured.
It is entertaining talking to you to see what a disorganized mind that has no discipline will come up with.
Keep swinging.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you think homosexuality is akin to criminal behavior?

So, there are levels of behavior? Some is okay, some is not?

Doesn't that contradict your whole premise?

Your a sad man.
Your argument doesn't address you asking how many gays have been legally lynched.
It is completely unrelated.

You have made a spurious claim that homosexual behavior is the same as skin color. This is absurd and insulting to anyone that was actually persecuted for the color of their skin.

You make the bullshit claim of homosexual persecution, then bring up a criminal act of murder, where the perpetrators were prosecuted and imprisoned, as justification.

You're an agenda driven hack, spewing idiocy.

Fact.

I'm afraid you just proved...nothing.
Is the fact the murderers were prosectued relevant to whether Matthew was persecuted?
You are a very poor thinker, and the logic of your arguments is completely tortured.
It is entertaining talking to you to see what a disorganized mind that has no discipline will come up with.
Keep swinging.