We can argue the Bible all day folks, but my belief is this the Constitution provides equal rights, this goes for homosexuals or heterosexuals or bi-sexuals. Marriage in the USA should be based on love, not based on sexual preference, nor should homosexuals or bi-sexuals be shunned. My wife is bisexual, it is up to me to accept or not to, it is not my place to change her, but to respect her and to accept her unconditionally.

Why are so many people so doggone concerned about who their neighbor is sleeping with?

My wife being bisexual adds much to our relationship.

Because "feed the poor" or "end violence" is hard. Who hasn't felt like socking someone, or felt a little "let those stinkin' terrorists get what's coming to them!" I can identify with those feelings, and can give other people a break about it. However, I haven't felt like having a physical relationship with another woman, so it's pretty easy for me to say that no one else should.

Personally, I couldn’t care less what goes on in your bedroom or anyone else’s, as I have much bigger concerns to occupy my time than that. But it has been my experience that people in general, will take an interest in any affair as soon as sex is involved, heterosexual or otherwise. Knowing this, many people keep their private affairs to themselves and feel no need to disclose such information, as many feel it is their own business, and is a sacred trust they will not betray by broadcasting to people who have no business knowing about in the first place. In my opinion, if you don’t want people to form opinions contrary to yours, then you shouldn’t allow just anyone to know. People make speculations when they know nothing, what do you expect to happen when you open the door of your bedroom to them?

I believe in the sanctity of marriage, in that it is a holy thing that should be respected, treasured, and never taken for granted. I don’t care by who, but I would hope at least those involved.
But that is just my opinion. I guess I’m just too old fashioned .

God’s blessings,

Rev. Campbell.

Seven, you have hit the nail on the head but you have missed the correct mark on the board. The greatest misunderstanding straight people have of same-gender relationships is that it is all about the physical relationship. It has been my experience in the circles I affiliate with that this is not true. In fact, nearly all the people I know who are in long term same-gender relationships base their success on identifying the deep spiritual connection to their partner. This is definitely true of my 9 plus years with the love of my life that far surpasses the two failed hetero marriages I foolishly took part in to satisfy the social impositions of an extremely self-righteous society. I submitted to that pressure and suffered greatly in two very abusive dysfunctional relationships. I could never be happy because I was not being true to myself and had a great fear of being a social outcast if I pursued what I knew to be right for me. After many years of torment, I set myself free from the male dominance theory and a patriarchal system that served only to perpetuate prejudice and hatred toward those who were outside the norm.

I suggest to all of you that you just might be identifying the glbt cmmunity with the media sensationalism of the "flamers", the "drag queens/kings", and others who are sort of 'in your face' with their unusual lifestyles. I will tell you, they are the exception and not the rule. Most of the same-gender couples I am privileged to know are professional people who live quiet and peaceful lives in communities who know them as individuals and appreciate their gifts and contributions to their communities. Some of the worst so-called 'rednecks' in our little community appreciate what my partner and I contribute as well as the male same-gender couple who run the little convenience mart down the road. While I support the right of those who want to exhibit their flaming boas and leather, most of those I know do not participate in this lifestyle, nor do they flaunt what goes on in their bedrooms.

I speak of it because it is a social justice issue and is none of the religious rights business. Social and civil justice is guaranteed by the Constitution, as is the guarantee of separation of church and state, and the separation of powers. We expect our government to consider only that which sets the legal precedent and neither government nor citizens should have any regard or concern what any religion thinks. All we are asking for is the same equal rights of every other American. If the government does not want to provide us with the same equality of other citizens, then we should have the right to withhold our taxes at the local, state, and federal level. This is the same concept as the women's suffrage movement in the 1800's until the middle of the 20th century. They worked and withheld their taxes from the government as they were considered second-class people and did not have the same rights as men.

Those of us who are willing to take a political stand to advocate for this cause will continue to do so until we are successful in our mission. And to me, and to many of my constituents, family, and friends, this is a mission that God has enlightened us to partake. In that sense it is a very deeply spiritual movement advocating for the human dignity and rights of every person on this planet. And this is where the religions of mankind fail every one of us as they constantly seek another population to humiliate, judge, persecute, and hate. If it were not g a ys, it would be Muslims, or Jews, if not them, then it would be obese women, or blondes. It just never ends with religious self-righteous people. Their God is not the same as the God of my understanding. My God has a greater love for His creation than they have exhibited. And after His direction I will follow and be obedient to His instructions as they are revealed and speak to my heart, mind and soul.....God's Peace....To`na Wanagi

Oh I know that. I was trying to think of some way to differentiate between a solid friendship between women, and a homosexual one, that some people feel they need to meddle with. I guess I didn't do a good job, and I didn't mean to say that homosexual relationships were all about being physical.

People ask me when I plan to marry my boyfriend. My answer is usually "Why would I? I'm happy with things as they are." (and I think he is too!) But "the establishment" just can't be pleased with happiness unless it's been endorsed, authenticated and approved. That doesn't mean I won't ever consider marrying him. But is my relationship just about being physical because we are not married? Heck no.

Dear Seven, I am happy to hear you say that. It seemed a bit strange for you to hold a position of physicality. Yeah, my partner and I had a ring exchange ceremony high upon the foothills of the Manzano Mountains as the sun was setting. It was beautiful! And it matched where our hearts were at that moment perfectly. Who needs a piece of paper? But for those who do want that legal certificate it should be available to everyone, not just hetero couples....God's Peace.....To`na Wanagi

My experiences with the GLBT communities, both in my birth state and my current home state mirror yours. My mother and her life partner have had a relationship since 1997. I had the honor of ministering to their "wedding"/handfasting ceremony about 5-6 years back.
Their relationship has never been based on sex. Rather, a mutual understanding and need has held them together for over a decade. Together they make a whole person. What one lacks the other has. When they need coersive sweet talk, my mom handles it. When they need a good sound cussing, her partner handles it. What ever the two of them needs done, one of them can do it, and do it well. They have made it through some very hard times together. They may not be perfect, but show me a perfect person and I will show you a liar.
I know another couple who has been together for at least 15 years, that I know of. Same situation, each balancing and supporting the other. I have known way too many homosexual people to be able to pay any attention to the idea that they are some how evil. Most that I have known have been very good people by any standards, so I do not see where one single "sin" really makes that much of a difference. I just don't get it.
I understand the Biblical stance against homosexuality, but I do not see where it really has any weight compared to all the other Biblical violations going on in this world, and in today's churches.
Why can't people focus on the bigger issues first, and work on fixing what is really wrong.
From a fundimental standpoint, Jesus said that to think it is as bad as doing it, so they are going to heck unless forgiven anyway!
OH, now I get it! They don't want to have to be around GLBT's in heck when they get there, duh. The fundimental hypocrites must want it all to themselves!
I do disagree with the legal paper being available to everyone. I think the government should stay out of marriage all together. Marriage should be a totally religous institution.
They can have some other legal do-hiky like a modified civil union or what not if people just want to have a non-religous/spiritual union.
But that is just the conservitive in me, I would love a small, unintrusive government.
Pave my collect my taxes, pave my roads, keep me from getting blown up, and stuff like that, but do not tell me who I can or cannot marry, belive in, or otherwise do. So long as it harms none, or is at least consentual. Can't have them banning S&M after all.

Dear Mystic;
Some civil do-hikey? Will that guarantee the rights of ga ys (or straight couples who might be agnostic or atheist) to leave their partner to inherit their property? And if marriage is solely religious, will the church be the executor of their property or the civil laws through probate? I don't thinkl anyone has an adequate or accurate definition of what marriage truly is in the heart. What do you think?......God's Peace.......To`na Wanagi

I do not understand what the battle to define marriage is about. Some people want to say it can only be between a man and a woman, and base that on biblical principles. I think how happy I am to be married to my best friend and how miserable I would be if anyone were to tell me I could not spend my time with this person. We lived together for years, in what many considered out of wedlock although in our hearts we were mated.

I think that it is a shame not to allow people to marry, if that's what they will. For they are going to love as they please.

Property is a matter of legality. The rights to it and the way it is handled when one dies intestate are rights that should be granted to any couple mated. If a person can prove intent and fealty should not even a homosexual couple be granted common law rights to inheritance?

Taxes also are legal matters. If a person is your dependent by virtue of being mates, shouldn't allowance be made for deductions?

And speaking of dependency, what about blended families? I have a daughter fathered by an ex, he had either residency or visitation when she was young. If I had mated with a woman that then helped raise this daughter is she any less a parent?

And what of health insurance? My husband and I obtained a license to marry from the government so that he can be on my insurance. Why can my friend who has a union with a same sex partner not help her mate when illness strikes by the same insurance rights?

These things I do not understand. We put the idea of sin aside in so many cases and say heinous criminals have rights. But people loving one another and creating homes together and bonds and unity...they are deprived of some basic fundamental legal protections, makes no sense to me at all.

This is true of many of the laws here, however. US Law is funny like that. Men make it and they change it according to their whims. Last time I looked at the constitution it had so many addendums that I thought it appeared time to revise or rewrite the whole thing. Keep the tenet of All being created equal and go from there.

From a legal standpoint all bases would have to be covered. I believe everything but the insurance has coverage in most states in one form or another.
You can will whatever you want to whoever you please.
Under the concept of marriage is religious, they could, if they wished have every legal right.
Anyone not wishing a religon based legal link would have the same rights under the civil-do-hikey.
This could even conceptually extend to polyamorous families, though we must still keep the age and species laws. Consent is important.

Health care decisions are an argument all their own, for certain sure.

The time to make end of life decisions is while you are alive and healthy, in the form of Advance Directives. In such legal documents, (and this may vary state to state as well) you can name someone to make health care decisions, through durable power of attorney. In a marriage or union, without a specific directive, a person's life partner should have authority to make decisons for one who is incapacitated, (and imo they should have right to license which grants them this regardless of gender). Bickering in family systems is not uncommon. It is difficult to get even a small group to agree, sometimes, on what should be done.

Leaving your family to make such decisions seems a shame to me, though. I don't think that those we love should have to make such decisions. Not our children, not our spouses, not our parents, or our siblings.

I have advance directives (living will) because, as much as I love my hubby, I do not think he could make the decisions for me. He is of a differing opinion, and we have discussed it. He would want to keep me alive at great expense. I want to go from this world without the intervention of invasive procedures, tubes and wires. Keep me clean, keep me positioned, keep me at home.

My husband wants to be kept alive at all costs, or so he says, although I have warned him I would be forced to divorce him in the courts if he was ill, and there was an anticipation of outrageous medical expenses. This is becoming more and more the option that people feel forced to choose, sadly.

I do not look forward to the days of our decline,and inevitable demise, and like many people, would prefer not to consider it, but we MUST be prepared for that which we know is inevitable. Spiritually, emotionally and legally. Old age may or may not be reached, but Death is our guarantee. Our warranties expire. Make advance directives, review them regularly, keep them on file and readily accessible. Let your family know of your decisions.

Tammy,
I agree with you on preparing for the inevitable. Unfortunately, many states do not even recognize these documents and give consideration only to immediate family member's decisions on how the deceased should be treated. Many states also do not recognize last wills concerning domestic partners and will force property issues into probate. I recently had a friend pass away who had been with his partner for 24 years. They both had living wills each indicating their significant other as executors. The family of the deceased intervened and denied him to visit his beloved while in the hospital. They would not even allow his life partner to attend the funeral of his loved one. How despicable can one human be to another? I think this is one of the worst I have seen. My friend had to allow the family to go through personal belongings they had accrued over the years. Very sad, yes, but also amoral.

Vultures have no conscience of the flesh they devour, do they?....God's Peace.......To`na Wanagi

You are absolutely right about that. I am lost in miscomprehension over and over again when people act the way they do. Even my own actions sometimes I have to search.

"There is no consistency or rationale here."
Are you talking about NM or the USA in general?
Tammy covered the end of life issue.
It is not mixing anything, it would need to be set up to allow equal legal rights for both religous and nonreligous families. Our country was founded on religous freedom by religous men. The key word here being freedom.
No precedence, just equality regardless of religion/nonreligion.
Here in Alabama 16 is the age of consent. I see no reason for someone so young to be getting married, but I am ok with 16 if the parents consent along with the minor. I am also pro-marriage counceling, and child raising classes. I think these should be manditory. After all you need a license to drive a car or own a gun. The mindless birthing and rearing of children does much more damage than any car or firearm ever has. (Before you start in about licensing to have children, I must state that getting a license to drive where I live is very easy. You drive around the block once. You park the vehicle. If you don't crash you get your license. I do think ensuring basic childcare skills in our young adults is a requierment for improving our country.)
Since when did the Constitution/Bill of Rights have anything to do whith what rights our government gives us? Well, unless you are a terrorist.

Native Americans were not United States Citizens.
The freedom was for the land-owning white male.
You have to start somewhere. Women and blacks were treated as second class citizens.
I am taking History 201, American history, and it does not seem to me that much has changed over the past 200 years. We still have ineffective government sticking it's nose where it does not belong. We still have an elite ruling class. We still lack equality for our citizenry. We still have bureaucracy (which I define as "the art of making the plausible the impossible") limiting the effectiveness of the military. Bureaucracy more or less meant "governing from a desk," but should now be translated as "rule by the >censored<!"
At least we still have our guns and religion.
Well, for now....
President Obama did say "So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion..."

Yep, change.....

Your post would be hilarious if it weren't so tragically true! (especially your first line)Eh well, I got my guns but I don't have religion. Have you ever heard the cliche', "Religion is for people who are afraid to go to h e ll. Spirituality is for people who have already been through he ll and don't want to go back."? Well, I prefer walking a spiritual path over following after the doctrines and precepts of men. Is History 201 from a different POV than history 101? Or is it still subject to interpretation?.....God's Peace.....To`na Wanagi

Under the spirit of the law -- Constitutionally, Gender and age should not be deciding factors in determining who may or may not do what.

There are many other factors that would be better used. First off, person discretion is one of the most important deciding factors at least under the spirit of the original 10 amendments. Citizens rights are not gifted by the state but are intrinsic within all human life. Rights are not privilages to be revoked or restricted.

I agree with most age limits. 9 year olds do not have the understanding to drive a car.

I can only imagine what would happen if 6 year olds could vote.

Could you take a 4 year old mayor seriously?

We do need ALL genders to have equality. Experience is, however, a very important issue when making decisions.

I would hate to see my 12 year old step-son drinking and driving down to the local Army recruiting station after voting for Gandalf for President….

History 201 is American History. I have never taken 101. I am so weary of hearing about how great the Romans were, and how much history Europe has. If Europe was so great then WHY DID THE EUROPEANS COME HERE?!?!?!?!?

All history is a matter of opinion, written from the POV of the victor.

In general, age and the grasp of concepts have little to do with each other. At 9 I was the top ten in pole position every time I played at the arcade; Several years later I have not one speeding ticket that I was found guilty of and have had not at fault accidents. I haven't changed my driving style since playing the games.

Would I imagine that a 10 year old would pass the test to drive ... unlikely unless the kid was large for his or her age and had studied hard. I also have been in countries where the drinking age is "can you see over the bar and do you have the money to pay for it" Oddly in those countries the alcohol problems were severely less than in the US where the age is among the highest in the world.

I also doubt that 4 year olds would be elected mayor based on ability and talent alone. 6 year olds would unlikely vote too far contrary from their parents or teachers where as one may have more influence than the other.

12 year olds have served in the armed forces both of the US and other nations in the past with merit and still to this day are deemed capable combatants in many regions. Would I like my sons to go off to war at that age; well no, but then I would prefer to have my sons avoid war all together.


Age, reason and abilities do not flow in a parallel curve That is the main point I am trying to make.

High school and junior high school kids experimenting has been going on since the concepts of continued education began. There is a natural order to this and some would argue that we were meant to get married and begin families at a much earlier age than we do. I think that a few people are better equipped than others to do so. I would not suggest it for all people though; if some of the other kids were to have bred when I was still in high school that would have been scary. By arguing that age makes the difference you end up inferring that all people grow the same; whether done intentionally or not.

I live in Alabama, there is nothing you can tell me about the lack of evidence supporting the connection between age and maturity. Unfortunately, we have yet to devise an accurate and expedient method for determining maturity. Age is all we have to work with right now.

I swear I have met toddlers with more sense about the world than many adults.

I do not have time to go into how people drive here….. If you want to call it “driving.”

When did ability or talent regain their bearings on politics? The last election I watched, policy had no relevance. It was about snappy speeches, popularity, and other topics which held no resemblance to any politically relevant subjects. I think a 4 year old would win. They are cute. The talk cute. They walk cute. They do funny things. They would cry if they lost.

Yes, people would vote for Little Susie for mayor: “How can you say ‘no’ to these goldilocks?”

No one would ever suspect her ulterior motives of undermining our freedoms, with her forced nap times, dirty diaper tax, ageing tax, and 24/7 Hanna Montana radio.

As for the alcohol, I was not going to bring that up. I have heard the same thing; I think it is cultural. When you grow up around it, and it is normal, you do not think much of it. When you grow up around it, and it is taboo, you cannot wait to go wild and crazy with it.

Taboos are always more fun!

That is why I support legalized prostitution, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and gambling. Legalize them. Tax them. Tax them VERY heavily. Regulate and license them (by regulate and license, I mean of course, hefty fines for violations and costly licensing and inspections paid for by the licensing fees). Oh, and tax them again, just to be on the safe side.

I would like to see a pack of cigarettes cost $10-$15. If people want to sell their bodies (this thing edits out pr0stitute, but not prostitution?), ok, you have to get regular tests, pay licensing fees and pay a 200% sales tax. I like beer. I do not need beer. I do not mind paying a 100% tax on beer. I would be fine with higher taxes. I would simply drink less. I do not gamble (other than driving, etc…). I do not mind other people doing it. Tax it. High taxes on all these “vices” would alleviate some of my tax burden and could benefit those not paying for those taxes.

This stuff goes on anyway. I say tax it! We obviously cannot stop it. Why should I have to pay for a criminal to spend the night in jail, when we can make that criminal a business person and tax him/her. Heavily.

OK I was laughing hard until you started wanting to tax everything. I have a 2 year old that doesn't talk much and he would be better than our mayor so far. But I still think people would be swayed by the appearance of intelligence; even when it is not actually present.

If overly taxed, you still end up with black markets.

The taxes would have to be balanced (some to federal but most to state and local governments) to where it would yield sufficient revenue to add money to the community while counterbalancing the cost of help given to people who take these things too far and want to quit. It would have to be low enough to put pressure on the black markets. This can be done in two ways.
By offering tax breaks for information leading to the arrest of black market criminals.
By increasing legal recourse of local governments against these criminals. Raise the fines, take their property, make jail unpleasent, crack down on patrons of black market services and merchandise.
In short, drive the cost and risk of utilizing a black market so high that patrons would rather use legal means.
Laws are a moot point. Economics are what really run this country.

I do not want everything taxed. I think food taxes are overkill. Air taxes would suck. I just think that there are things that we cannot stop people form doing that harm them. So, we may as well tax it.
It also contributes to natrual selection. Let the wheat cull it's own chaff.

I would like to apologize to everyone who had the misfortune of opening up the recent porn spam. It has been taken care of. Thank you all for your patience....God's Peace....To`na Wanagi

Jail unpleasant? Wow, what a concept!!! How about truth in sentencing? Or, how about letting the punishment fit the crime? Doesn't it make one wonder what has happened on planet Earth?....God's Justice for all....To`na Wanagi

I have no shame that my wife is bi and frankly I could careless what others think. I'm outspoken about such more so than say a typical heterosexual couple because I do have an agenda. I want others to know they are not alone. This is not the Penthouse forum, I'm not discussing intimacies, I am simply stating a fact.

Again why do people wish to stick their nose where it does not belong and question others sexual preference or attempt to pass judgment?

If my wife was not bi, and we were a typical heterosexual couple I do not believe you would of chose to respond, but because others (usually heterosexuals) see the word bi or they see same sex, guess what they are sticking their nose into someone's business that is really none of their business.

No Marriage is not about sex, only this topic is as the topic is sexual preference - biblical or equal rights. A lot of folks evade this and instead turn this topic into what it is not.

Does our constitution provide for equal rights? Yes or No

The answer is yes and this should apply to sexual preference.

Dear Michael,

Believe as you will. I tell you true, had you suggested your wife was heterosexual and that her sleeping with other men added something to your relationship as you did in a previous post, I still would have responded the same way. It is your hang up on the bi-sexual part, not mine.

As for your judgment that it is heterosexual people are the ones who are prejudice to the words “ Bi”, and “Same sex”, perhaps your right, quite frankly, I don’t know six billion people to give you my opinion. Out of the people I know, approximately 7 are prejudice to such words. With those 7, I have tried to persuade them to abandon prejudice, but I certainly won’t accuse them of things I don’t know about them, simply because they won’t say what I want them to say. I will listen to them, and get them to examine their prejudice. I have found that to make much more head way than scolding and falsely accuse. But that’s me.

It may surprise you that there are many marriages where no sex is involved. There are some that are based on a plutonic love, an agape love, and others that were made so due to illness/disability. Love being love, the absence of sex could not separate these people, and literally, till death did they part.

I believe your constitution does provide a provision for equal rights. I am Canadian, so I cannot say for sure, but I’ve heard that phrase time and time again, so I assume it is so. I agree, people should be free to love who they love regardless of gender, race, religion, or politics. I never said anything different.

You asked the question “Why are so many people so doggone concerned about who their neighbor is sleeping with?”, and you volunteered, “My wife being bisexual adds much to our relationship”. I answered you with my beliefs. I didn’t mention your opening paragraph as I agreed with that part. Now two weeks later, you come back to confront me on my beliefs? I told you, as nicely as I could, I did not think flaunting your wife’s sexuality was decent a thing to do. Your wife is your wife, to love, honor and respect; I do not see her as leverage to your agenda. It is not your wife’s sexuality I had taken issue with, it was you and your choice to use her for that agenda. If your wife has no issue with you offering her as some sort of merit badge, so be it. I simply told you what I thought about the sanctity of marriage, and I repeat, HETEROSEXUAL OR OTHERWISE, and I have not changed my position about that, nor will I.
Sorry if you didn't like my first response, but I did mention that I was old fashion. Marriage is a very special thing to me, no matter who is in it.

God’s blessings,

Rev. Campbell.

Just to remind you dear brother, this is the post that started my issue with your agenda. It was under ULC related events & announcements entitled, "ULC Radio Network".

God's blessings,

Rev. Campbell.

Rev Campbell:
My support for Same Sex Marriages is not just for my reasoning behind behind ULC Radio, it is my belief as an individual and I promote such in every avenue I can. I've been a Minister for 30 years, like Brother Martin Luther King, or even Fr James Groppi and others I fight for equal rights. I do not like my brothers or sisters discrimated against for any reason, such as sex, skin color, choice of Religion or SEXUAL PREFERENCE

Truth be told, I don't post here, because there IS an agenda within the ULC Monastery.

There's more time devoted here to "Normalize" the homosexual, bisexual, transgendered, transvestites, cross-dressers, dairy farmers, etc, than there is to any other single topic.

If I may be permitted the opportunity to share my feelings about this specific topic, which started out as "Biblical or Equal Rights", I'd like to start off with the following sentiment.... Too many people misunderstand and misinterpret what "Equal Rights" means to the point of making it a point of unending argument.

The "Unalienable Rights" we have in the United States are 100% based on our Founding Fathers belief that these rights COME FROM GOD. Every single one of our founding fathers believed this. Anyone who's taken American History 101 should know this.

The "Separation of Church and State" doesn't mean what the ACLU wants you to think it means. The whole concept of that separation is to "Prevent the Government from telling you HOW to worship God". It wasn't an attempt to REMOVE God or to CIRCUMVENT Gods authority over man, it was just to prevent our government from doing what the King of England had done to the original colonists.

Now if you take the 2 above concepts, you should be able to extrapolate the following:

a) It is a sin to "seek after the same sex". Or to quote Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. According to God, it is a sin to be a homosexual of any variety. (Let me be clear, I am not judging, but simply pointing out some truths.)

So let's do some extrapolation... If our unalienable rights come from God and all of our founding fathers believed this, why then would our Government "reward" those who sin against God? Not to compare, but do we "reward" murderers? Again, not to compare, but do we "reward" adulterers? Again, do we "reward" liars? Do murderers, adulterers and liars get “special rights" that are protected? If not, then why would a homosexual be entitled to anything that God provided? Remember, we're all sinners, ALL OF US including myself. The difference is, our founding fathers would have looked at ME (as an example) of being closer to being in unison with Gods Will than a homosexual. (again, not judging)

Another of the myriads of misunderstandings pertaining to our founding fathers, is this saying:
--"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

The original quote was supposed to be "Life, Liberty and PROPERTY", but they couldn't get that past the original Congress because SLAVES weren’t allowed to OWN PROPERTY. Look it up. It's a fact! As for what was put in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Again, it's clear that they were talking about God Almighty here.

Of course this brings me to my final point... Those who say that they believe in "a god" AND it's not the GOD of the bible, have "Created their own god". If you believe that "Your god" is merciful and understanding and all forgiving, then you're right. "Your god", the one you invented is all of those things. Anyone who claims anything bad of the "God of the Bible" absolutely, positively DOES NOT and clearly HAS NOT *EVER* understood the TRUE NATURE of God.

With all that being said, the Bible (specifically the New Testament) does NOT teach that gays should be mistreated. Nor does it state than ANY sinner should be. God has reserved judgment for himself. Personally, I believe that ALL MEN (or women) have the opportunity to put aside their own pride and develop an actual relationship with God. The sad part, is that there are too many divisions among Christianity and because of this, one persons understanding of Christianity may be based on someone who's Mormon or Pentecostal or even Methodist! I've said it a thousand times, "Religion is EVIL". No good can come from "MAN'S interpretation" of Gods Word!

I invite anyone interested in putting aside their FALSE understandings of the "God of the Bible" in order to take on a clearer understanding of the TRUTH. Not as I see it, but as God HIMSELF sees it.

RevKeith

PS: To anyone who's smarter and more scholarly than myself who's studied American History ad nauseum, if you know of 1 or 2 founding fathers that didn't believe in God, then I stand corrected, but I will insist that the bulk of this post is true to the best of my understanding.

PPS: I've noticed a HOSTILITY towards anyone who believes in the God of the Bible. This post is NOT an attack on anyone. And one more thing, some of you have shown that you can "Read" the Bible. Reading the Bible and truly understanding the underlying point of what you're reading are NOT THE SAME. Many times things are laid out as IDIOMS and a failure to comprehend these is somewhat by design.... Mark 4:10-12 - But when Jesus was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parable. And He said to them, "To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that ' Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.' "

God Bless,
RevKeith

[quote name='RevKeith' date='Feb 19 2010, 09:24 PM' post='23618']
Truth be told, I don't post here, because there IS an agenda within the ULC Monastery.

There's more time devoted here to "Normalize" the homosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transgendered, transvestites, cross-dressers, dairy farmers, etc, than there is to any other single topic.

If I may be permitted the opportunity to share my feelings about this specific topic, which started out as "Biblical or Equal Rights", I'd like to start off with the following sentiment.... Too many people misunderstand and misinterpret what "Equal Rights" means to the point of making it a point of unending argument.

The "Unalienable Rights" we have in the United States are 100% based on our Founding Fathers belief that these rights COME FROM GOD. Every single one of our founding fathers believed this. Anyone who's taken American History 101 should know this.

Reply; Please stand corrected; It does not say "God" it says they are endowed by their Creator. And the word is 'INalienable', not 'Un". It was deliberately stated as 'Creator' so that there would not be dissension among people of different faiths. And Thomas Jefferson himself questioned the exisitence of God and the trinity of Christ. The same is true of Ben Franklin and John Adams who saw the division between the christian denominations of their time.

The "Separation of Church and State" doesn't mean what the ACLU wants you to think it means. The whole concept of that separation is to "Prevent the Government from telling you HOW to worship God". It wasn't an attempt to REMOVE God or to CIRCUMVENT Gods authority over man, it was just to prevent our government from doing what the King of England had done to the original colonists.

Reply; Again you are in need of correction. It was in fact a deliberate move because of what had occurred in England by the Church of England which was supported by the King. And the ACLU is an agent of the devil. You should know this. I am g ay and don't even suppot their agenda.

Now if you take the 2 above concepts, you should be able to extrapolate the following:

Reply; Nothing can be extrapolated since, by premise, they are in error.

a) It is a sin to "seek after the same sex". Or to quote Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. According to God, it is a sin to be a homosexual of any variety. (Let me be clear, I am not judging, but simply pointing out some truths.)

Reply; You must understand, as well as the many others on this board who do not understand, that not everyone on this forum is a Christian. Since this is true then your quoting of Biblical scriptures bears no weight on the matter. The debates you see on this site are not based on the subject of homosexuality, but on the argument that, that is what Christians believe, and it has no bearing on people of other faiths or no faiths. It is the indomitable insistence that everyone hold to christian idealogies that is the offence. If you are a chrisitian who believes in the literal infallibility of the Bible, then fine. But let's not become the murderous, self-righteous hypocrites who took up the crusades against millions of people ad who slaughtered innocent Native American women and children for the acquisition of land and resources. Justify that! And that is what many so-called christians are doing in their hearts today

So let's do some extrapolation... If our unalienable rights come from God and all of our founding fathers believed this, why then would our Government "reward" those who sin against God? Not to compare, but do we "reward" murderers? Again, not to compare, but do we "reward" adulterers? Again, do we "reward" liars? Do murderers, adulterers and liars get “special rights" that are protected? If not, then why would a homosexual be entitled to anything that God provided? Remember, we're all sinners, ALL OF US including myself. The difference is, our founding fathers would have looked at ME (as an example) of being closer to being in unison with Gods Will than a homosexual. (again, not judging)

Reply; The answer to your question of special considerations is, "Yes, we do protect the criminal and reward adulterers and liars!" D'uhhh....look at our government?! The difference is that g ay people are not criminals nor necessarily liars.

Another of the myriads of misunderstandings pertaining to our founding fathers, is this saying:
--"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

Reply; No. What it says is, "...that among these (inalienable rights), is life, ...." That leaves much room for future further considerations

The original quote was supposed to be "Life, Liberty and PROPERTY", but they couldn't get that past the original Congress because SLAVES weren’t allowed to OWN PROPERTY. Look it up. It's a fact! As for what was put in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Again, it's clear that they were talking about God Almighty here.

Reply; No, they were talking about an undefined Creator that was of no relgious affiliation. And should a Native American believe this document as a truth or a lie? I'm asking because nowhere in early colonial history were the American Indians given the same rights of others and were also not even included after the freeing of slaves. To a Native American, those parchments were full of lies, and still are.

Of course this brings me to my final point... Those who say that they believe in "a god" AND it's not the GOD of the bible, have "Created their own god". If you believe that "Your god" is merciful and understanding and all forgiving, then you're right. "Your god", the one you invented is all of those things. Anyone who claims anything bad of the "God of the Bible" absolutely, positively DOES NOT and clearly HAS NOT *EVER* understood the TRUE NATURE of God.

Reply; You have a right to your opinion. And that is all it is since it proclaims Christianity as the only true religon...which it is not. And your assumption is great and very judgmental and prejudicial. But...you know what they say of the one who assumes? It makes an "*ss" of "u" and "me".

With all that being said, the Bible (specifically the New Testament) does NOT teach that gays should be mistreated. Nor does it state than ANY sinner should be. God has reserved judgment for himself. Personally, I believe that ALL MEN (or women) have the opportunity to put aside their own pride and develop an actual relationship with God. The sad part, is that there are too many divisions among Christianity and because of this, one persons understanding of Christianity may be based on someone who's Mormon or Pentecostal or even Methodist! I've said it a thousand times, "Religion is EVIL". No good can come from "MAN'S interpretation" of Gods Word!
Reply; This is the only statement you have made that I agree with.

I invite anyone interested in putting aside their FALSE understandings of the "God of the Bible" in order to take on a clearer understanding of the TRUTH. Not as I see it, but as God HIMSELF sees it.

RevKeith

PS: To anyone who's smarter and more scholarly than myself who's studied American History ad nauseum, if you know of 1 or 2 founding fathers that didn't believe in God, then I stand corrected, but I will insist that the bulk of this post is true to the best of my understanding.

Reply; You stand corrected.

PPS: I've noticed a HOSTILITY towards anyone who believes in the God of the Bible. This post is NOT an attack on anyone. And one more thing, some of you have shown that you can "Read" the Bible. Reading the Bible and truly understanding the underlying point of what you're reading are NOT THE SAME. Many times things are laid out as IDIOMS and a failure to comprehend these is somewhat by design.... Mark 4:10-12 - But when Jesus was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parable. And He said to them, "To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that ' Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.' "


Reply; No, the hostility is in the cramming of it down one's throat and insisting they are right even when proven wrong. Thank you for your advice and your assumptions, and I hope that you will do the same.....Peace....To`na Wanagi

John 8:21,37,40,50 - Then Jesus said to them again, "I am going away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin. Where I go you cannot come." "I know that you are Abraham's descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. And I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges.

You don't know me well enough to accuse me of anything bad To`na.

For all you know..... I might be the one to finally make all this make sense to you.

Your signature is correct.... There is more than one way to die...
You get to choose, lay down your weapons and stop the assault on God, turn from your sins and trust in Him and you go to Heaven and are GUARANTEED Eternal Peace. Or continue with your Pride and in your Sin and be GUARANTEED Eternal Suffering.

With Love,
RevKeith

Dear Rev. Keith,

I agree, that is one of the agenda’s here, and for obvious reason I would think. Our homosexual community has some support with various members of other religions, however, one religion is stronger than most combined has in fact, force the battle for equal rights of homosexual people to a point of where even their existence must be defended. The right to live free from persecution should not be an issue for anyone, yet, those of particular religions, forget that basic GOD GIVEN RIGHT, and the principles on which their religion is based, in favor of not only persecuting Homosexuals, but as well, hold them as villain.
The ongoing campaign of such religions has been viewed publicly for so many years, that even those who follow such religions would not speak against them for fear of being targeted themselves. Because this is so, ANY ATTEMPTS to conclude discussion of
g a y rights, has met with such hostility that those who speak on behalf of these rights, would have mobs of zealot-like minded people threaten, and harass to a point of silencing any further attempts. Needless to say, the discussion doesn’t go far, and to this day, has yet to be addressed to it’s conclusion. Here in the ULC, no such “bully” tactics are permitted by any member, and so, conversations are started repeatedly. However, even here, many discussions are sidetracked by insensitivity, disrespect, and fundamentalists, to a point the discussion at hand must be set aside to address such disruptive attitudes. Often times, this requires much effort, and can go on for days, until all participants are exhausted of talk, and are discouraged from further attempts. (Talk about who has an agenda)! Another problem is those who are just coming into a conversation. Without taking the time to go over other posts, or existing threads, has many times, started a thread of their own on the same subject, or posted thoughts and ideas that go contrary to what had already been concluded as solved. A final problem in my opinion, is new members who come to us with the pre-conceived notion that they are here to teach and find followers to their views. They have no need or desire to hear any other view, nor are they interested in the fact that respect is maintained here for ALL paths equally. They come to us on the premise of reforming all the deceived and replace their untrue beliefs with their own, so the new member can shine brightly as their new Messiah. Sound ridiculous, read some of the posts. All of these are distracters from concluding the discussion of rights for the g a y community. Something of which should not even be a discussion anyway. People are people no matter what label one wishes to saddle on them. Many people belong to many faiths, and so, the bible has no more value to such a discussion than any other text or scripture. Yes, the g a y community is in the minority, so? Does that mean all minorities do not qualify as human beings and therefore have no need of rights? You yourself, by yourself are a unique individual. I would say that makes you a minority of one. Yet you are afforded the rights of your constitution, why would you think it would not apply to a people who’s numbers far outweigh yours?
It is not the constitution that allows people to have rights, it is God. God has given us free will, and even He has told us that He would not interfere with it. God loves everyone, equally, and forever. Your founding fathers hold little influence with me in a comparison to God. After all, not only are we not all Christian, we are not all American either. All the flag waiving and bible thumping is not going to change facts. The fact is, we are all human, and anyone who discredits the rights of another because of whatever justification they can manufacture, is at heart, suffering from a god-complex.
Note this please, I believe in God of the bible. I believe and love Jesus Christ. The hostility you have noticed, most likely came from me. Give me anyone, I don’t care what path, what color, what gender, what sexual preference, what agenda, what politics, and holds a “greater than thou” attitude with anyone else, and you will see hostility. I try my best to practice patience, love, understanding, tolerance, humility, and even empathy, but all are sorely taxed when it comes to an oppressor of any walk of life. Perhaps this is what you have seen displayed on the forum. It is not the belief/faith that is to be challenged; it is the individual who believes they corner the market on truth and devotion. Even that can be overlooked, just so they do not try to oppress others for that misconception.
It is a very simple concept really. I don’t understand why it must be repeated again and again. THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM FOR ALL MEMBERS. It is not a personal forum for only one self-perceived right voice. ALL MEMBERS ARE TO BE SHOWN THE SAME RESPECT AND TOLERANCE YOU WOULD EXPECT TO BE SHOWN TO YOU. If a member cannot abide by that simple consideration, so be it, but then do not be surprised at the hostility such inconsideration will be shown. “DO THAT WHICH IS RIGHT” is our one tenet. I don’t think bashing peoples beliefs, or the people themselves falls under that category, especially from a Christian point of view.
As I said at the beginning of this post, g a y rights is an agenda of the ULC, but it is not the only one. You think the majority of threads relate to this issue; read again. The majority of threads, no matter the topic, usually lead to the agenda of harmony, tolerance, respect, unity, understanding, equality, and patience. And there are a great number of us who will devote much effort to protect such noble pursuits. I would even dare to suggest, the survival of humanity, depends on the success of such pursuits. But that is just my opinion.
As for yours, I thank you for taking the time to share your feelings. I know on such a strongly voiced forum, that it is not always easy to post what you fear might not be well received. Just keep in mind, you are entitled to your opinions, and you have the right to voice them as much as you wish. There may be many who disagree, some who may take offense, and a few who may not care one way or another. All in all, the position is yours to keep or share as you wish, as it is for everyone. But it is important to remember to observe respect for everyone, and since we do not all share the same beliefs, had the same experiences, or share the same culture, remember, there are they who hold their beliefs just as devoted and true to themselves as you do yours. Keeping this in mind, avoids a lot of behavior not fitting a minister of any path, and provides more time to discuss matters like the rational, intellectual, human beings we are all capable of demonstrating ourselves to be.
I hope this helps to answer your concern of ULC agendas as well as the hostility you had noted. It is also good to remember, that though there are those who disagree with a given position, that such does not constitute hostility. It is simply a difference in opinion. Only when comments become disrespectful and directed to individuals or their beliefs can hostility be accused.

God’s blessings,

Rev. Campbell.

Rev. Campbell,

Well said.

I am one of those here not to argue or push an agenda.
Everyone has a right to believe in anything they want.

One comment though... The "Free Will" you spoke of, was free will to CHOOSE to follow Him, not free will to create false-gods....

With Respect,
RevKeith

PS: I do respect and believe in the concept of "First do that which is right"...

ossifcation ladies and gentlemen. ossification of what is supposed to be the words of God, ossified by drunken monks, accountants for the church, and a king who wanted to divorce. the bible is based of Arabic, and Jewish religions for the most part.


priests were once allowed to marry (Orthodox ones still do ), but because the church realized, they had to pay, and help support the family of the holy man. they edited the rules. who knows what else was ossified. didnt Samuel have a homosexual reltionship in the bible?, and Ruth a homosexual one.


all that has been altered/ossified, could be explained, as God's will changing the holy bible. but i dont think God would want his book changed by a mere petty king who wanted a divorce...

I have accused you of nothing except that of making assumptions. Which you have. And you have asked for correction, which I provided. Again, you assume that I am a conventional 'christian'. I am not. So your words mean nothing to me. And by the way, what translation of the Bible are you quoting from?....God's Peace....To`na Wanagi

I use the New King James Version. I find that for daily reading this is the most ACCURATE translation. The NASB claims to be the most accurate translation, but I have found that not to be the case. If I come upon something that begs to be researched, I always fall back to the King James Version. Sadly, most people can't get through the KJV due to the high number of "Old English" contained therein.

And not to be boastful, but your opinions about our founding fathers are quite incorrect. Sadly, your voice is louder than almost anyone else here and yet for the diligent, very little of what you say has truth in fact.

Thomas Jefferson:
"I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to Him, and not to the priests." --Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, 1816.

"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814.

That doesn't sound like someone who doesn't believe in God.

Benjamin Franklin:
“The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

“My dear friend, do not imagine that I am vain enough to ascribe our success [Revolution] to any superiority…If it had not been for the justice of our cause, and the consequent interposition of Providence [God], in which we had faith, we must have been ruined. If I had ever before been an atheist, I should now have been convinced of the being and government of a Deity!” --"In a letter to William Strahan, August 19, 1784

That doesn't sound like someone who doesn't believe in God.

John Adams:
“We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!” [April 18, 1775, on the eve of the Revolutionary War after a British major ordered John Adams, John Hancock, and those with them to disperse in “the name of George the Sovereign King of England."]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

That doesn't sound like someone who doesn't believe in God either.

Certainly ALL MEN have "Questioned" their faith in God at ANY GIVEN point in their lives. God expects us to question, He also expects us to SEEK!

Deuteronomy 4:29 - But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul.

Certainly, each of us has all suffered one kind of pain (or more) in our lifetimes. Whether it's an abusive relationship, being fat and teased for it, being stupid and teased for it, being homosexual and persecuted for it, even something as stupid as having GLASSES and being persecuted for it. Fat, stupid, abused, homosexual, glasses wearing people don't get "special rights". Isn't it enough that MOST of the US *IS* "tolerant" of your chosen lifestyle? Isn't it enough that the GLSEN in Los Angeles now has lesson plans for GRADESCHOOL students on HOW to Cross-Dress, thereby NORMALIZING "deviant behavior"? (Deviant - One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.) More than adequate use of the word...

As to something you said earlier, to blame me for the Crusades is like blaming you for Slavery. Neither of us had a hand in it, neither of us would endorse it and neither of us can do ANYTHING about it today... While it is a sad, sad fact that many Christians do NOT understand Gods Word, please don't hold it against those who DO... Again, according to the Word of God, homosexuality is a sin. That's it, a sin. No Christian has ANY responsibility to punish you, persecute you, taunt you or otherwise mistreat you. Your sin is against GOD, not man... It's the same for the Jews. Jews have been persecuted by Christians for 2,000 years! The even sadder fact, is that JESUS IS A JEW! How on earth could any Christian HATE A JEW?????? Yet it happens EVERY DAY. Why? False teachings.

As a Christian man and Pastor, I go out of my way to correct EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN that I meet and do everything that I can to make sure that these injustices CEASE. Being angry at Christians who "Shove Christianity down your throat" is not productive. Maybe those Christians think they're trying to help you? Maybe they think that teaching you, by quoting the bible is going to change you? Even I know better than that. The sad part, is that most Christians do not know how to properly OR effectively share their faith. Why? Because more times than not, their Pastor is ill-equipped (and possibly misinformed) himself.

I have nothing but mutual love and respect for everyone. I'm more than happy to answer for anything you don't like that I’ve said. Please don't be hostile towards me To`na...

God Bless,
RevKeith

"Do murderers, adulterers and liars get “special rights" that are protected?"
Criminal Justice System: n.
The system of law enforcement, the bar, the judiciary, corrections, and probation that is directly involved in the apprehension, prosecution, defense, sentencing, incarceration, and supervision of those suspected of or charged with criminal offenses.

Many of the founding fathers were Deists
Many of the founding fathers were Freemasons
Thomas Jeferson had his own version of the Bible, which he edited.
Plus, Benjamin Franklin.... enough said.

Tekaa, in all seriousness, you know that you're just being silly with that post....
Liars and Adulterers and Murders don't get "special provisions" in the law to ENCOURAGE employment or insurance or property rights..... Besides what you showed as a definition was clearly a "System of PUNISHMENT"....

I'm sure you weren't trying to indicate that you're in need of punishment??

RevKeith

Dear Rev. Keith,

Thank you for considering my position, however, I do not agree on the free will you perceive it to be. Yes, God gave us free will, but no, it was not to choose him. It was given with the desire for us to choose him, but regardless of what we choose, it is still free will. No big deal, we just disagree on the interpretation is all. And as my sister To`na has pointed out so many times, there is more than one way to serve God. What is not for God is against God, plain and simple. Even the bible tells us that people can serve God and His purpose without even being a believer or follower. God may still work His will through such people. After all, it would stand to reason as we examine the truth of “what is impossible for God”.
Another important point to observe is that a sin is a sin. You the thief are no better than me the murderer, or she the adulteress, or he the false witness. Again, what is not for God is against God, and the lesson we learn about becoming the “stone thrower”.
When it comes to correcting a person’s faith or belief, it is most difficult a thing to undertake when one is deficient in knowing what that person’s faith or belief is. Not to mention the painfully obvious, but who might find the audacity to think themselves authorized to do so in the first place. One may be an authority of their own beliefs, but no one can tell another that their belief is wrong because it does not agree with yours. As you know, and have made mention of, not all believe the same or follow the same doctrine of a prescribed faith, though they may claim said faith as their own. For example, I am Christian, but I am not a Christian of a particular faith. I use the name Christian as it most accurately describes the person I love, follow, and pitifully try to emulate, Jesus Christ. I have seen far too many religions preach the word of God, but their religious dogma is practiced in direct opposition to what is preached. If I could think of another name to call myself, while still describing what I believe, I would most certainly choose that name instantly.
In my faith, the bible is insufficient in that I see it as only an introduction to God. A beginner’s book if you will. That book introduces the reader to God, informs them and guides them to seek a deeper and more complete relationship with God. The reader will know they are ready for such a search when they realize that the Holy Spirit, perfects their heart’s word, and interprets His perfection to us. Imagine that, God the creator of all things, the Alpha and Omega, has more to say than what is contained in a mere two thousand pages of scripture, who would have guessed.
As for your references to the founding fathers, again I must decline comment as I am deficient myself in such matters, but if what you wrote is true, remember, I see another interpretation possible in those words quoted, no doubt, others will too.

God’s blessings,

Rev. Campbell.

[
Reply; You must understand, as well as the many others on this board who do not understand, that not everyone on this forum is a Christian. Since this is true then your quoting of Biblical scriptures bears no weight on the matter.

Did you read the above statement the first time?

The debates you see on this site are not based on the subject of homosexuality, but on the argument that, that is what Christians believe, and it has no bearing on people of other faiths, or no faiths. It is the indomitable insistence that everyone hold to christian idealogies that is the offence. If you are a christian who believes in the literal infallibility of the Bible, then fine. But let's not become the murderous, self-righteous hypocrites who took up the crusades against millions of people and who slaughtered innocent Native American women and children for the acquisition of land and resources. Justify that! And that is what many so-called christians are doing in their hearts today

Not to compare, but do we "reward" murderers? Again, not to compare, but do we "reward" adulterers? Again, do we "reward" liars? Do murderers, adulterers and liars get “special rights" that are protected? If not, then why would a homosexual be entitled to anything that God provided? Remember, we're all sinners, ALL OF US including myself.

The difference is, our founding fathers would have looked at ME (as an example) of being closer to being in unison with Gods Will than a homosexual. (again, not judging)

Why? Because you are so much more righteous? And how is that not judging?

Reply; No, they were talking about an undefined Creator that was of no relgious affiliation. And should a Native American believe this document as a truth or a lie? I'm asking because nowhere in early colonial history were the American Indians given the same rights of others and were also not even included after the freeing of slaves. To a Native American, those parchments were full of lies, and still are.

You continue to say I am hostile to you. No. If I were hostile to you, you would most certainly know it. You have however claimed that you are more righteous than others who disagree with you. (see your own quote above). By this you have judged yourself and account yourself as righteous. I will not.
No, I do not hold you responsible for the crusades. But I do hold you, and all small 'c' christians, responsible for the continued oppression of Native Americans to this date. They are full of lust and greed. They desire only power and control and to diminish and humiliate any who do not subscribe to their brand of religious lies, which they themselves do not even believe, nor are obedient to. They are in fact, the very salacious hypocrites spoken of by Jesus of Nazareth. And they cloak their evil under the guise of being just and merciful and endorse it with unjust laws and doctrines. They are the Kenites who rule this land, liars, thieves and the children of the murderous Caine who have no consciousness of conscience. They can preach to someone else for their words are empty and have not the presence of the Holy Spirit. They are a noisy gong and a clanging cymbal which only contribute to the raucous cacophony of the world's misery. I will wait on the trump of the Lord to sweeten the sound in my ears and brighten the light of mine eyes. And then we will see what justice the Lord will give each of us according to our spirit....Come Lord Jesus....To`na Wanagi

I don't know how, but you took my single sentence out of context. Re-read the black-bold text from above and note the words "(as an example)" and then apply it to "our founding fathers". I was NOT intending to "judge MYSELF"...

As for your perception of what Christians (with a big C) are (currently?) doing to Native Americans.... You've totally got me there. I claim GROSS IGNORANCE of ANY knowledge of any GROUP of Christians doing anything to Native Americans. The one thing I can assure you of though.... It's not a conspiracy. Isn't it likely that ALL CHRISTIANS are not responsible for what you claim is happening?

Please stop accusing me of things I did not do. Disagree with me or correct me with hard-facts, but please stop making me the center of your hatred.

Sadly,
RevKeith

Matthew 24:9-14 - "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake. And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Dear Rev. Keith,


My sister To`na has written several posts indicating her findings on the differences in Christianity. When she writes Christians with the small c, she is referring to those who work in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of Christianity. The large c Christians are they who follow and practice the path of true Christianity. Small c Christians are they who practice self-righteousness, bigotry, intolerance, segregation, oppression, judgment, and out and out hypocrisy. The large c Christian counterparts are loving, tolerant, understanding, patient, and practice their faith in the spirit of Jesus Christ rather than the word of doctrine demanded of religions. Of course, this is only my interpretation of To`na’s volumes on the subject, and as she is the author of this observation, she would be more qualified to donate any additions or corrections to my interpretation.
Remember when the a.i.d.s epidemic first started grabbing headlines, and people were panicked within an inch of their sanity? The small c Christians were they who held the nonsense position that it was the g a y plague and that it was God’s judgment against their lifestyles,….that is until heterosexual people developed the symptoms. But then, that only fueled the fire for those of another religion who’s doctrines forbade blood transfusions, as they claimed that now the g a y plague had been passed to those who would dare receive from the evils of modern medicine, and that both were guilty in the eyes of God who had passed his judgment on the lot. (Of course, I am paraphrasing, but I’m sure you get the idea). I don’t know how or even why insensitivity of that magnitude can still shock me, but it does, in spite of my experience with mankind.
I too have noted a great difference in Christian followers. Though not all are responsible for the oppression of others, it is very difficult to tell which is which when they say, do, or write something that red flags that small c mentality as indicator.
My sister does not disrespect all Christians, only those who would work in pushing people away from Jesus Christ, no matter intent of they’re personally perceived good intentions. I’m reasonably sure you can see her point.

God’s blessings,

Rev. Campbell.

Ok, I categorically recind my last post.

I too am sickened by the "christians" who run around with false doctrine, but I don't lose my mind over it.
That isn't to say that everyone should act as myself.

Matthew 15:7-9 - Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ' These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'

Of course the solution is here:

Matthew 15:13-14 - "Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch."

and here:

Romans 16:17-20 - Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple. For your obedience has become known to all. Therefore I am glad on your behalf; but I want you to be wise in what is good, and simple concerning evil. And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

And with that, I consider this matter closed.
Of course if anyone has anything constructive to add....

RevKeith

Dear Rev. Keith,

Thank you for understanding as demonstrated by the quotes you have chosen from scripture. The similar sentiments of Matthew 15:13-14 is expressed quite often around here when we encounter those who relentlessly display the small c mentality.
A good point for all Christians to remember is that even to this day, there has been and will continue to be those who call themselves Christian and abuse the privilege. There have been, and again, continues to be so many people who have been the target of these abusers, resulting in a rare occasion anyone might want to hear from someone calling themselves a Christian today. We who are not of this small c mentality, must accept the responsibility of undoing the damage done by our counterparts, through much patience, tolerance, and a willingness to serve God’s will and not our own perceptions of it. The targets of the abusive small c hold much resentment and with good reason. The rest of us must be prepared to wear the results if we may ever have the opportunity to mend the path that is jeopardized of being permanently destroyed.

God’s blessings,

Rev. Campbell.

Dear Rev. Keith;
I am nothing to you for you to sign your name preceded with an adjective (sadly). My intentions are not to hurt people and are certainly not to discourage them from their appointed rounds with our Creator. My intentions are to help others in this world to see that many of their actions are contrary to their professed faith, religion, and philosophy. If we profess the love of Christ and the mercy and grace of God and do not extend that same love to others regardless of their place in the social orders, that is to say the doctrinal idealogies mankind has established in his finite mind, then we have missed the point of the two great commandments Jesus left us with.
Consider for a moment all those things that were regarded as unclean to touch according to the doctrines of the OT; lepers, a hemmorhagic woman, Legions, the Samaritan woman at the well, prostitutes, adulterers, murderers, and thieves. And yet in the NT Jesus touched them all. By doing so He faulted those OT doctrines as absurd and was disobedient to them. Is it then possible that we, as a world, could have evolved past the homophobic paranoia recognizing it is vanity and self-righteousness in disguise? Are we so complete and righteous that there are no bigger problems to tackle on this earth than to worry about two people who share their lives and love one another, and just happen to be the same gender? And what of those small 'c' christians who ignore the scientific evidence of gender problems as a physiological and genetic anomaly and continue to beat this dead horse? Are they not the same as those who were ready to stone the adulteress or those who tried to take Jesus before His time because He preached something that was contrary, unpopular, and uncomfortable? Who is to say the same is not true of where we are today concerning people who have these physical, genetic anomalies. There was a time, after all, when people afflicted with diseases such as mental illnesses(Legions) and birth defects (such as the blind man in the NT) were also accused of being sinners as evidenced by their afflictions. Today we know that is absurd just as Jesus knew it to be absurd. I can choose not to commit adultery, but I cannot choose not to have a degenerative spine. I have no power over the physical vessel I have been given to house the Holy Spirit only inasmuch as I try to eat healthy ad get enough rest and take medications to slow down the degeneration process. It is what God has given me to work with. And I am satisfied with that and I use it as a testimony to others to glorify Him.

But today, we see many very fundamentalist and literalist small 'c' chrisitians who continue to hold to the old guilt and blame mentality. And what is their motive for doing so? Is it to make themselves look righteous at the expense of others? Have they no conscience as to how they harm others? Or, do they not even care for the suffering of others? Where is that Love of the Father and the mind and spirit of Christ that embraces all people as children of God?

You are wrong when your use the word hate when referring to me. I have no hate for any man. But I do remind others to remove the plank from their own eye before helping their brother with the speck in his. And if you refer back over the years to my posts on the plight of Native Americans, you will see that there is in fact, a conspiracy against my people. And it is being perpetuated by those who seem to think they know what is best for my people, their traditions, their natural resources, and their ancient cultures and religions. And many of these same entities are supported by various denominations and faiths...not only small 'c' christians, but mainly small 'c' christians. If you lived on a reservation as I do, you would see what I am speaking of. And, as my sister Pathmender has pointed out in a slightly different way, "The road to He ll is paved wth good intentions."....God's Peace....To`na Wanagi

a man, a mortal human being with no super powers; a "king". wanted a divorce so they changed the bible. what else did mere human beings change in the holy book?. i wonder. did God tell him to change the bible?. i think if God wanted the bible changed. we'd sure as heck know it...

i am wrong for judging a "king" for changing the holy word of God. but people freely kill, and insult other human beings with the aid of the holy bible. yet i cannot make it clear, or judge the human man, who changed the bible because he wanted some new woman.

The only reasons given for divorce is death and adultery. True believers dont kill no one, sometimes we do insult someone but true believers apologize. God bless

To anyone who has not taken the time to study the bible, the whole argument of "a king changing it" is moot.
It takes 30 seconds to look up the original Greek or Aramaic.

The KJV, NKJV, Geneva, NIV, NASB, ESV have had the better part of 400 years to be corrected or fixed or even called out as wrong. (the 400 year comment is referring to the KJV and Geneva as the others are considerably NEWER and wouldn't be effected by King James anyway)

Of course anyone who is looking to CREATE a problem will tell you that the use of one word or another and the difference between two versions invalidates the bible, which it doesn't. Regardless of which word is used, the "translation" of it is still within reason.

RevKeith