A New Anti-Gay Website

I just found out about a new website (at least new to me!) put up that supports Prop. 8, which states that it will take away the right of gays and lesbians to marry.  It is called iprotectmarriage.com. It is put together by a church–no big surprise!  The Church is called The Rock Church in San Diego and was created on July 8 of this year. 

So this isn’t a religious issue? This ballot isn’t about a religious belief being pushed on the rest of us?

Anyway, there are some problems with this website.

Here is one example:

It states:

Prop. 8, the Protect Marriage ballot measure, is your chance to stop a small group of activists from redefining marriage for all of us.

Actually, it isn’t a small group of activists.  Polls are showing that 54% of voters are against taking away a right that has already been given.  That, by far, isn’t a small group of activists.  If anything, those who are for taking away the rights of gays and lesbians are starting to look like they are the small group. 

It also gives a number of statements about this ballot issue.  They claim to tell people how it will affect their:

1)  rights:

Marrying a same-sex lover isn’t a civil right.

Prop. 8 isn’t out to remove rights. In America, we all have the "right" to have a relationship. But what about the legal right to marry?

  • For centuries, civil marriage protected society and children by making marriage a legal institution between a man and a woman.
  • On March 7, 2000, 61% of California voters passed Prop. 22 — to keep marriage between a man and a woman.
  • On May 15, 2008, four judges overturned the will of voters and said same-sex marriage was a "right."

The question is, why stop there? If gays have a right to get married, then how can they say a man doesn’t have the right to marry his daughter, or a minor, or three women?

The same-sex marriage movement has more to do with validation and social respect than legal rights. But the cost to the rest of society is far too much to pay.

Right off the bat, this church tells a lie.  Prop. 8 specifically states that it will take away the right of gays and lesbians to marry.  And notice that they don’t say how it will affect the rights of others. 

2)  Kids:

This is probably the most offensive part of this website.  The writers of this ballot issue wanted to state that it would force young children to be indoctrinated.  The court struck out that because that wasn’t true.  The rest of it states:

This isn’t just about adults and their desires. Prop. 8 puts children first.

Marriage between a man and a woman goes far beyond procreation.

While death, divorce, and other circumstances may prevent it in many cases, the best environment for raising children is traditional marriage. More than ten thousand studies document significant advantages kids experience when raised by committed and loving moms and dads.

Benefits include:

  • Lower poverty rates: On average kids from never married homes spend 51% of their childhood in poverty compared to only 7% for kids in married homes
  • Lower crime rate: Kids from married homes are less than half as likely to end up in jail as children of broken homes
  • Lower suicide rate: Kids from married homes are six times less likely to commit suicide than those from divorced homes
  • Better health: Kids from married homes are generally physically and emotionally healthier when they reach adulthood than kids from unmarried homes

So denying the right that gays and lesbians have now will protect children?  I find it interesting that this group states that marriage goes beyond procreation.  Hmmm.  Why is it that the first thing these anti-gay activists will say is that two men or two women can’t make a baby? 

They list the ‘benefits’ of a ‘traditional’ marriage.  And notice the # 10,000.  Do they list a SINGLE source for this?  Nope.  That is a bit suspicious.  The Benefits they list have nothing to do with gays and lesbians being parents.  Notice that all they do is talk about divorce!  Why isn’t this website about making divorce illegal?

The next issue they take up is churches:

If Prop. 8 loses, churches likely will face lawsuits and persecution if they don’t perform same-sex ceremonies.

Churches, synagogues, mosques and other centers of worship have beliefs, practices, and traditions they use to determine what heterosexual couples must meet prior to marriage. That isn’t bias; that’s freedom of religion.

The government doesn’t (as of yet) tell faith-based groups who they can…

  • baptize
  • confirm
  • accept for a bar mitzvah
  • qualify for any other religious function.

If same-sex marriage remains legal, what will happen if a church or religious institution refuses to perform a marriage ceremony for individuals that runs contrary to its belief system? If it refuses, it may be accused of discrimination and be subject to a lawsuit. That is not freedom of religion.

The key word they give here is ‘likely.’  This is all one big lie.  The marriages that are being performed in the state of California are CIVIL CEREMONIES.  This has nothing to do with a church–any church.  This is really a non-issue and this group knows it.  The government is not going to force a religious organization to perform anything.  The Catholic Church now WILL NOT marry a protestant couple.  Is that religious discrimination?  Is it?  NO.

And their ridiculous list goes on. 

They also have a section titled Facts.  But please look at it.  I was assuming that it would have facts about the ballot issue.  They give nine ‘facts.’   Only the first two have something to do with the issue that they created this website for.  The rest have absolutely nothing to do with the marriage issue at all!  One gives the statistics on HIV status in this country.  What does this have to do with allowing gays and lesbians to marry?  Why is this?  You would think that the people who are against the right of gays and lesbians to marry would be able to come up with more than two relevant facts about this issue…

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to A New Anti-Gay Website

  1. Cassie says:

    ah who SAYS SAME SEX COUPLES CAN\’T HAVE KIDS?

  2. Christocentric says:

    An anti-gay website which is created by a church.  Sadly, not enough churches have anti-gay websites up and should have.  I know you don\’t agree with the whole "rights" issue Kevin, but the truth of the matter is that the more gay rights become available the more rights Christians are losing and will lose.  There have been cases such as in Canada, and even in our own country – the state of Colorado where freedom of speech is being limited because to say that homosexuality is a sin is being considered "hate speech."Now think about it.  If it\’s okay for gays to be married, then it must be considered an acceptable lifestyle.  And that is what bothers Christian parents of children who are being fed that in their schools.  It is not an acceptable lifestyle and we don\’t want our children taught as such.I want to elaborate on this more but I\’m horrible at writing when its late in the evening.  So I\’ll go and get some rest … but I\’ll be right back!  (Later tomorrow).Oh by the way, that\’s my church home you\’re talking about.  The Rock Church San Diego.  I\’ve been going there for four years now and it\’s a really good church!  You should come sometime.  I think you\’ll either hate Pastor Miles or love him!Carlotta

  3. Kevin says:

    Hi Carlotta–I
    I\’m not sure if I understand you correctly–you think there should be MORE anti-gay websites?  What do you think an anti-gay website is and what do you think the function of it should be?  If you really meant that, then how would you feel about anti-Christian websites? 
    I disagree with you about the rights of Christians being taken away as more rights are given to the glbt community.  The more rights  a group gets, the better off this country will be.  The problem comes when (some) Christians want their beliefs to be considered to be the law of the land.  I say some because there are plenty of glbt Christians out there.  Where can I find out more information on this hate speech from Colorado? 
     
    You ask \’if it is okay for gays to be married\’ but here in California, it is not \’if\’–gays can be married if they want to.  That makes it okay in the eyes of the law.  If my children were going to school, I really wouldn\’t want them to be exposed to some of the ideas the Christians are putting forth–so that is where, as a parent, you have to make some crucial decisions.  If you don\’t want your kids taught the fact that there are many different kinds of people, then the parents can send them to a school that doesn\’t teach that.  There are plenty of religious schools around, as well as home schooling.  If I were a parent, I would try to make sure that any religious discussions are left to classes on religion–but not anywhere else.  
     
    About your church website–I stand by what I said about its website.  I\’m not sure who put it together, but I\’ve pointed out some obvious flaws in it.  I think if that website wants to be taken seriously, it should state its case without resorting to telling stories or going off on a sidetrack and not discussing the issue it is supposed to represent.
     
     

  4. Kevin says:

    Hi Cass,
    Yes, same sex couples can have kids–I have a number of friends who are having babies right and left!  I think it will be time for Doug and I to make that decision very soon.  We aren\’t getting any younger.  The problem is that I want at least six of them (well, maybe not that many) and Doug wants to start off slowly.  🙂

  5. Cassie says:

    I quote Carlotta "Now think about it.  If it\’s okay for gays to be married, then it must be considered an acceptable lifestyle.  And that is what bothers Christian parents of children who are being fed that in their schools.  It is not an acceptable lifestyle and we don\’t want our children taught as such."
     
    Herein lies the fallacy in the argument of those who style themselves "Christians" yet never understood Christ. This…one could almost call it "hubris" that they have the right to decide what is "acceptible" for all based on their own prejudices and fear. Jesus never taught this or anything like it. You, Kevin, who read my four part (with afterword) blog series on "My Personal Relationship with Jesus" know what I am saying and I won\’t repeat that here.
     
    I will only say this: If Carlotta and these others wish to say that the gay lifestyle (which is really not so different from their own as they seem to imagine) makes them uncomfortable. Or that they don\’t wish to marry a person of the same sex and would be happy if their kids didn\’t…that\’s fine. That is how they feel and they are thunderingly right to say so.
     
    But to those of us who are born gay or transgendered—and there are very few for "many are called but few are chosen" —to us, I say, the life-style is not only "acceptible" but natural and normal.
     
    And yes, their web site does lie when it makes claims that anyone intends to force churches to solemnize these civil ceremonies—no one wants to dictate to churches about the rituals and observances there.
     
    But the principle of the Separation of Church and State (for which they, as well as we, should be forever thanking the departed shades of our founding fathers for having the wisdom to include in our constitution else there might really only be ONE religion and anyone who believed differently from the State Run religion might be facing all the horrors of the Inquisition—this includes Baptists, Catholic, Jews, Muslims, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc—there is no unity of belief between any of these and who knows which might have been the State Authorized Version of the Faith?)
     
    This Principle, I say. MUST work both ways. The state cannot and must not make any law respecting the founding or practice of one\’s religion…and the church must not interfere in civil matters for in civil matters the rights of ALL…not just a chosen few…have to be not only respected but GUARANTEED.
     
     
    (Or so it seems to me).
     
    Cass 

  6. Kevin says:

    Hi Cass,
    I totally agree with you.  I\’ve been thinking about this a lot since I woke up.  One thing I am thinking about is that website and its lists of HIV/AIDS statistics.  It gives those as a reason to take away the right of people to marry.  I would like to ask Carlotta why her church used HIV/AIDS statistics in their description of Prop. 8.  I have an answer to that, but I am going to wait until I hear from Carlotta. 
    And Cass–I love that last sentence of yours:  "This Principle, I say. MUST work both ways. The state cannot and must not make any law respecting the founding or practice of one\’s religion…and the church must not interfere in civil matters for in civil matters the rights of ALL…not just a chosen few…have to be not only respected but GUARANTEED."   When the State of California accepted the signatures and put that anti-gay marriage issue on the ballot, I wrote to the Attorney General and told him the same thing.  Funny enough he never wrote back.
    It shouldn\’t be up to any majority to stomp on the rights of any minority.  Period.  When one group that has rights tries to keep another group from getting the same rights–there is something seriously wrong.

  7. Cassie says:

    Hey Kevin!  You say Jerry Brown never wrote BACK??? That is so ODD. I remember him when he was Governor and he was a pretty cool guy back then. You might want to shoot off a letter to Senator Feinstein and ask her to ask him why (she officiated at his wedding, after all and they are old pals).
     
    But I wanted to say a little more about the problem of explaining the importance of "the Separation of Church and State" to these Fundamentalists. (You have to teach them some history first). You see, I don\’t doubt the sincerity of their belief in God and the Bible and Christianity insofar as they understand it. They are really sincerely convinced that THEIR way is God\’s way and not only that but that all human beings would be happier if they believed the same way. They MEAN well, most of them.
    But what they don\’t take into account is why the Pilgrims came to America in the first place. (This is the source for the Separation of Church and State in America), They did NOT come here seeking a place where they would be free to practice Christianity. Had that been all they wanted they could have stayed in England. England was then (and more or less still IS) a primarily Christian country. But there is a state religion—the Church of England (the Anglicans) and the Head of the Church is the Head of the State. That is, whoever sits on the throne holds all temporal and spiritual power and authority.
    THESE days they run a much looser scene and you can be whatever religion you want and nobody really cares much but back THEN if you weren\’t loyal C of E your name was mud (an expression that comes from the name of Dr. Samuel Mudd who was convicteas being concerned in the assassinastion of President Lincoln even though all he ACTUALLY did was to set John Wilkes Booth\’s broken leg and presumably had no knowledge of the events that had resulted in him having a broken leg until afterwards. He was pardoned four years later by President Johnson—Andrew, that is—but ever since that phrase has been a part of our language—anyone for Strip Trivial Pursuit? )
     
    Anyway, back to the Pilgrims (Separatists as they were also known) they finally fled to the Netherlands and eventually to America because they wanted to worship God in their OWN way—not in the way the State decreed. And when they arrived here they wrote out the famous Mayflower Compact which states
    "IN THE name of God, Amen.
    We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
    In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the 11 of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domine 1620."
    Yes, they believed in God and in the Bible…but not as it was taught in the Church of England—they believed in their OWN interpretation of that Being and that Book—a right we inherited from them and incorporated in our Constitution. But note especially the phrase above:
    "to enact, constitute, and frame such just AND EQUAL laws, etc etc". Another promise that was later incorporated into our Constitution. Being human we haven\’t always done so well with being either "just" or "equal" but to our credit we have kept trying. It is unfortunate there are so many good-hearted and well-meaning people who fail to see how important it is that ALL citizens—no matter the race, gender, religious affiliation (or lack thereof) should enjoy the same CIVIL rights as all other citizens. And also how important is is to keep any one religious text (or any one INTERPRETATION of such text) from becoming the Law of the Land.
    The Bible teaches that Jesus will return one day and there will be a new heaven and a new earth and that HE will then be the head of the government.
    Until then, however, we only have human beings to work with and we need plenty of safeguards to protect the rights of the minorities as well as the majority.
    (sorry to be so long-winded)
     
    Cass

  8. Kevin says:

    Hey Cass–believe me, I like it when people talk about history!
    I also find it interesting that these very same pilgrims who came over to escape religious persecution in Europe then turned around and persecuted others for believing something else.  The Catholics and the Jews are good examples.  I guess some things just never change…

  9. Cassie says:

    And let us not forget the Salem Witch Trials either—because, you see, they fell into the same trap of thinking that because their religion satisfied THEIR particular needs it must, of necessity, do the same for all OTHERS. People always fall into that trap and they are always wrong.
     
    And it isn\’t only Christians—-let us be fair—George Gurdjieff (click here) taught his method as "The Fourth Way" or "The Way of the Sly Man" but if you listen to some of his modern followers you hear the same "THIS is the ONE and ONLY way" stuff you get from Fundamentalists.
     
    I have never managed to figure out whether these people are so insecure in their beliefs that they have to keep TELLING themselves this or whether they\’re so dense it never occurs to them that some people may not see what THEY see in their religion.

  10. Christocentric says:

    Goodness, there\’s so much to say I\’m now sure where to begin.  I\’ll start with responses to your comment Kevin.  You said:I\’m
    not sure if I understand you correctly–you think there should be MORE
    anti-gay websites?  What do you think an anti-gay website is and what
    do you think the function of it should be?  If you really meant that,
    then how would you feel about anti-Christian websites? I simply mean that there should be more churches with websites that take a stand for marriages between a man and a woman.  Just the simple fact that churches would promote that type of marriage would make it anti-gay, anti-premarital sex, and anti-any sex outside of marriage for that matter.  I do like the iProtect marriage site because it not only talks of the positives of marriage, but the negatives of families outside of the biblical design of marriage – disease, children without true teachings of morality, children missing the important ingredient of a missing mother or father.  Gay families may "play house" and pretend to have a balanced family, but they do not – according to scripture.  As a single parent, not even my family is considered balanced because it\’s missing a very necessary ingredient – a father!Now the difference between anti-gay and anti-Christian is that anti-gay is pro-God, while anti-Christian is anti-God.So to be anti-Christian means you not only have an issue with me as a Christian, but you also have an issue with God.  "I would like to ask Carlotta why her church used HIV/AIDS statistics in their description of Prop. 8." HIV/AIDS and homosexual sex go hand in hand.  Even if the homosexual does enter into a monogamous relationship, just how many partners would he/she have had before hand? How many are actually "virgins" before entering into monogamy?  The threat of HIV/AIDS is on the head of any person not saving themselves before marriage, in particularly the homosexual. Now that\’s my opinion and why my church actually uses it I don\’t know for sure.  But I\’m glad they do!I\’m going to hold my thoughts on this separation of church and state until later.  We are having a historian come to our church (forgot the name) soon and will be teaching about that whole subject.  It will include early church history as well.But just reading Cassie\’s comments on why the Pilgrims came to America – I disagreed strongly. She says, "They
    did NOT come here seeking a place where they would be free to practice
    Christianity. Had that been all they wanted they could have stayed in
    England. England was then (and more or less still IS) a primarily
    Christian country. But there is a state religion—the Church of
    England (the Anglicans) and the Head of the Church is the Head of the
    State. That is, whoever sits on the throne holds all temporal and
    spiritual power and authority."What Cassie failed to understand is that Christianity, The Church of England, was ruled by the authority of King James, and NOT by the authority of the bible.  King James had vowed that if they didn\’t conform to his rule, then he would force them out of the country or even worse. These people (the pilgrims) wanted to reform the church to be more in line with the bible and that is what they were persecuted for.In the Mayflower Compact that Cassie shared, this line struck me the most: "for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith."They did not have that freedom to advance the Christian faith, thus, their journey to America!Oddly but not surprisingly, the trend is now reversing.  People left to practice true Christianity, we have it established, people are practicing, but now false Christianity is on the rise (such as "gay" Christian churches and those that support homosexuality) and soon we may see our Christian freedom suppressed and have to once again fight for our true Christian freedom.It\’s happening before our very eyes!

  11. Christocentric says:

    ChristocentricCarlotta

  12. Christocentric says:

    The facts from iProtectmarriage.com:For centuries, marriage as a legal, civil and religious
    institution between a man and a woman has protected children and
    society in every country and culture.In March 7, 2000, 61% of California voters passed Proposition 22 — to keep marriage between a man and a woman. [1]On Aug. 8, 2008, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that 53%
    of new HIV infections in 2006 occurred in gay or bisexual men. More
    infections occurred among young people under 30 (aged 13–29) than any
    other age group (34%, or 19,200). African Americans, while comprising
    13% of the US population, accounted for 45% of the new HIV infections
    in 2006. [3] [4]On May 8, 2008, a black administrator was fired from the University of Toledo, Ohio, for objecting to the comparison of black discrimination to
    same-sex marriage.
    [5] [6] [7]In February 2008, a professor was fired from San Jose
    Evergreen Community College after being accused of providing an
    "offensive" answer out of the textbook to a student\’s question about
    heredity and homosexual behavior. [8] [9]In March 2007 freshmen were told not to tell their parents about Deerfield (Ill.) High School\’s pro-gay seminar and were required to sign a confidentiality agreement. [10]In early March 2007, a Massachusetts high school banned parents from
    attending a seminar for students on how they can know they are homosexual.
    [11]On April 27, 2005, a Massachusetts father was jailed after requesting that his 6-year-old son\’s school notify him when it discussed homosexuality or transgenderism. [12]On February 23, 2007, the judge in the Massachusetts case ordered the teaching of the homosexual lifestyle to children in public schools. [13]Kevin, you asked about what the facts after the first two have anything to do with Prop 8.  All of these facts are a direct result from the placing of homosexuality as a moral lifestyle rather than immoral.  When marriage between a man and a woman is given its place of importance, and all other sexual relationships considered immoral, then very few of those "facts" would even appear on this list.

  13. Christocentric says:

    (cleaner version of my last comment – I hope)The facts from iProtectmarriage.com:For centuries, marriage as a legal, civil and religious
    institution between a man and a woman has protected children and
    society in every country and culture.In March 7, 2000, 61%
    of California voters passed Proposition 22 — to keep marriage between a
    man and a woman. On Aug. 8, 2008, the U.S. Centers for Disease
    Control reported that 53%
    of new HIV infections in 2006 occurred in gay or bisexual men. More
    infections occurred among young people under 30 (aged 13–29) than any
    other age group (34%, or 19,200). African Americans, while comprising
    13% of the US population, accounted for 45% of the new HIV infections
    in 2006. On May 8, 2008, a black administrator was fired from the University of Toledo, Ohio, for objecting to the comparison of black discrimination to
    same-sex marriage.
    In February 2008, a professor was fired from San Jose
    Evergreen Community College after being accused of providing an
    "offensive" answer out of the textbook to a student\’s question about
    heredity and homosexual behavior.In March 2007 freshmen were told not to tell
    their parents about Deerfield (Ill.) High School\’s pro-gay seminar and
    were required to sign a confidentiality agreement. In early March
    2007, a Massachusetts high school banned parents from
    attending a seminar for students on how they can know they are homosexual. On April 27, 2005, a Massachusetts father was jailed
    after requesting that his 6-year-old son\’s school notify him when it
    discussed homosexuality or transgenderism.On February 23, 2007,
    the judge in the Massachusetts case ordered the teaching of the
    homosexual lifestyle to children in public schools. Kevin, you
    asked about what the facts after the first two have anything to do with
    Prop 8.  All of these facts are a direct result from the placing of
    homosexuality as a moral lifestyle rather than immoral.  When marriage
    between a man and a woman is given its place of importance, and all
    other sexual relationships considered immoral, then very few of those
    "facts" would even appear on this list.

  14. Cassie says:

    It is truly written that there are none so blind as those who will not see–those who, like Carlotta, have hardened their hearts against my people and would deny them full citizenship under the laws of this country cannot be reasoned with. I will not waste more time on it. Let those whose hearts are filled with humankindness and understanding judge which side Jesus would be on.

  15. Kevin says:

    Hi Carlotta,
    You said:  "HIV/AIDS and homosexual sex go hand in hand.  Even if the homosexual does enter into a monogamous relationship, just how many partners would he/she have had before hand? How many are actually "virgins" before entering into monogamy?  The threat of HIV/AIDS is on the head of any person not saving themselves before marriage, in particularly the homosexual. Now that\’s my opinion and why my church actually uses it I don\’t know for sure.  But I\’m glad they do!"
     
     
    Have you looked at Africa lately?  By far the number of HIV/AIDS cases comes from straight people.  Have you looked at the black community in the U.S. lately?  That group has the largest growing number of HIV/AIDS cases.  So HIV/AIDS and homosexual sex DO NOT go hand in hand.  I believe you have been told this, but that is a lie.  And why does it matter how much sex was done beforehand?  We are talking about HIV/AIDS here.  You can\’t tell me that heterosexuals don\’t have the same amount of sex that homosexuals do.  I have a good friend that is gay. His roommate is straight and that guy sleeps with many different women every week!  I don\’t know of a single gay man that does that as much as that straight man. 
     
    I think the whole reason your church used the HIV/AIDS statistics was to scare people.  And I need you to really think about this.  Have you heard before that black men are dangerous and highly sexual?  That is a lie and a stereotype.  It is the same as saying that HIV/AIDS goes hand in hand with homosexuals.  Also, think about how these homosexuals are getting HIV/AIDS.  They are hated in society.  They are told to keep in the closet.  This leads to quick, unsafe sex because they are lied to by certain parts of society that they are dirty, sinful, evil.  This leads to depression and then could lead to unsafe behavior.  That, I believe, is the reason your church used HIV/AIDS numbers in a section.   I\’m surprised that your church didn\’t mention the high rates of suicide in gay youth–and that is specifically because churches demonize gays and lesbians.  You give the statistics–53% of the new cases are gay and bisexual men.  You can do the math–that means that 47% of the cases are straight men!  Why doesn\’t your church now put up a website to block men from getting married?
     
    They don\’t have \’facts\’–they only have lies that they use to sway the population.  Luckily, Prop. 8 will more than likely fail.  It is failing at the polls with only 40% of voters approving to take away a right that has been given.  It looks like the anti-gay marriage ballot in Florida will also fail.  The tide is turning because right always wins out in the end. 
     
    And I\’ve already gone over the lie about Crystal Dixon "On May 8, 2008, a black administrator was fired from the University of Toledo, Ohio."  She was fired because she was running the Human Resources dept. at a university.  It was clear to the university that she was biased against the glbt community and could no longer function to the abilities that that particular job needed.  It is no different from them firing someone in her position for saying she hates jews.
     
    Another lie as well:  "On April 27, 2005, a Massachusetts father was jailed after requesting that his 6-year-old son\’s school notify him when it discussed homosexuality or transgenderism." He was jailed for trepassing.  To say that he was jailed just for requesting that the school notify him is a lie beyond belief. 
     
    Here is an example of another lie you were fed:  "In February 2008, a professor was fired from San Jose Evergreen Community College after being accused of providing an "offensive" answer out of the textbook to a student\’s question about heredity and homosexual behavior."
    That biology teacher was fired for providing misinformation to students.  See http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/education&id=5975977
    "Sheldon (the professor) stated that mistreatment to pregnant women at a certain point in the pregnancy can cause male homosexuality. She also said that there was no such thing as true female homosexuality. Based on my investigation June Sheldon was teaching misinformation in a science course, and recommended her dismissal."
    So she was not fired, as your pastor states, for providing an offensive answer.  She was fired for teaching lies.  This was a biology course. 
     
    I hope, Carlotta, that you can look up the facts on this and question your pastor about these lies he is spreading.  You might want to remind him that God hates lies. 
     
    And I have said before that the whole argument against gay and lesbian marriage is a religious one and that religious beliefs of a group of people should not be forced on the rest of us.  What you have written just proves me right.  You say:  "All of these facts are a direct result from the placing of homosexuality as a moral lifestyle rather than immoral."  But these lies (and they really are lies) are a direct result of religious views that will not allow gays and lesbians to keep a right they have been given. 
     
    Carlotta–why should your religious beliefs be forced on the rest of us?  And how far would you push?  You said that "but the truth of the matter is that the more gay rights become available the more rights Christians are losing and will lose."  Which rights would you personally take from me if we were standing in a room together discussing this?  Which rights are you personally losing because gays and lesbians now can marry in California?  I want to hear about your experiences with losing your rights as a Christian.
     
     
     
     

  16. Kevin says:

    Hi Cass,
    I can understand your views. However, I urge you to think about it and give us your opinions.  You never know–Carlotta may not change her mind about this, but what about those other people who will read this and hear what you have to say? 

  17. Justin says:

    Good morning all.  We are waiting the winds from Ike to arrive and may lose power so I am at this rather early.  I dont think we will get much and we are praying for those south of us on the coast.
     
    Cass, your opinions are important and appreciated by all of us and we do appreciate them so please let them flow. BTW I do love that quote "It is truly written that there are none so blind as those who will not see" so true, so true.
     
    Carlotta,
    (shakes head) As a theologian I find your use of the statement that HIV/AIDS and homosexual sex go hand in hand to not only be hypocritical but an insult to the very basics of human intellegence.  Using this as a hateful scare tactict preached from your pulpits is an affront to the very G-d you say you serve.  How you and others like you can make statements like this and totally ignore the fact that this disease and other STD\’s are showing marked rises in the Hetrosexual adult and Hetrosexual teenage qroups in this country infuriates me to no end because it shows blatant hypocrital ignorance perpotrated upon the Church by false teachers. 
     
    Kevin, I need to hop off here we have a lot of lighting coming in but as a theologian I feel Carlotta needs to see some truths regarding the prepostorous statements she is putting out.  BTW Carlotta I have 30+years in theology as a former Priest.
     
    Stay tuned.
     
     

  18. Cassie says:

    Thank you, Kevin and Justin.
     
    It was just that I felt such weariness as I read Carlotta\’s comments—it was like, what\’s the point? Hwer perception and understanding have been so twisted by this anti-gay prejudice that nothing anyone says can make the slightest dent in her invincible self-righteousness. (As you can guess I\’ve encountered it before). You DO understand how people like Carlotta SEE themselves, don\’t you?
    They see themselves as warriors, fighting for God\’s cause, against the threat that same-sex marriage and other CIVIL rights granted to the LGBTI population might somehow destroy the"family." In other words they are acting out of fear—a fear that stems from ignorance and is fueled by hatred.
    As I read her words and saw her twisting the sense of the Mayflower Compact and distorting history to JUSTIFY her fear, her ignorance, and her hate I realized there was no way of having a dialogue with her. She doesn\’t read anything any of us posts in order to understand what we are saying—she reads superficially, looking for ways to attack—to twist our words in order to spew again this doctrine of hate and prejudice and intolerance that masquerades as Christianity today.
    It is a kind of invinciblew ignorance and willful blindness that nothing can penetrate. People like these remind me of (I think it\’s a group of dwarves) that the heroes encounter in THE LAST BATTLE by C. S. Lewis (the final book in THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA). Those of you who read the book will recall that these dwarves are sitting around thinking that they are in a prison…and even though Aslan (the allegorical representation of Jesus in these stories—one of Jesus\’ titles being "the Lion of the Tribe of Judah" after all) causes fine food and drink and rich apparel and all kinds of things to appear for these dwarves the dwarvces refuse to see of it—the insist on seeing the prison and filthy water and rotten food and so on and Aslan says "You see, even I can do nothing for those who will not see." (I\’m paraphrasing because I don\’t have the book handy and it\’s been many years since I have read it but I\’m pretty sure I have the gist right).
     
    These are like that.
     
    One thought though—perhaps she has felt that sense of smug and joyous VICTORY in making her arguments of hate—-she knows what I mean that thrill as she "goes in for the kill" (figuratively speaking) like a wolf must feel as it rips open the throat of a lamb. That is the lust and joy of the Predator.  And there is only ONE character I know of who is described in the Bible as being like that. You\’ll find him in the First Epistle of Peter, fifth chapter, eighth verse. Revelation 12:10 is relevant here as well.
    **********************************************************************************************
    Now, about the HIV/AIDS thing. Kevin, the reason Carlotta\’s church brings this up (although she has not been honest enough to admit it here) is that they believe that AIDS was a plague sent from God to destroy the homosexual.
    Except for Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist crowd (who, whatever else they may be are at least honest in their hate) most churches have found it impolitic to come right out and SAY that they believe that but lines like where Carlotta says "homosexuality and HIV/AIDS go hand in hand"—or something like that she said–will reveal the thoughts in her heart.
    See what an uphill battle you set yourself when you engage these people, Kevin?
     
    Well, a little history about the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome that it causes. It does not come from God. It is man-made. It was made by scientists in the employ of the United States of America, actually, who were working diligently to develop biological weapons at Fort Detrick in Maryland (nicknamed "Fort Doom" by those who worked there) during and immiediately after Wold War II. While Fort Detrick remains, the project has since moved…first to the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah and later, elsewhere, after the Skull Valley Incident gave too much publicity to the Dugway Location.
     
    Now, what happened was that our allies, the British, were having a problem in their colony in Kenya back in the 1950s with a group called "Mau Mau" who were Kenyan "rebels" (though some might call them "freedom fighters") who wanted the British OUT and wanted Kenya free. And the British said to the Americans "These blighters are causing us a spot of bother over here, don\’t you know—can you chaps help us out?" (or words to that effect).  "What do you know about these Mau Mau?" asked the Americans. "Well, the blighters have some sort of ritual of initiation where men have sex with men—bunch of degenrates is what they are, b\’gad!"
    And the Americans said "Oh, REALLY?" and handed them a few ampoules of HIV and said "Try this."
    ************************************************************************************************************
    And the rest, as they say, is history. And if the Hand of God is to be seen in ANY of this it can be seen in the fact that these self-righteous idiots who made and used this "Satan Bug" (to borrow a name from Alistair Maclean) never suspected that 1. Their biological brain child might somehow come home to roost, But since HIV is passed on in other ways than sexual congress (blood transfusions, saliva, etc) it never limited itself to persons engaging in same sex relations for whatever reason. And 2. These invincibly ignorant WHITE scientists had a vaccine just in case (by some wild stretch of the imagination) it might infect the straight white Christian population. But HIV mutates. By the time they needed their vaccine it was useless because what came home was not the virus they\’d lent out—it was all grown up.
    ******************************************************************************************
    You won\’t read that in the history books, of course, because neither we NOR the Brits want to admit to having ANY responsibility for this plague which (as of 2005) had killed some 550,000 have died in the United States and over 17 MILLION in Africa.
    But that is what happened.

  19. Cassie says:

    Sorry for some of the muddiness in my last post there but I was trying to edit as I went and that never really works. But I think the message was clear enough even if the wording got a bit murky here and there.
     
    But you know one of the most ironic things in all of this? It is the fact that the existence of AIDS really became public with the death of Rock Hudson. Why is that ironic? Because in 1957 Rock Hudson, Dana Wynter, and Sidney Poitier made a movie called SOMETHING OF VALUE (based on the book of the same name by Robert Ruark) which was about the Mau Mau Uprising.
    How\’s that for irony?

  20. Christocentric says:

    Justin, I\’m not ignoring current statistics that shows increase of HIV/AIDS in heterosexuals as well, but my point is that if there were no homosexual practices, then that disease wouldn\’t be an issue.  Just as if there were no premarital/extramarital sexual encounters, other STD\’s wouldn\’t be an issue either.  Sex between one man and one woman and no others is the surest way of preventing any kind of sexually transmitted disease.When it comes to marriage, homosexuality is the focus for churches such as the Rock Church, because of the demand for marriage acceptance by the homosexual community.  When it comes to sex period, the church\’s focus then becomes on any sexual relationship outside of marriage between a man an woman.  The church isn\’t trying to scare folks silly, it\’s truly trying to educate people on the facts of going against what God has ordained.  Okay, perhaps I was a bit too general in my statement HIV/AIDS and homosexuality go hand in hand.  I simply meant if its wasn\’t practiced, then HIV/AIDS is a dead issue.Carlotta at Christocentric

  21. Christocentric says:

    Cassie, where\’s the hatred? I simply don\’t agree that homosexuality is God\’s design for marriage.  I also don\’t believe that premarital sex is God\’s design either and does that mean I hate those who practice it?  Not at all! Disagreement with a practice doesn\’t automatically equal hatred.There\’s no fear pushing me to believe in marriage between a man and a woman, but knowledge of the fact that if we simply do what God instructs us to do in his bible, then all of our lives are better!  That\’s the meaning of "abundant living" that Jesus speaks of!  There is no comparison for the peace that engulfs you when you realize you are living your life God\’s way, and not your own way.So no Cassie, I don\’t hate you, Justin, Kevin or any other just because you are living in a way that I understand to be contrary to God\’s way.  Quite the opposite.  If I didn\’t care, I wouldn\’t be wasting my time going on your boards to try to convince you that there\’s a better way of life!Carlotta at Christocentric

  22. Cassie says:

    But don\’t you see, Carlotta, that you only call YOUR way "Better" and "Natural" because it haooens that you are heterosexual by birth? Many are not. And for us to try to be like YOU would be UN-natural. But, no, you\’ll never uderstand that because  you cannot imagine that anything different from you can be anything but sinful or whatever.
    As for God\’s design—who knows what that was? It is ADAM who defines what marriage is in Genesis after meeting a sex-changed clone of himself called Eve.

  23. Christocentric says:

    Cassie, it\’s one thing to not agree with the church regarding homosexuality, but it\’s quite another thing to twist the words of the bible!  You said Adam defined marriage in the bible? Please share with me how you came to that conclusion!But don\’t forget, even Jesus Himself declared marriage between a man and a woman when he said:"Haven\’t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator \’made them male and female,\’ and said, \’For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh\’  So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."  Matt 19:4-6Jesus Himself understood the Genesis account of the creation of man and woman and He didn\’t attribute that to Adam!  He said the Creator made them male and female!  To disregard the creation of Adam and Eve for marriage is to also reject Jesus Christ\’s understanding of it as well.  But most Christians understand that Jesus ALSO created mankind because He and the Father are one! "Then God said, "Let us make
    man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of
    the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the
    earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Genesis 1:26"I and the Father are one." John 10:30Jesus knows what He was talking about regarding marriage, because HE was right there in creation all along!As far as being born a certain way, that is no excuse for us to continue in it.  We are all born into some propensity for doing what comes natural to us but is unnatural to God.  For some it is natural to lie, for some it\’s natural to cheat, to fight, to argue and etc. and etc.  Believe me, according to God\’s word we will be without excuse to our "natural inclinations" if it doesn\’t measure up to God\’s standard.  So for you who claim that you were "born" homosexual, okay, so be it.  But you will not be excused for it! 19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and
    envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before,
    that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.  22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.  Galatians 5:19-26Homosexuality is classified in the bible as sexual immorality and would fit right into these verses in Galatians.  It makes sense to me for someone like Kevin to reject the bible completely, but I\’m completely puzzled by those who call themselves "Christian" yet practice homosexuality.  How can one claim to "love Christ" while rejecting His standard of creation? The very people He created Himself?

  24. Cassie says:

    How did I reach that conclusion? By reading Genesis Chapter 2:19-24 of course.

  25. Christocentric says:

    Cassie, take a look at verse 24 again.  After Adam said his part, then it was God who defined marriage: 23 The man said,        "This is now bone of my bones        and flesh of my flesh;        she shall be called \’woman,\’       for she was taken out of man."  24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.  Gen 2:23-24Even Jesus quoted it correctly when He said the same: ""Haven\’t
    you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator \’made them
    male and female,\’ and said, \’For this reason a man will leave his
    father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become
    one flesh\’  It wasn\’t Adam, but the Creator who defined marriage. But for arguments sake even if Adam did define marriage, the bottom line it has been defined as between a man and a woman, and confirmed by the Creator Himself, Jesus Christ.

  26. Cassie says:

    I\’m sorry but your interpretation does not fly. It does not say God said ANYTHING. SOME of what the man said was in verse form (which is why the translators set it that way) the rest was not. (One needs to be familiar with the original text so I will not blame you for that).
     
    But, finally, if we are going to make marriage laws based on a LITERAL interpretation of the Scripture then I am afraid all marriage must be outlawed for now. Until, that is, science catches up to God. For there is no person living who is "bone of one\’s bones" and "flesh of one\’s flesh" as Eve was of Adam. One might make the argument that marrying one\’s twin brother or twin sister might meet the LITERAL Biblical definition of marriage—but that\’s about it. We\’re going to have to wait until science can clone human beings (the way they can sheep) replacing one of the Y chromosomes in the male clone with an X chromosome so that a female version of the male (as Eve was of Adam) can be produced thereby providing the male with a person who is "bone of his bones" and "flesh of his flesh" (but of the opposite gender since that appears important too if we\’re going to be LITERAL) ehom he can then MARRY in the TRUE LITERAL BIBLICAL SENSE.
     
     

  27. Cassie says:

    I should add that when I say that SOME of what Adam said was "in verse form" I don\’t mean he suddenly whipped out a guitar and sang a love song (although he MIGHT have, since he was seeing his first woman—and she was NAKED besides).But what I am really saying is that much of this material was handed down as oral tradition until someone (many believe it to have been Moses) finally wrote it down. Now, if you\’re familiar with oral tradition at all then you will be aware that many times one gets spontaneous little mnemonic rhymes like this which were used as memory aides.

  28. Christocentric says:

    Okay Cassie!   Agreed to disagree…At least I understand now that you don\’t believe the bible either.

  29. Cassie says:

    I never said that I didn\’t "believe the Bible"…I said if we want to interpret it literally and in context that is the position we would be forced to assume. But you people only want to use it (and Jesus) to justify your own prejudices—you\’re not interested in really getting to know Jesus or in Truth.
     
    (At least now you know why they wanted me to respond to your posts, don\’t you)
     
    I wish you well, Carlotta and we agree to disagree (I didn\’t really expect any OTHER outcome, did YOU)?
     
    Cass

  30. Cassie says:

    Hey Carlotta! Tell you what, come on over to my space, do the Kitty Cat Dance with us (play the video on my page) and we\’ll all take a deep breath and relax and have some fun…what sayest thou?

  31. Christocentric says:

    Cassie, do me a favor and read the scriptures with a deep breath and
    breathe out easy.  Interpretation isn\’t that difficult at all to the
    simpler doctrines.  It takes a huge stretch to make the bible say what
    you (and many others) are trying to make it say … marriage outside of a man and a woman. 
    I\’ll close with that last request.  I\’m leaving the board and may stop by at a later time on a different topic.Meanwhile, I took your advice and went to your page and had a little fun.  Now I can\’t get that song out of my head……dance – of the kitty cat…meow meow meow, meow meow meow…dance – of the kitty cat…meow meow meow, meow meow meowSomething about that song makes me want to do the "bend and snap" (legally blonde).   🙂

  32. Justin says:

     
    Carlotta
    As to your statement to Kevin as a fact "For centuries, marriage as a legal, civil and religious institution between a man and a woman has protected children and society in every country and culture. This is not a fact and it is so wrong in so many ways.  Do you really believe this contrivance trying to be passed off as a fact Carlotta?  How many third world countries have you been to? Have you ever heard of Honor Killings in the muslim world (they have legal and religious marriages)? Have you heard of children being sold into slavery, that is still happening today? Have you heard or seen or rescued a child from being sold into prostitution by his or her parents who are married by their religion and law?  You see Carlotta in my many years on this planet I have seen all this and much more that would curl your toenails.  Now Carlotta a little news flash for you and your followers all this and more is happening right here in America today. 
     
    So Carlotta, just who are you and your Church protecting these Children and Society from?  Walk in the world I have walked in then come back and tell me how two people even of the same sex loving each other and wanting to have that love honored and respected is more evil than what I just told you about.  Dont just talk the talk let me see you walk the walk.  Go out in the real world and not just your comfy little Church pew or your comfy home shaking your head and condeming things you dont have any real experience with. Go do as Yeshua said take up your cross and follow him and walk in that world I told you about and you will have an entirely  different  outlook on who  Yeshua is and what he meant in the sermon on the mount.  You will have a entirely different outlook on your brothers and sisters you look down your nose at and judge.  Carlotta start working with the poorest of the poor in your own community as Yeshusa commanded us to do and leave the judgements to G-d.  
     
    Matthew 2535For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you clothed me,I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.\’ 37Then the righteous will answer him, saying, \’Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?39And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?\’
    40And the King will answer them, \’Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,you did it to me.\’
     
    Can you walk the walk Carlotta?
     
    Sorry about the long post here Kevin but there were just so many wrongs here that I couldnt let it slide.  I guess after 30+years you never leave the pulpit far behind eh?
     
     
     
     
     

  33. Justin says:

    Now to Gay marriage.  Kevin will gladly tell you I am not a proponet of Gay Marriage. I simply cannot understand why someone would want to join a failing modern institution that is not historicaly or biblicaly founded. The Americans for divorce reform estimate that 40 to 50 percent of marriages will fail in divorce. So it is evident that it is the Churches who are not doing their jobs in preserving this institution you accuse Gays of wanting to destroy.  Where are your Propsitions to outlaw divorce? I can tell you they are nowhere because your preachers know if they railed against divorce and the adultery that follows it your churches would be quite empty. That being said I wish my bothers and sisters who do want such privileges all the luck.
    When it comes to the Gay Marriage issue today many Christians are misled by those who misrepresent and misinterpret the scripture from the pulpit for their own gain.
    The battle cry from the pulpit is that gays are out to destroy Christianity and the sanctity of marriage. Would giving gays the right to having loving committed relationships acknowledged by law giving them the full protections others already have destroy Christianity? No it would not. Would allowing gays to marry destroy the sanctity of marriage? Definitely not.
    The cry from the pulpit is biblicaly marriage is one man one woman. Well, this is true unless you read the other biblical scriptures and see there were definitely more than one woman involved. Abraham the father of all nations was married to 3 women, Jacob the father of Israel had 4,David a man after G-D\’s own heart had 4 wives and the list goes on. Thus, bringing into question the one man one woman rule. Those who misinterpert scripture will then raise the question "what about Adam and Eve"? Well, what about Adam and Eve? How many other women were around at the time?
    Long before marriage was elevated to a sacrament by the council of Trent in 1536 marriage was not considered sacred. Marriage was a contractual agreement between families and most often members of the same family group to insure the continuation of property rights and family lineage. They were used as political alliances between royal families. Women were bought with what was called the Bride Price and she became the property of the Man.
    The ideas that marriage must be licensed by the state or sanctioned by the church are modern innovations that go beyond the biblical tradition. From the historical standpoint, the definition of marriage has always been evolving, from an understanding of marriage along the lines of property rights, to marriage as a means for procreation, to a family dominated arrangement designed to protect wealth, to more recently as a response to attraction, love and mutual respect.
    Our modern definition of the traditional marriage based on love, trust, vulnerability and commitment is neither traditional nor biblical. In fact, what we call the traditional marriage is quite a modern invention having been around only since about the 17th century. And yet,without hesitation we impose this modern concept of marriage upon our culture, mistaking it for some biblical commandment which it is and was not.

  34. Justin says:

    Hi Cass welcome back.  I know it can be tiring to try and explain the simple truth to those who are so blind and deaf that they will not even entertain the thought that there may be some truth other than their own.
    Carlotta , how presumptious of you to judge Cass\’s belief or non belief in the bible.  Cass is quite right in asserting that much of this was handed down orally through generations prior to being written down between 1450 and 1410 B.C.
    Now Carlotta I must take issue with your erroneous statement referencing Yeshua as the creator. "It wasn\’t Adam, but the Creator who defined marriage. But for arguments sake even if Adam did define marriage, the bottom line it has been defined as between a man and a woman, and confirmed by the Creator Himself, Jesus Christ.  Your statement is blasphemey no two ways about it.  Yeshua is not nor was he the Creator of this world or any other world. He is the son of G-d, nor did he ever claim to be G-d.  No where in the gospels is he refered to as G-d he in fact rebuked those who tried to elevate him to that status.  You played the same old Triunist verse that has been used in error for centuries by those who try to teach the triune G-d.  I think John Seldon said it best when he said:“We pick out a text here and there to make it serve our turn; whereas, if we take it all together, and considered what went before and what followed after, we should find it meant no such thing”
    So, let us look at this verse you so conviently picked out of context and put it back in its context and see what happens.Again from John chapter 10 verses 25 thru 36, 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father\’s name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me,  is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father\’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”31Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father;for which of those works do ye stone me? 33The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not;but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thoublasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
    Isnt it odd that when it is in its full context it does not mean what you say.  In verse 29 he plainly states who his father is and the authority his father has given him.  In verse 30  the meaning is very clear he and the father are one in purpose not in person.  Just as a worker represents his boss to other workers he manages they are one in purpose, he is doing the bosses will.  Yeshua went even furhter to clarify this when in verse 36 he said "I am the Son of God"  So Carlotta, lets keep the scriptures in their full context and quit playing these Cafeteria Christian games with them.

  35. Cassie says:

    Ah but be careful about interpretation when you learn it from human beings. The truth is that I "interpreted" the Genesis verse we were discussing in the literal sense and in context—changing nothing. Naturally, people like Carlotta don\’t like that because they don\’t WANT it to say what it says—they want it to say what they have TRADITIONALLY understood it to mean–forgetting the admonition of Isaiah 29:13:
    "The Lord says: \’These people come near to me with their mouth        and honor me with their lips,        but their hearts are far from me.        Their worship of me        is made up only of rules taught by men.\’"
     
    As it was with the Scribes and Pharisees that Jesus dealt with so is it with the Fundamentalists of today—so hung up on the rules and regulations they entirely missed the Good News Jesus REALLY brought to people.

  36. Cassie says:

     I went to Carlotta\’s profile (it was blank as regards to age and so on—funny how these people hide—Gary was the same way I remember). Here we are, everyone knows who we are, where we are, anything and everything. We hide nothing from God or Man—what is it with these Christians?  But, anyway, I should say that I have been reading the Bible since I was five years old—roughly—I learned to read when I was three) that would be back in the mid 1950s, used to wiin prizes in Sunday School for memorization, and so I am tolerably familiar with the book. I am also familiar with the Gnostic texts and the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigraphia and on and on. Back in the 60s and the 70s (in my seeking the Light days) I studied all those and more (anyone familiar with my writings on my own space will know what more) and I am here to tell you as I have told you before:
     
    ALL Truth is in no ONE Sacred Text (not even the Bible)
    But SOME Truth is in ALL of them.
     
    Do I believe in the Bible? If you mean word for word Genesis to Revelation as THE revealed Word of God then no, I don\’t. And I\’m pretty sure Jesus wouldn\’t either.
     
    But I believe in Jesus (I\’ve blogged about that).
    I believe in Love and Tolerance and Understanding…I do not believe in judgementalism, prejudice, and bigotry.
     
    But all of this is beside the point. As is just about everything that has been said by Carlotta. The fact remains that no ONE religion and no ONE interpretation of ANY "sacred" text can be allowed to become the basis by which people living under the Flag of the United States are permitted or denied rights.
    Equality under the Law must be guaranteed to ALL or it isn\’t guaranteed to ANY.
     
    Cass
     
    ps It is amusing to me how Christians of today cry "persecutiion of our Faith" whenever the subject of equal rights for Gays and Lesbians and Transgendered Persons comes up.
     
    These people know nothing about persecution.
     
    Do you wnat to know what Persecution REALLY looks like, Carlotta?
     
    CLICK HERE

  37. Cassie says:

    About the link below–after you "click to continue" as the website suggests then you can click on any name that you see for more information.
     
    WE know what persecution is and we know what terrorism looks like—it doesn\’t hide in the middle east—it comes from our Christian neighbors.

  38. Christocentric says:

    I thought I was finished here after my little kitty dance…  :(Justin you\’ve written quite a bit of fresh new things that I\’d like to comment on.  But before I touch on those things I want to clarify somethings that perhaps I have misunderstood about Cassie\’s belief in the bible.Cassie, do you believe that in spite of the oral traditions of the written word of God, do you believe the bible to be inerrant?Can the bible be trusted with information we need for guidance of our lives?Are the commandments of God that we need to follow found in God\’s word or are we just to trust our hearts for what we think may be right?

  39. Cassie says:

    I thought I\’d answered that—I believe in Jesus–and I believe the Bible contains SOME Truth. I do not believe it to be "inerrant" because it so obviously ISN\’T. It would be nice if it were…it would make the search for Truth so much easier if it were all gathered conveniently into one book.
     
    But there is a reason Jesus tells people to "SEEK and you shall find". It isn\’t being handed to you on a platter. The Bible is not the "inerrant word of God" but God (or someone) clearly had a hand in it because we get glimpses of Jesus\’ REAL teaching in it even though human beings have done their level best to eradicate all traces of it and substitute their own teachings and traditions and prejudices. I was commenting on that once before here when I compared the King James Translation, the New International Version, and the original Hebrew version of one text: Deuteronomy 23:2
     
    The New International Version ADDS words that are not in any previous version (including the original). which caused Kevin to reference a book that every one of YOU should read—it\’s called Truth in Translation  by John David BeDuhn and you can get the paperback HERE
     
    And, finally, if you\’d like the full version of my  50 plus years of reading and studying on these matters you can begin with the first installment of my essay "My Personal Relationship with Jesus" which begins RIGHT HERE and continues on through three more installments plus a postscript.
     
    Cass

  40. Christocentric says:

    Okay Cassie, I\’ve just read all of your "gospel" including your
    postscript and I can truly say, you are NOT a friend of Jesus Christ as
    you think you are.  Jesus describes His true friends as follows:

    "You are my friends if you do what I command." – John 15:14 (see also John 14:15, 21)

    One of the first things one must do is believe that Jesus Christ is the
    Son of God – equal to God! Neither you nor Justin even accept the deity
    of Christ.  He makes several claims to His deity, but none of which you
    accept. Knowing who Jesus is as well as doing what He says is what
    being a Christian is all about.

    "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins." – John 8:24

    And you also must be born again, another commandment of Christ.

    Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He
    came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who
    has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you
    are doing if God were not with him."
     In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." John 3:1-3
    God gave His Son as a sacrifice for our sins.  Jesus died on the cross
    and on the third day rose again!  THAT is the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

    "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.  For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,   1 Corinthians 15:1-4

    You clearly pick and choose what part of scripture you want to
    believe.  What\’s worse is that you speak words as if you expect people
    to believe what you say moreso than you would have them believe in the
    bible!  Very dangerous!

    So again the indicators that you aren\’t a friend of  Jesus:
    1) You don\’t accept  His claims of deity
    2) You haven\’t been born again
    3) You don\’t accept the scriptures as truth (they testify of Christ – John 5:29)

    I was going to spend time dialogging with Justin, but like I\’ve already said, he also denies the deity of Christ.

    So folks, I\’m truly dancing my way out of here for good.  I\’ve shared
    what needs to be shared and the two of you need to be born again so you
    can stop spreading your dangerous made up gospels.  Look up false
    teachers in the bible and you\’ll find plenty to describe both of you
    and what you espouse on your websites.

    Thanks Kevin for a thought provoking post and dialogue!

  41. Cassie says:

    Now there you have it—the proof of what I said before that "there are none so blind as those who will not see". She quotes a bunch of stuff from the New International Version (one of the LEAST accurate of all the English translations) filters them through the Fundamentalist Tradition and concludes that WE are spreading "false gospels". (sigh).
     
    You see what I mean, Kevin, when I say it really isn\’t worth trying to enter into a dialogue with any of these people. First of all, I didn\’t write any "gospel" over and over in my posts I said that this was what I had found through years of study. I found the light and love of God (however you might define that term) in all things—for it IS in all things. As for "soing what Jesus said" she totally ignores context. He laid no such commandments on Gentiles and I quoted both Peter and Paul who said over and over that Gentiles were NOT under the Law. This is all in the Bible and I gave chapter and verse for it—but she doesn\’t like that so she accuses me of making it up.
    Proving, as I have often said before—there\’s no use even conversing with these people their minds are as closed as their hearts.
     
    As Jesus said "Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered!" (Luke 11:52)
     
    Yet Carlotta would deny the Love of God that Christ attempted to bring to a hungry world, she would deny the words of the Apostle Paul about Faith not needing Works—because…well, I really don\’t understand why ANYONE would be that way. But take her quotation from John: "Ye are my friends if ye do what I command". But he only commanded two things.
    "Love the Lord your God with All Your Heart, all your Soul, and all your mind"
    And
    "Love your neighbor as yourself".
     
    We the GLBTI Community are HER neighbors and I can\’t say I feel much love coming our way from her crowd.

  42. Cassie says:

    One quote from my blog entry "The Easy Way Part 2" might be relevant here:
     
    "Only problem with this path is…you really can\’t walk this path and run around judging and condemning other people—there\’s too much love in it for that.
     
    Which may be why most people don\’t follow it.

  43. Cassie says:

    Presumably Carlotta has left us for good but just in case she is still hanging about the Holy Spirit has suggested I remind her of THIS saying of Jesus—"Give the GLBTI Community equal rights under the civil laws of the land even as they have asked for."
     
    (OR, to put it into BIBLICAL language and using the New International Version—which has this one right)
     
    "But here is what I tell you. Do not fight against an evil person.  Suppose someone hits you on your right cheek. Turn your other cheek to him also. Suppose someone takes you to court to get your shirt. Let him have your coat also. Suppose someone forces you to go one mile. Go two miles with him.
     "Give to the one who asks you for something. Don\’t turn away from the one who wants to borrow something from you. "
    Matthew 5:39-42
    ***************************************************************************************************
     
     

  44. Justin says:

    Shaking head back and forth.  Morning Cass, Kevin and Carlotta if you are there I hope you will read this even if it does challenge what you preach as being less than the truth.  I want to say a few things in answer to your false judgement of Cass and myself. 
     
    You made the following statements about us.
    So again the indicators that you aren\’t a friend of  Jesus:1) You don\’t accept  His claims of deity
    A) You are correct I do not accept you supposition of his claims of deity since he never made any such claims.  The only claims he ever made were that he was the Son of G-d, sent into this world to reconcile the world to G-d.  He claimed to be the Sacrifical Lamb sent by the Father that his blood like the blood of the sacrifical lambs in the Temple would cover the sins of the world. There would be no more need for a blood sacrafice to sprinkle on the mercy seat.  His only other claim is that the Father would raise him on the third day.  2) You haven\’t been born again
    A) Now here Young lady you have stepped way over the line.  This is the major problem with your view of a Judgemental attitude and the false doctrines you have been taught. You think you have the right to determine peoples salvation.  News flash Carlotta you were never given that authority and you will never be given that authority. A persons salvation is between that individual and G-d and since you are a human it is not only presumptious of you but it is blasphemious of you to think you can make judgements for G-d.   My suggestion is you read again that old most used scripture in the world John 3:16.  You nor your Church and its doctrines were ever mentioned in this or any other scripture as to having the authority to determine ones state of salvation. That is and will always remain the power of G-d not man.
    I pray for you Carlotta I truely pray for you.3) You don\’t accept the scriptures as truth (they testify of Christ – John 5:29)
    A) Again you are making false judgements which are not in your realm of authority or power to make.  Who\’s truth Carlotta? Yours? If this is what you mean then no I do not accept your interpertation of the scripture as being true because it is not.  Yes the scriptures testify to Yeshua as being the Son of G-d and the sacrafice for the world but, no where and I mean no where in the scripture did claim to be G-d.  Even he would tell you that is blasphemy.  G-d is G-d he is not some three way polytheistic creature that was not even created until the 4th century after Yeshuas death by a Egyptian Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church.
     
    Carlotta you quoted 1 Corinthians 15:14 then you said:
    "You clearly pick and choose what part of scripture you want to believe.  What\’s worse is that you speak words as if you expect people to believe what you say moreso than you would have them believe in the bible!  Very dangerous!"
    Yes Carlotta you clearly do this and if you will remember I spoke of using the verse in its whole context and not just being a Cafeteria Christian and picking and  choosing those verses you like and try to pin your whole debate on them because you will always lose.  You are clearly trying to do two things with these quotation of yours.  You are 1. Trying to say Cass and I are not saved which again you are not given that right to do even with this scripture and for all your quotations of the scripture of John I refer you back to John 3:16.
    Now Carlotta, continually you refer to Yeshua as the Son of G-d and yet you judge us for our not accepting the deity of Yeshua which for my part you are correct Yeshua is not G-d.  He himself proclaimed this in his teachings, he always claimed to be the Son of G-d and the Son of man but, never did he take the mantel of G-d.  Now to play your gotcha game with just using one or two scriptures from the same letter to the Corinthians and the same chapter you used.  These verses prove beyond a doubt the Sonship of Yeshua and not the G-dship.
    1 Corinthians 15: 25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God maybe all in all.
    Clearly Paul in this epistle is telling his congregation at Corinth that when the end comes and all has been accomplished Yeshua will turn all power back to God and will be subject to God himself.
    Yes Carlotta picking and choosing just one or two scriptures is dangerous.  Not only to others around them but to themselves.  You see Carlotta I learned a lot from the Holy Spirit in my 30+ years of having been a Priest and studying the Bible in its original languages.  With out all the twistings and additions to make it fit the doctrine of man.  Now come back and lets use the old scripture "Come let us reason together" not argue but reason.  
     
     
     
     
     

  45. Justin says:

    I would still like a answer as to just what evil the supposed fact "For centuries, marriage as a legal, civil and religious institution between a man and a woman has protected children and society in every country and culture." is protecting children and society from.

  46. Cassie says:

    Morning, Justin "Say, couldja help an old Altar Boy, Faddah?" 🙂
    No, but seriously—
    Mornin\’ Kevin (and just where DID Kevin run off to after he dumped us in this debate, anyway?
    And grace and peace to YOU, Carlotta—-wherever you\’re hiding….I\’ve now announced the truth on my space that I first revealed here last night—the the Churches that have moved to deny same-sex couples the right to civil marriages are in defiance of Christ. I think all GLBTI Activists should paint huge banners announcing it and start picketing the churches (it\’ll make for a nice change, anyways).
     
    Justin, my dear friend—I suspect that Carlotta has NO idea of the machinations that went into giving the Bible the shape it has today. Most of these Fundamentalists don\’t.  No more than they accept Darwin\’s Theory of Evolution (which they don\’t understand and continuously state erroneously). In his book THE DESCENT OF MAN Darwin suggests that humans and apes share a common ancestor NOT that humans are descended FROM apes—the latter being what the Fundamentalists say it says.
     
    Even though Genesis (when you look at it in the original language) would seem to support it.
     
    Well, in a sense. Genesis 1:1 is usually translated "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth". (Or some minor variation of the same). Which is not what it says. There are two things wrong about this tranlation and we haven\’t gotten past the first sentence. The words "God" and "Created" are incorrect. "create" means "to bring out of nothing" and that isn\’t what it says was being done. The word actually used would be better translated as "made" or "built" ore even "put into order" but, in any case, already existing materials are being used in this building project.
     
    And, as I said, the word rendered as "God" doesn\’t mean that either. The word used here is a plural "Elohim". (Not only that but it is a plural that implies the presence of beings of BOTH genders.  So we get a picture NOT of a lonely Supernatural Being creating things out of nothing but of a race of beings working on a scientific project.
    Which helps to make sense out of much of what follows, as, for instance: "Let US make man after OUR image". Theologians had to come up with this whole theory of a "Trinity" (all male) in order to explain why "God" is talking to Himself because they INSIST on mistranslating the word in line with their traditions instead of translating what is actually written.
    The Bible is full of things like this. It waffles back and forth between the "Eloist" (POLYtheistic view) and the "Yahvist" (monotheistic view) quite a bit in the oldest texts.
    Of course, they don\’t tell you that in Sunday School.
    Just as they don\’t tell you that the more modern translations are beginning to depart even MORE widely from the original (or, at least, the OLDEST) texts we have available to us in order to justify the current version of "the Faith".
     
    I pointed out in my blog, for example, how—even were we to accept the compromise in Jerusalem between the followers of James and the followers of Paul and Peter as somehow BINDING on us the only "sexual" sin mentioned that Gentiles must avoid was "Fornication". Not, as the more modern translations have changed it "sexual impurities" (to hint that homosexuality was somehow implied when it was not).
     
    There is a lot for Carlotta to learn if she were capable of learning—but I greatly fear she is not….

  47. Cassie says:

    Oh, about my comment that the Bible seems to support Darwinian Theory? Well, there are several things that suggest it—including the appearence in the Old Testament of Bigfoot (often called "The Missing Link").
     
    Cass

  48. Kevin says:

    Hi Cass, Justin and Carlotta!
    Damn, I can\’t believe all of this conversation happened on the day I didn\’t log in!  I missed all of the fun!  My sister-in-law and her husband were here for the weekend and I decided not to look at the blog.
    It is unfortunate the way the Spaces sets up their comment section–I can\’t look at old posts without erasing what I am typing now.  Bad design! 
    But I do want to say just a bit more about all of this.  Carlotta, you don\’t believe in gay marriage.  However, as I have pointed out many times before, that is a religious belief.  It is fine if you believe that, but your church is making it a political issue and forcing your belief on people who don\’t believe like you do.  That is what I don\’t like.  We can look at scripture all we want, but what a religious book states shouldn\’t be forced on others.  That is persecution.  You, as a divorced woman, should know how dangerous it is to use the bible to make other people feel unequal.  God states that he hates divorce:  Mal. 2:16 "For I hate divorce, says the LORD, the God of Israel, and covering one\’s garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless."  I bring this up because you use Scripture to say that God created marriage between a man and a woman.  Apparently he also hates divorce–but yet you are divorced.  So we all need to be careful about using Scripture to take rights away from one group.  The Bible is a big book and any of us can use it to throw the varous laws and regulations around at each other.
    I think all of us are capable of learning something from this debate.  I just hope, Carlotta, that you look at the lies your pastor is spreading on that website of his and how it reflects on not only you, but the entire church.
     

  49. Kevin says:

    I do want to comment on a verse that Carlotta used, in defense of the idea that the passage in Genesis is talking about marriage.  Carlotta quotes:
    "Haven\’t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator \’made them male and female,\’ and said, \’For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh\’  So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."  Matt 19:4-6
    Lots of people like to use this verse, but they always ignore what Paul believed about this passage.  He used it as an example to keep people from using prostitutes:
    Paul says (in 1 Cor) 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 6:16 Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, "The two shall be one flesh."
    So, in sex, a male and female becomes one flesh. Is Paul saying the male and the prostitute are married because they are ‘one flesh’?  Absolutely not.  So stating that the words ‘one flesh’ means marriage is wrong. And if the Bible is the inerrant word of God and everything in it is God’s word, then how do we account for Paul (i.e. God) saying this?
     

  50. Justin says:

    Welcome back Kevin I see you showed up after all the heavy lifting(just teasing) 🙂 glad you had a good visit with family and they do always come first.
     
    Cass,
    You are right about the translations of the Bible they are so fraught with mistranslations that they do not in anyway resemble the original.  As to the Evolution idea it is more prevelant than you may imagine.  Just some short references.  In the creation story
    G-d or as you so correctly stated the Elohim which in hebrew can be plural or singular.  He said let the earth bring forth the grasses every herb and tree after its own kind.  Then he said let the earth bring forth the cattle of the field and every thing that creepth on the earth.  Then he moved to the seas and used the same term let the seas bring forth every thing that swims and the fowl of the air.  Now the key words here are (bring forth) does this denegrate the creation no, but, it does show he did not create these things
    individually he had the earth and the seas bring them forth, and how would that happen with out some form of evolution?  Even Rabbis will agree with that the only thing not up for grab is the creation of man.
     
    Also the Bible states something that was only proven with certainty in the 50\’s and that is that all the land masses were once joined together then moved apart. 
     
    Now I realize the fundamentalist believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and reject out of hand the truth of its age.  But, then this is nothing new since the Church burned Copernicus at the stake for proving the earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around.  These type of people would rather remain in their ignorance and kill people than to even entertain the idea they might just be wrong.
     
    It is ironic that at one time I believed the same as Carlotta until I finally took off the blinders and set Church Dogma and doctrine aside and read it as it should be.  It is to bad Carlotta will in all probability not be able to do that.

  51. Cassie says:

    The creation of man is an interesting story in the Bible (rather surprised no one has asked me where to find Bigfoot yet). But the Bible story—God "puts together" (not "creates" man from the dust of the earth. "Adam" comes from the Hebrew for "Red Earth" or "Red Dust"—same word as "Edom" actually. But EVERYTHING is made that way, more or less. The atoms and so on that make up US make up everything. But then something interesting happens. The Bible says (in most translations) that God "breathed the breath of life into him and man became a living soul".
    Now, what most people never realize is that we actually get two different versions of the making of human beings in Genesis. In the first God makes a male and a female at the same time. In the second Eve shows up later and we get the story about the rib. I don\’t suppose there was a word for "cell" in Hebrew when these tales were being told or when they were first written down but the second story is a pretty obvious attempt on the part of a not very scientifically advanced narrator to describe what we, today, would call "cloning".
     
    But back to that "Breath of Life" business (in Hebrew Ruach Adonai—or "Breath of God—Adonai is one of the many words translated "God" in English. Spelt Aleph daleth nun yod—or ADNI—really means "my Lord"). Now, whatever this "extra element" may have been I think it spelt the difference between the anthropoidal and the anthropic.
     
    If we want edto get a little Kabbalistic here we might comment in the fact that Adonai (like Yahweh) is a "tetragrammaton" (or 4 lettered name). Yahweh is spelled Yod heh vau (or vav) heh. Or, in English it could be translated JHVH JHUH,JHWH YHWH YHVH YHUH. IHWH and so on—it gets kinda tricky. But all are agreed that when you shove the letter "shin" in the middle (which in Kabbalism denotes the decent of the Holy Spirit—in some traditions) you get Yeshua—Yod Heh Shin Vau Heh—which I guess means Jesus is God after he "got the spirit" 🙂

  52. Cassie says:

    "descent" not "decent" below and Kevin what is with the spelling here?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s