SPIKEY (continued)

The pastor was jailed in Sweden for preaching in HIS OWN CHURCH......
based on the beliefs of that faith.

The homosexual would have been offended if Pastor Green had simply READ Romans 1 as follows:

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie,

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

1/ Unnatural.
2/ Shameful.
3/ Inflamed with lust.
4/ Indecent.
5/ Sinful
6/ Perversion.
7/ Impure.

But note carefully. Paul contextualizes all this with a key phrase
'ABANDONED' natural relations. In this case, he is referring to a choice they made. So, it is conceivable that a man or woman of homosexual 'orientation' could be accepted in Church as long as they were not practicing.
The same (to be brutally honest) applies to anyone, straight or gay, who is 'living' in a state of unrepentant sin, which could include heteroxexual fornication and adultery.

Now.. as far as I see, the church is usually very generous, and what happens in practice is "they don't know" unless the elders are told by someone that so and so is doing such and such.
Even those 'doing' such and such would probably find no one kicks up much fuss except that we are all reminded that to partake of the communion in a sinful state is to bring judgement on ones-self.

If the pastor said "Fornicators are a cancerous tumor on society" would anyone try to drag him before a Human Rights Commission?

I rather doubt it.

Spikey.. are you tolerant of Christians reading Roman 1 in their own churches or public meetings and preaching sermons based on that passage? (might be to THIS many people)

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/lagosreinhard-bonnke/2009469929?icid=acvsv2

Boazy: you stated *I don't find it a problem to have compassion for a person claiming to be a homosexual.*

Did your nose grow whilst you were typing that?

You have a problem with just about everything and everyone that does not fit neatly into your religious waffle.

Personally, I feel sorry for you because you are completely oblivious to your limitations to unconditionally accept people for who they truly are.

I feel even more sorry for you because you are missing out on many of life’s truly beautiful soulful people (eg: gays, muslims, etc…).

You do not advance the Christian movement Boaz- I just wish you could see that.

Boazy,

VATICAN - PROTECTING BISHOP OF BOSTON

The sanctionary matter was only mentioned in passing on "The Insiders". It was not a segment. If confirmed, hopefully, your church's full congregation can write a protest letter, with your bishop's name on the top. Your archbishop can haNd it to The Pope, in Sydney, forgetting all the peer group & diplomatic niceties.

Thanks for your response on the other thread. Will reply soon.

O.

Oh dear, Boaz. You are getting very lazy these days

>>Pericles.... "defiled" themselves with women. Given that there is a highly unlikely possibility that 144,000 people have never either procreated or married, -the word 'defiled' would be more likely to mean 'in an immoral manner'.<<

You'd like to think so, wouldn't you?

However, if we expand the verse just the teensiest bit, we will see that there is no question of what is being described here:

"and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins." Rev 14:3-4

Look it up for yourself, and try again.

"how would you "interpret" it? Using the mores and values of those times? Using a modern slant, to bring it into the twentyfirst century?
Exactly what would you like us to think the Bible is telling us here?"

(I have simply repeated my question, in case you had forgotten that too.)

Incidentally, while we are talking about doing your homework, did you realize that the example you gave in the opening post - Ake Green's one month jail - never happened?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4477502.stm

Your words, I will remind you, were:

>>Given that in Sweden, a pastor WAS JAILED for preaching in his own Church on Romans 1 and using some colorful language in his sermon...it is not only 'possible' [that the politicized homosexual lobby will be lobbying to prohibit the teaching even in Churches of Leviticus 18 and more especially "Romans 1] but I suggest 'very likely'.<<

He wasn't. So it isn't "very likely", is it.

I wish you would try harder to get your facts straight, Boaz.

Fascinating. I looked up Ake Green at Wikipedia, and this is the first paragraph of the article about him:

<< Ake Green (born 3 June 1941) is a Pentecostal Christian pastor who was sentenced to one month in prison under Sweden's law against hate speech. On February 11, 2005 an appeals court, Göta hovrätt, overturned the decision and acquitted Åke Green. On March 9, the Prosecutor-General appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which on November 29 also acquitted him. In their opinion, while Åke Green had violated Swedish law as it currently stands, a conviction would most likely be overturned by the European Court of Human Rights, based on their previous rulings regarding Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. >>

So this homophobic fundy broke the law of his own country, but had his conviction overturned on the basis of an International Human Rights Convention!

Lordy be - even godbothering homophobes have human rights. Who would've thought, the way Boazy babbles on?

Can we expect a retraction of this obvious in error in fact from Brother Boazy?

Well done team mates.... Pericles.. ur right..I got lazy there..went from memory :)

Now.. given your additional research we can arrive at some sensible conclusions.

-A literal 144,000 virgin males from the literal 12 tribes of literal Israel (refer Rev 7) (which of course have not existed since around 700bc) will be presented to the Almighty.
-Given that the text clearly and literally says (in the midst of a literary style which is hugely symblolic/apocalyptic) 'they did not defile themselves with women'....

CONCLUSIONs.
-"women are evil, dirty and sinful"
-"Men are pure, and wonderful and holy"
-"Sex is utterly evil" (you know..nice but naughty)

So... I guess now we are all blessed with this very literal interpretation of a clearly symbolic section of the book, and we must on no account look to how male female/marriage relations are potrayed in the rest of the New Testament, or spoken about by Jesus Paul and the rest of the Apostles.....right?

Of course it might be argued from my obvious sarcasm that 'other' religious books should be approached in the same fair and balanced manner...right? :) (I can pick you like a beeeep nose old son)

Yes.. that WOULD be true except for one thing.

Surah 2:106 you can look that one up for yourself.
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/2.htm

Dear CJ.. OLO is about 'working together toward truth' if nothing else. So, your completion of the picture is welcome. No, he was not jailed (I wasn't aware of this from what I read)...so.. substitute CONVICTED for 'Jailed' and we have a fuller story.
Add to this your other contribution

["a conviction would most likely be overturned by the European Court of Human Rights, based on their previous rulings regarding Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights"]

Which...tells you what? THAT.. the real legislation is being MANIPULATED by scurrilous forces at the local level against Christians unfairly! I.e.. STAR chambers. Thanx for making my point!