Celivia

'Now, another question I had is, do you think that Jesus would have refused accommodation at his camp to a gay support group?'

Put it this way Celivia. The Scriptures clearly state 'Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals,nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.'

I think that Jesus would be inviting the homosexual along with all others to turn from their sin and gain entrance into a far more lasting place than a camp. I really don't understand why they would want to go someone where they are not welcome. I guarantee I would not be welcome at a 'gay club'.

And a last question remaining unanswered is, why do you cherry pick the bits from the bible that condemn homosexuality but not other bits such as beating servants and killing children?

Are do you Celivia just naive or deliberately misrepresenting the Only One who can save you from your sin?

Dear Celivia
I hardly think that a donated organ would ever come with a label "from a gay person" :)

I'd accept anything which would save my life for the sake of my children and loved ones..The issue about homosexuality which is condemned in the Bible is.. 'behavior' i.e. the practice of it.

I notice a lot of 'retreating' of the mockers :) now trying to claim they are mocking the evangelists..... *looks sideways*....

One question was if Mozzies could regard anything I've written as religious vilification? Sure.. lots of it.. the point is not what they would 'regard' as vilification but what the legal definition of it is.. and.. the exemptions and exceptions.

Having read the trial transcript of the 2 Dannies case..I can assure you my language and presentation are within the law.

I can equally assure certain 'mockers' that their comments are ABSOLUTELY illegal and actionable.. no matter their protestations of "Oh but we were only mocking you"....

I suggest you read the transcript and find the part where Judge Higgins mentioned "Oh.. and I heard laughter in the audience when he said that.. thus they were ridiculing".....

Mock me all you like :) you should be aware that it has no impact by now. Just keep your brains turned on in the process.. I get encouraged when I see evidence of people looking at how the Lord acted and spoke. I hope though, that one day most of you will read ALL that He did and said.. and not just trot out the convenient "He embraced/included all" mantra which sounds good but is patently false.

His message was REPENT..and BELIEVE.. and he came as the object of that belief so people could become his disciples "Learn of me"
He came as the solution for SIN... let's not try to turn him into a 'good buddy' of our own imagination.

David, "now trying to claim they are mocking the evangelists"

It was blatently obvious the main intent was to mock your rediculous "my head would explode" attitude.

The point also seems to have been made quite well that different things can be read into "foundation documents" if you have a mind to do so. The issue is not about the evidence, it's what assumptions you bring to your reading of those documents. The bible does not comment one way or the other about Jesus sexual orientation.

Would it be as offensive if Jesus was gay but chose not to engage in sexual activity? Is there sin in that?

R0bert

"I hope though, that one day most of you will read ALL that He did and said.. and not just trot out the convenient "He embraced/included all" mantra which sounds good but is patently false."

If it's patently false I'd rather stick with the bloke of my childhood scripture classes who promoted peace and love, thanks all the same. I like my fantasies better than yours. From where I stand the Gentle Jesus version is worthy of all the adulation he's had over the centuries. There's nothing exceptional about the vengeful, discriminatory version, Nasty Jesus. Given what we know of human nature, he's not particularly noteworthy.

There's something fundamentalists seeking to covert the godless fail to understand. The only exceptional thing to be claimed about Nasty Jesus is the supposed connection with god, which doesn't stand scrutiny for a lot of people. Gentle Jesus was exceptional regardless of his parentage, and probably in spite of it, which is something us godless can admire.

For godless Gentle Jesus fans like myself, god botherers using Jesus as ammunition against others speaks volumes about particular brands of god bothering, but nothing else.

Dear Polycarp,

You can espouse Bible quotes as
much as you like. They don't add any credibility
to your arguments. Your views are as shallow as your
understanding of Christ's teachings. You pick and choose
what you think will give you credence. And as posters
continually point out - you keep tripping over your
own limited knowledge and biased perceptions.

Christ was inclusive of all individuals.

It's a shame that you aren't.

Oh listen up all you mocking swine of OLO. How little you appreciate the pearls he castes every day before you.

Masterly Biblical scholar and commentator, special expert on all things Islamic, virtuoso authority on all matters ethical. There's nothing he can't turn his fecund mind to. Homosexuality, Islam, pornography, Islam, child abuse, Islam, multiculturalism, Islam, kirpans, Islam, Camp Brethren, Islam.

And now I announce before you all. The newest legal guru: Dr BOAZ who - pro bono - offers the following definitive legal opinion: "I can equally assure certain 'mockers' that their comments are ABSOLUTELY illegal and actionable." Now you KNOW.

No need of WORLDLY judges and Tribunals when our man David is on the case. One sentence from him and all all doubts fall to the floor quicker than the brain can digest.

Ah it takes me back to the golden days of the polymath, Renaissance man. Dr Boaz, we're so GRATEFUL to have your SPECIAL talents for all things attestational, evidentiary and non-falsifiable.