Dear Pericles.....I suppose I shouldn't wonder that you find it difficult to comprehend the 'common sense' aspect of a vulnerable child in the care of totally screwed up people (Homosexual+Transvestite), considering your views on domestic pets but.....

Have you ever considered the words "Role Model"? I suggest that if you wish to totally confuse and damage a young impressionable mind, the easiest way would be to place them in the HELL of such a 'couple' for 'care'.

CSTEELE...fascinating, but... revelatory. (Your discourse there)

"I should hope so. I have my idea of what a Christian is and both runner and yourself do not measure up, not even close."

IF.....you have an unbiblical idea of 'what' a Christian is... then it will be no surprise that you excercise spurious judgement on those who hold a different view.

It seems you just regard Jesus and Paul as 'people' like me and you and Pericles.....

Er..."no".

Marks Gospel opens with these words.

"The Gospel of Jesus Christ...Son of God"

Paul went from persecuting the Christians to proclaiming Christ due to an encounter with that risen Christ and had some rather lengthy 'interviews' shall we say with the Lord..in which he received more direct revelation about the faith.

It can never be 'one or the other'.

You are welcome to your own view, but don't be surprised if don't take it as being very relevant to my faith position, as, I see it (your position) as quite spurious Biblically.

So, given that we appear to operate from different starting points, the most you should be saying re me is "I disagree". But I'll not complain if you call my position 'spurious'.

I completely understand the way you see it, Boaz, most certainly I do.

>>I suppose I shouldn't wonder that you find it difficult to comprehend the 'common sense' aspect of a vulnerable child in the care of totally screwed up people (Homosexual+Transvestite), considering your views on domestic pets but...<<

The simple fact that you can only see as far as "Homosexual = screwed up" and "Transvestite = screwed up" says it all. Because you can only perceive these people as sub-human, it is a natural consequence that you consider them, collectively and individually, as unsuitable candidates to foster.

Fortunately for many disadvantaged kids, some see them as people, first and foremost. If they show any signs of unsuitability as individuals, of course, then they are off the list.

Which brings us full circle, back to your opening post.

The authorities involved have no ingrained anti-Christian bias. In the same way that they have no ingrained anti-anything bias.

If, when questioned, it becomes clear that the candidates are unsuitable - as happened with the subjects of this discussion, where Mr Johns refused to budge from his chosen position - then the decision has to be, sorry, no.

>>I suggest that if you wish to totally confuse and damage a young impressionable mind, the easiest way would be to place them in the HELL of such a 'couple' for 'care'.<<

This "HELL" is in your mind, Boaz. You have invented it, because it fits with your innumerable prejudices against anyone who is "different".

It's ok, I understand how important it is for you to maintain these illusions about the realities of life. Just don't expect me to buy into them.

I am also fascinated by your position on the authority of Paul to speak on behalf of God, Boaz. With your indulgence, I'd like to explore that a little further.

>>It seems you just regard Jesus and Paul as 'people' like me and you and Pericles... Er..."no".<<

Ok. Let's start with Jesus.

If he was not put among us as a person, just like me and you, then what's the big deal about being crucified for our sins? One commentary that I read describes it as "the unique occasion in which God became a human being". Well, it may surprise you to know that I, too, claim to be a human being. Which would seem to indicate that he was indeed someone "like me and you", would it not?

I thought - obviously wrongly - that God's sending of "his only begotten son" was significant precisely because Jesus was.. just this guy, you know?

But it is your attitude towards Paul that is even more interesting.

Well, in a way.

You say that Paul was also not a person like me and you.

Any possibility that you could expand on that?

If he wasn't an ordinary guy, what was he? And how did he get the authority to deliver all those misanthropic lectures that seem to guide your life?

As far as I can tell, he makes the claim to the inside track himself.

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal 1:11-12

So it would appear to me that you not only are required to believe in Jesus, but in the claims that Paul made for himself.

It all seems to me too neatly... circular.

Dear Pericles, an exaustive exposition of Christology is well and truly beyond the scope of this debate... and might prove confusing for you :)

"Like us in every respect, except without sin" should sum it up for you.

Now.. regarding The Gay/Tranny couple. I do not regard them as 'sub human'.. I regard them as "screwed up" humans.. at the mental level.
This may or may not be due to choice, or... a medical condition. In either case, it is an unsuitable social environment for a vulnerable impressionable child, who needs more than anything appropriate role models and social reinforcement of normality "Mum=Female Dad=Male"

Now..the very fact that you argue this and head down the track of "it's all in my mind"...I beg to differ...I suggest on the contrary that the acceptance of such ideas on your part is testimony to the success of the Marcusian Socialist education program which Marcuse refers to in Para 1 of his infamous essay "Repressive Tolerance"

Remember it ?

//THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.//

I hold 'you' up as a prime example of how much impact Marcuse has had.
You have attained to the 'Marcusian Tolerance' which accepts those things/practices/policies/attitudes/opinions.....which were outlawed or oppressed.

Marcuse failed to address the REASONS for such oppression and illegality, and simply assumed, based on his Marxist world view, that such things are quite ok. It appears you have swallowed his view, hook line and sinker? Let's just hope that you have not "progressed" to the point Barney Rosset did with his fascination of kinky porn.

SLIGHT DEVIATION. but within topic.

"Jew OUT/Christian IN"....Intolerant discrimination ? Texas Legislature.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/09/christian-conservative-replace-jewish-speaker-texan-pols-say/

Dear AGIR,

You said; “You are welcome to your own view, but don't be surprised if don't take it as being very relevant to my faith position, as, I see it (your position) as quite spurious Biblically.”

“So, given that we appear to operate from different starting points, the most you should be saying re me is "I disagree". But I'll not complain if you call my position 'spurious'.”

Frankly I don't give a rats what you call me but I will repeat you are Christ denying in your attitudes that I think it would be far more accurate for the rest of us to call you and runner 'Paulians'. I am not going to resile from that stance one bit.

The most I can say for myself is that I am a follower of many of the teachings of Jesus especially his social justice messages. You are a worshipper and a destructive one at that particularly to many of those messages that I hold dear.

Cont...

Cont...

I have learnt through conversations here in the past, most notably with davidf, that I am far more a cultural Christian than any notion of a practising one, but one with affection and regard for the notion of it. Even so I am finding myself increasingly defensive about Jesus and Christianity especially where yourself and runner are concerned. I see you as attempting to bend and narrow the definition of what it means to be a Christian to your own cultish parameters. For instance a person who sees the truth in evolution can not be part of that flock.

Yours is an imported fundamentalism that really has little place in our country. It taints our not only our Christian history but what it means to be Australian. You have a biblical fetish that comes from a country that has given the world Scientology, Mormonism, and the Jehovah's witnesses. While these groups have taken this fetish to the next step by creating their own scriptures yours seem almost as uncomfortable with large parts of the Bible and have primarily narrowed the focus to Paul's teachings and his view of the world with a few large dollops from the Hebrew Bible.

So I am calling you out on your title to this thread. In light of the position you have taken it affronts me. It should read 'Secular vs Paulian'.

I am putting you on notice that I will challenge you where I can whenever I feel you are sullying the name and reputation of Jesus and those who have worked hard to practice what he taught.