quash said:

---

And intelligent design is a critique, not a theory.

---

If you're being generous.

Coke Bear said:

---

Couple of quick points ...

• Jinx 2 - Your Thread title/question is a misleading as the boy's misrepresentation/lie to NBC News. The boy told the news that he was kicked out. Sadly, the article does not correct this until the father's comment, which was buried at the end of the article.

• "I started to cry because I realized there was no way that I could go to college," - what a load of B.S! Get a student loan. Get a job. Dave Ramsey would have no mercy for him. You're a valedictorian. Figure it out, snowflake. Many, MANY more kids have gone to school with NO support and made it. I paid entirely for my college education.
• Georgetown is a private, Catholic college. Of course, now it is Catholic in namesake only. Heaven forbid that kid have to take a religion or Christian morality course. He won't enjoy being told that while having Same-Sex Attracting isn't a sin, acting on it is.
• I would not kick my kid out for having Same-Sex Attraction. I would make sure that they understand that they are called to live a chaste life, just like ALL of us are called to do.
• Finally, I have told my kids that while they live under my roof, they will attend mass. I will never force them to take Communion, but they are required to go to mass each week.

---

There is a lot of gay clergy in the catholic church that do not adhere to the look don't touch rule.

Would you have the same reaction if he were in a heterosexual relationship out of marriage?

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I raised my kids in a southern baptist church. One fell in love with a girl of a different denomination and although that denomination believes/does things differently, I just told him that I am glad he's going to church.

Proverbs 22:6


That is great, my In-Laws who where a different denomination than me, the moment my wife said, YES, she would marry me, they kicked her out of their house and refused to go to our wedding.

The gay kid isn't the only this has happened to. Unlike the gay kid though, they actually kicked her out, THE DAY she said yes.



For several years, and we still take care of my mother in law when she needs anything. It's just the right thing to do. I will say this for them, my father in law died a 3 years ago, he really came around to liking me and was the one grandparent that loved my son unconditionally. I really miss him, if for no other reason that my son had a true loving grandparent.

My mother in law just does not have the natural affection you would expect for her grandchild and she never has. She is simply a difficult person to figure out, dirt poor, but prouder than anybody I've ever met. Maybe her shell will crack one day, it hasn't yet.

---

---

Forrest, didn't you end up helping to support them?

---

TexasScientist said:

---

There is a lot of gay clergy in the catholic church that do not adhere to the look don't touch rule.

---

Classy.

It's interesting that your first post back in this board is not only a tired insult, but completely irrelevant in this thread.

An independent study showed that only 4% of priest during a 40 year period were ever ACCUSED of molestation. That's lower than the national average of school teachers, police officers, and other lay persons. That stat does NOT excuse those priests. One case is too many. They should all be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Finally, given your vast knowledge of science and other topics, this type of comment seems beneath your other post. Bad day at the office?

TexasScientist said:

---

Would you have the same reaction if he were in a heterosexual relationship out of marriage?

---

TS - If not sure if this was directed at me; however, if it was, please let me know what "reaction" was mentioned in my post that would make me hypocritical.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

There is a lot of gay clergy in the catholic church that do not adhere to the look don't touch rule.

---

Classy.

It's interesting that your first post back in this board is not only a tired insult, but completely irrelevant in this thread.

An independent study showed that only 4% of priest during a 40 year period were ever ACCUSED of molestation. That's lower than the national average of school teachers, police officers, and other lay persons. That stat does NOT excuse those priests. One case is too many. They should all be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Finally, given your vast knowledge of science and other topics, this type of comment seems beneath your other post. Bad day at the office?

---

I don't think he's talking about molestation.

Some gay men sought out religious life because they could pursue same-sex relationships without much fear of scandal and exposure.

Homosexuality is a natural variant.

So, apparently, is pedophelia, but it's one society can't tolerate, because it doesn't involve consenting adults--it involves child abuse by adults who know they are perpetrating abuse.

Sexual harassment is a bad behavior regardless of who does it or why, and priests--gay or straight--who sexually harassed other priests or nuns or adults in their parishes are also committing abuse.

Priests and ministers are human beings, and lots of them say one thing from the pulpit and maybe even believe what they preach is wrong, is truly wrong, but they either can't or don't stop themselves from those behaviors in private. Ted Haggard is a prime example.

Jinx 2 said:

---

I don't think he's talking about molestation.

Some gay men sought out religious life because they could pursue same-sex relationships without much fear of scandal and exposure.

Homosexuality is a natural variant.

So, apparently, is pedophelia, but it's one society can't tolerate, because it doesn't involve consenting adults--it involves child abuse by adults who know they are perpetrating abuse.

Sexual harassment is a bad behavior, and gay priests who sexually harassed other priests or nuns or adults in their parishes are also committing abuse.

---

Fortunately the Catholic church does a much better job vetting it's seminarians. In December of 2016, the Congregation for the Clergy, with Pope Francis's approval released the following:

In relation to persons with homosexual tendencies who seek admission to seminary, or discover such a situation in the course of formation, consistent with her own Magisterium, "the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture.' Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies" (The Gift of Priestly Vocation) 199

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

I don't think he's talking about molestation.

Some gay men sought out religious life because they could pursue same-sex relationships without much fear of scandal and exposure.

Homosexuality is a natural variant.

So, apparently, is pedophelia, but it's one society can't tolerate, because it doesn't involve consenting adults--it involves child abuse by adults who know they are perpetrating abuse.

Sexual harassment is a bad behavior, and gay priests who sexually harassed other priests or nuns or adults in their parishes are also committing abuse.

---

Fortunately the Catholic church does a much better job vetting it's seminarians. In December of 2016, the Congregation for the Clergy, with Pope Francis's approval released the following:

In relation to persons with homosexual tendencies who seek admission to seminary, or discover such a situation in the course of formation, consistent with her own Magisterium, "the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture.' Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies" (The Gift of Priestly Vocation) 199

---

Homosexuality isn't the only issue the Pope needs to select out. Here's the cringe-worthy story about illegitimate children fathered by priests: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/08/16/father-father-children-catholic-priests-live-with-secrets-and-sorrow/mvYO5SOxAxZYJBi8XxiaqN/story.html

One thing that really bothered me about the Church's response to the pedophilia scandal was that the Church put out a lot of literature blaming the bad behavior on homosexual priests. That was an inadequate, inaccurate dodge, since the abuse didn't only involve boys, and pedophiles and homosexuals are different.

More on children of priest and abuse of nuns: https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/children-priests-invisible-legion-secrecy-and-neglect

No one knows the number of sons and daughters of Catholic priests in the United States or in the world, but what is known is that hundreds perhaps thousands of these offspring have lived in secret, hiding their fathers' past from the world, frequently even from family members.

Still other children of clergy dads have grown up not knowing who their real father was, often mistaking him for an uncle, godfather or some other male friend or relative whom they have known from their youth. In many instances, the children of Catholic priests have failed to have their emotional, legal and financial needs met.
When they have discovered who their real father is often later in life some of these daughters and sons have undergone spiritual disillusionment, unable to separate themselves from the faith they love and have been raised in, and the man who did not, or could not, come forward and be a genuine dad to them. Some have experienced psychological trauma from having to carry a secret a lie for life.

These are among disclosures presented in a two-part series on the progeny of priests published by The Boston Globe's Spotlight team Aug. 19 and 20 and written by Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist Michael Rezendes....The paper reports on such grown children many in the United States, others in Canada, Britain, Ireland and Spain pained by a past they had to keep in the dark. In a number of cases, the subjects reveal feelings of rejection and abandonment. Not only have some endured emotional trauma from their cold and neglectful priest fathers, but also from other family members once the full truth of their parentage was uncovered.

Depression, suicidal thoughts, excessive drinking and ritual cutting habits have all been a part of the residue of being the child of a priest, as reported in the series. So, too, has been financial insecurity after priests promised to support their child, but did not.

In only two of the 10 cases closely reviewed by the Globe did mothers go to court to garner child support. Usually, these consensual partners left it up to the father to decide how much to provide their child. In some cases, payment was conditioned on the mother's promise to hide the father's identity.

The paper interviews adult children who've grown up absent the love and support of their fathers and who are "often pressured or shamed into keeping the existence of the relationship a secret." It calls them "unfortunate victims of a church that has, for nearly 900 years, forbidden priests to marry or have sex, but has never set rules for what priests or bishops must do when a clergyman fathers a child."

While the Globe lacks exact figures on the numbers of these clergy offspring, it states that with more than 400,000 priests worldwide, "many of them inconstant in their promise of celibacy, the potential for unplanned children is vast."

It points to a number of prominent churchmen who have fathered children, including:

- Eamonn Casey, the charismatic bishop of Galway, Ireland;

Mexican Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legionaries of Christ;

Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo, who conceived a child while he was a Catholic bishop;

Los Angeles Auxiliary Bishop Gabino Zavala, the father of two teenagers living with their mother in another state.

The resignation of these religious leaders and the fact of their paternity have been reported by NCRover recent years, much of it in the wake of the church's ongoing sex abuse crisis.

While sexual dalliance among avowed celibate clergymen has been going on for centuries the Globe notes "at the least" four Renaissance popes who fathered children concern about the offspring of priests has re-emerged during the past 30 years.

Its interest was aroused in the 1990s by leaders of several women's religious orders who issued a series of confidential reports to the Vatican saying that the sexual abuse of nuns by priests living in Africa and other parts of the developing world required immediate attention. The Globe credits NCR with reviewing the still-confidential reports and revealing their existence in 2001.

Sexual orientation- chosen or hereditary- is the responsibility and choice of the person. You may have an opinion but it's not binding on anyone. It is also beyond the scope of the law and should be a protected class. Why should anyone care with what sexi identity chooses to identify. It's none of your business. Your religion is not law.
In your own home kick em out but it's to your detriment and the child's

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I would definitely not kick my child out. However, I can understand the parents point of view about worshiping together. Although I currently attend a southern baptist church, I don't agree with every interpretation of the Bible that has been presented...but I won't at any church I attend. You have to learn to ignore what you don't agree with OR the family could worship together in their home.

I raised my kids in a southern baptist church. One fell in love with a girl of a different denomination and although that denomination believes/does things differently, I just told him that I am glad he's going to church.

Proverbs 22:6

---

No, I don't understand their attitude. Suicide can be a result. They look stupid too.

---

I'm sure you don't understand. Anything outside your pro-abortion, anti-Christan rhetoric is difficult for you.

YoakDaddy said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Couple of quick points ...

• Jinx 2 - Your Thread title/question is a misleading as the boy's misrepresentation/lie to NBC News. The boy told the news that he was kicked out. Sadly, the article does not correct this until the father's comment, which was buried at the end of the article.

• "I started to cry because I realized there was no way that I could go to college," - what a load of B.S! Get a student loan. Get a job. Dave Ramsey would have no mercy for him. You're a valedictorian. Figure it out, snowflake. Many, MANY more kids have gone to school with NO support and made it. I paid entirely for my college education.
• Georgetown is a private, Catholic college. Of course, now it is Catholic in namesake only. Heaven forbid that kid have to take a religion or Christian morality course. He won't enjoy being told that while having Same-Sex Attracting isn't a sin, acting on it is.
• I would not kick my kid out for having Same-Sex Attraction. I would make sure that they understand that they are called to live a chaste life, just like ALL of us are called to do.
• Finally, I have told my kids that while they live under my roof, they will attend mass. I will never force them to take Communion, but they are required to go to mass each week.

---

Same here....but I also told mine that under NO circumstances will I ever pay anything if they choose to go to Texas A&M. If they want to go to school there, they're on their own.

---

Me too.

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I would definitely not kick my child out. However, I can understand the parents point of view about worshiping together. Although I currently attend a southern baptist church, I don't agree with every interpretation of the Bible that has been presented...but I won't at any church I attend. You have to learn to ignore what you don't agree with OR the family could worship together in their home.

I raised my kids in a southern baptist church. One fell in love with a girl of a different denomination and although that denomination believes/does things differently, I just told him that I am glad he's going to church.

Proverbs 22:6

---

No, I don't understand their attitude. Suicide can be a result. They look stupid too.

---

So do women who experience emotional trauma after a pastor says it's okay to abort....actually been there.

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I would definitely not kick my child out. However, I can understand the parents point of view about worshiping together. Although I currently attend a southern baptist church, I don't agree with every interpretation of the Bible that has been presented...but I won't at any church I attend. You have to learn to ignore what you don't agree with OR the family could worship together in their home.

I raised my kids in a southern baptist church. One fell in love with a girl of a different denomination and although that denomination believes/does things differently, I just told him that I am glad he's going to church.

Proverbs 22:6

---

No, I don't understand their attitude. Suicide can be a result. They look stupid too.

---

I'm sure you don't understand. Anything outside your pro-abortion, anti-Christan rhetoric is difficult for you.

---

Fadskier, if your child was an unrepentant gay, would he go to hell. ( I Corinthians 6:9)
If so, send him/her to me. I know a loving God loves them just like they are. My God is not bound by some ancient 2,000 text that is oblivious to the world homosexuality and written by culturally twisted writers. They are inspired but not everlasting in their understanding of homosexuality. They are to culturally bound.
God loves gays and calls them
To discipleship, ordination and marriage. There ain't nothing you can do about. God is sovereign and calls who God wants to call, ordain, and love another human being.
Send your children to me. I know this God personally.

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Some people don't view same-sex attraction as a 'cross' but as a naturally occuring variation. As is their right in any nation that touts separation of church and state.

---

First, science has not established what causes Same-sex attraction. Blindness, deafness, malformations, etc., are naturally occurring. These are considered crosses to bear.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Same-sex attraction as 'sin" or a "cross to bear" is a religious belief--a very bigoted one, IMO, and not one all Christian churches share.

---

I never called it a sin to have Same-sex attraction. I will argue all day that it is a cross to bear. No one wakes up upon discovery and says, "YEAH, I'm Gay!" Most struggle for years, if not a lifetime.

Humans are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. That is how all species grow, prosper, and evolve. Same-sex attraction is against the natural law.

As Christians, we are called to love ALL people. I do my best to do so. That doesn't mean that I have to love the behaviors of all people.

---

You think humans are 'designed.'

I think we evolved, and that being gay--which has been a constant since the dawn of time--must have some benefit, or it would have been selected out.

There are so many things that can and do go wrong with our 'design'--genes that cause cancer and alzhiemers, extra cromosomes causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities, chronic issues like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, a horrible death sentence like Huntington's disease. As the sister of a profoundly disabled brother who died at 32 with his multitude of issues never fully diagnosed or understood, I've seen the worst result of randomness and find that the miracle is that things go right so much of the time.

---

Your 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph are contradictory.

If homosexuality must have some "benefit" or else it would have been "selected" out . . . . then kindly tell me the benefit of cancer, alzhiemers, and chromosomal disorders "causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities." Since, you know, those things haven't been selected out either.

---

The point where we probably disagree is that there is a Plan or a Purpose. I don't believe there is, and I believe that imbues us with greater responsibility for our fates and the fate of all life on earth, not less. We are doing a very poor job of stewarding the environment that created us. The cost for that could be our own extinction.

---

Who cares? If there's no purpose, then so what? Species go extinct all the time.

Plus, I mean, wouldn't the planet be better off without us, in your opinion? I'd think earth-worshippers like you would almost be rooting for our extinction, not living in fear of it.

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I would definitely not kick my child out. However, I can understand the parents point of view about worshiping together. Although I currently attend a southern baptist church, I don't agree with every interpretation of the Bible that has been presented...but I won't at any church I attend. You have to learn to ignore what you don't agree with OR the family could worship together in their home.

I raised my kids in a southern baptist church. One fell in love with a girl of a different denomination and although that denomination believes/does things differently, I just told him that I am glad he's going to church.

Proverbs 22:6

---

No, I don't understand their attitude. Suicide can be a result. They look stupid too.

---

I'm sure you don't understand. Anything outside your pro-abortion, anti-Christan rhetoric is difficult for you.

---

Fadskier, if your child was an unrepentant gay, would he go to hell. ( I Corinthians 6:9)
If so, send him/her to me. I know a loving God loves them just like they are.

---

Please stop spreading this heretical lie. God does not love anyone "just like they are." It's the whole reason a plan of salvation was necessary. God is perfectly merciful but He is also perfectly Just. He does not turn a blind eye to sin. He graciously offers us Life through faith and belief in the atonement that He provided through His son. He doesn't just love us "like we are" in sin. Sin separates. Jesus reconciles.

Also, thank you for mentioning that you discard the authority of the Bible and that you aren't "bound" by it. I'll make sure to disregard any future mention or reference you make to it. You truly are the epitome of a "false teacher." Luckily, I don't believe at all that you have actually ever been a pastor of a church.

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Some people don't view same-sex attraction as a 'cross' but as a naturally occuring variation. As is their right in any nation that touts separation of church and state.

---

First, science has not established what causes Same-sex attraction. Blindness, deafness, malformations, etc., are naturally occurring. These are considered crosses to bear.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Same-sex attraction as 'sin" or a "cross to bear" is a religious belief--a very bigoted one, IMO, and not one all Christian churches share.

---

I never called it a sin to have Same-sex attraction. I will argue all day that it is a cross to bear. No one wakes up upon discovery and says, "YEAH, I'm Gay!" Most struggle for years, if not a lifetime.

Humans are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. That is how all species grow, prosper, and evolve. Same-sex attraction is against the natural law.

As Christians, we are called to love ALL people. I do my best to do so. That doesn't mean that I have to love the behaviors of all people.

---

You think humans are 'designed.'

I think we evolved, and that being gay--which has been a constant since the dawn of time--must have some benefit, or it would have been selected out.

There are so many things that can and do go wrong with our 'design'--genes that cause cancer and alzhiemers, extra cromosomes causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities, chronic issues like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, a horrible death sentence like Huntington's disease. As the sister of a profoundly disabled brother who died at 32 with his multitude of issues never fully diagnosed or understood, I've seen the worst result of randomness and find that the miracle is that things go right so much of the time.

---

Your 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph are contradictory.

If homosexuality must have some "benefit" or else it would have been "selected" out . . . . then kindly tell me the benefit of cancer, alzhiemers, and chromosomal disorders "causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities." Since, you know, those things haven't been selected out either.

---

The point where we probably disagree is that there is a Plan or a Purpose. I don't believe there is, and I believe that imbues us with greater responsibility for our fates and the fate of all life on earth, not less. We are doing a very poor job of stewarding the environment that created us. The cost for that could be our own extinction.

---

Who cares? If there's no purpose, then so what? Species go extinct all the time.

Plus, I mean, wouldn't the planet be better off without us, in your opinion? I'd think earth-worshippers like you would almost be rooting for our extinction, not living in fear of it.

---

^^^ You know that would be great if included in republican campaign speeches! Humm

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Would you have the same reaction if he were in a heterosexual relationship out of marriage?

---

TS - If not sure if this was directed at me; however, if it was, please let me know what "reaction" was mentioned in my post that would make me hypocritical.

---

The post was not directed at you per se. It's a question I posited to everyone on this thread.

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Some people don't view same-sex attraction as a 'cross' but as a naturally occuring variation. As is their right in any nation that touts separation of church and state.

---

First, science has not established what causes Same-sex attraction. Blindness, deafness, malformations, etc., are naturally occurring. These are considered crosses to bear.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Same-sex attraction as 'sin" or a "cross to bear" is a religious belief--a very bigoted one, IMO, and not one all Christian churches share.

---

I never called it a sin to have Same-sex attraction. I will argue all day that it is a cross to bear. No one wakes up upon discovery and says, "YEAH, I'm Gay!" Most struggle for years, if not a lifetime.

Humans are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. That is how all species grow, prosper, and evolve. Same-sex attraction is against the natural law.

As Christians, we are called to love ALL people. I do my best to do so. That doesn't mean that I have to love the behaviors of all people.

---

You think humans are 'designed.'

I think we evolved, and that being gay--which has been a constant since the dawn of time--must have some benefit, or it would have been selected out.

There are so many things that can and do go wrong with our 'design'--genes that cause cancer and alzhiemers, extra cromosomes causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities, chronic issues like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, a horrible death sentence like Huntington's disease. As the sister of a profoundly disabled brother who died at 32 with his multitude of issues never fully diagnosed or understood, I've seen the worst result of randomness and find that the miracle is that things go right so much of the time.

---

Your 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph are contradictory.

If homosexuality must have some "benefit" or else it would have been "selected" out . . . . then kindly tell me the benefit of cancer, alzhiemers, and chromosomal disorders "causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities." Since, you know, those things haven't been selected out either.

---

The point where we probably disagree is that there is a Plan or a Purpose. I don't believe there is, and I believe that imbues us with greater responsibility for our fates and the fate of all life on earth, not less. We are doing a very poor job of stewarding the environment that created us. The cost for that could be our own extinction.

---

Who cares? If there's no purpose, then so what? Species go extinct all the time.

Plus, I mean, wouldn't the planet be better off without us, in your opinion? I'd think earth-worshippers like you would almost be rooting for our extinction, not living in fear of it.

---

Do you think purpose in life must be based in religion?

I don't. I don't believe in a God that controls the universe right down to the minute details of everyday life. What I think instead is that makes us responsible for choosing how to give our lives meaning and purpose--a big responsibility. Religion is one option, but that means you must accept someone else's definition of what you must do and must not do. And, in the case of Christianity and other religions, it means you must believe in an afterlife in which you are rewarded or punished for the choices you make. I particularly dislike a purpose driven by fear of hell or eternal damnation or the promise of some sort of heavenly reward, like 72 virgins (and what about THEIR enjoyment of the afterlife? Having to be a sex slave for some jerk with a food catching beard for all eternity sounds like the virgins are being punished with eternal misery to reward one guy for pleasing God).

I belief this is the only life we have, and the reward and punishment we reap comes in real time. Or not. Some really bad people are rewarded with wealth and comfort, while some really good ones suffer random awfulness like an ALS diagnosis or the death of a spouse or child.

My purpose is to leave the campsite better than I found it, by raising good children and doing good work, and also to savor the days I have to learn and walk my dog and read and work. I feel lucky to have two grown daughters I love, a good life partner, a comfortable house, a good dog to take walks with and a good job.

do you feel safe now

corncob pipe said:

---

do you feel safe now

---

Not from you.

But at least most people on Sicem now know that you have several accounts on SicEm under different names, that your various alt nicks conversed with each other and gave each other approval points, and that you stalked me online, including my FB page and my Twitter account. You must have some sort of a management system to keep all your alt-nicks straight.

And now you're trying to use the same tactic on Quash--claiming he's Cinque or me or whoever else you don't like. I don't know anyone who has actually met Cinque, although I was under the impression that he was an African American man from Fort Worth or Dallas. But lots of people know Quash off-line, and tactics like that undermine what's left of your credibility.

Pretty sure DaveyBear is you. Pretty sure Valhalla bear is Golem.

Just ignore me and leave me alone.

And if Ashley or whoever will ever delete my account--which you and Golem may be able to facilitate, since you both seem to be on cozy terms with the mods--I'll be gone.

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Some people don't view same-sex attraction as a 'cross' but as a naturally occuring variation. As is their right in any nation that touts separation of church and state.

---

First, science has not established what causes Same-sex attraction. Blindness, deafness, malformations, etc., are naturally occurring. These are considered crosses to bear.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Same-sex attraction as 'sin" or a "cross to bear" is a religious belief--a very bigoted one, IMO, and not one all Christian churches share.

---

I never called it a sin to have Same-sex attraction. I will argue all day that it is a cross to bear. No one wakes up upon discovery and says, "YEAH, I'm Gay!" Most struggle for years, if not a lifetime.

Humans are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. That is how all species grow, prosper, and evolve. Same-sex attraction is against the natural law.

As Christians, we are called to love ALL people. I do my best to do so. That doesn't mean that I have to love the behaviors of all people.

---

You think humans are 'designed.'

I think we evolved, and that being gay--which has been a constant since the dawn of time--must have some benefit, or it would have been selected out.

There are so many things that can and do go wrong with our 'design'--genes that cause cancer and alzhiemers, extra cromosomes causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities, chronic issues like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, a horrible death sentence like Huntington's disease. As the sister of a profoundly disabled brother who died at 32 with his multitude of issues never fully diagnosed or understood, I've seen the worst result of randomness and find that the miracle is that things go right so much of the time.

---

Your 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph are contradictory.

If homosexuality must have some "benefit" or else it would have been "selected" out . . . . then kindly tell me the benefit of cancer, alzhiemers, and chromosomal disorders "causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities." Since, you know, those things haven't been selected out either.

---

The point where we probably disagree is that there is a Plan or a Purpose. I don't believe there is, and I believe that imbues us with greater responsibility for our fates and the fate of all life on earth, not less. We are doing a very poor job of stewarding the environment that created us. The cost for that could be our own extinction.

---

Who cares? If there's no purpose, then so what? Species go extinct all the time.

Plus, I mean, wouldn't the planet be better off without us, in your opinion? I'd think earth-worshippers like you would almost be rooting for our extinction, not living in fear of it.

---

Do you think purpose in life must be based in religion?

I don't. I don't believe in a God that controls the universe right down to the minute details of everyday life. What I think instead is that makes us responsible for choosing how to give our lives meaning and purpose--a big responsibility. Religion is one option, but that means you must accept someone else's definition of what you must do and must not do. And, in the case of Christianity and other religions, it means you must believe in an afterlife in which you are rewarded or punished for the choices you make. I particularly dislike a purpose driven by fear of hell or eternal damnation or the promise of some sort of heavenly reward, like 72 virgins (and what about THEIR enjoyment of the afterlife? Having to be a sex slave for some jerk with a food catching beard for all eternity sounds like the virgins are being punished with eternal misery to reward one guy for pleasing God).

I belief this is the only life we have, and the reward and punishment we reap comes in real time. Or not. Some really bad people are rewarded with wealth and comfort, while some really good ones suffer random awfulness like an ALS diagnosis or the death of a spouse or child.

My purpose is to leave the campsite better than I found it, by raising good children and doing good work, and also to savor the days I have to learn and walk my dog and read and work. I feel lucky to have two grown daughters I love, a good life partner, a comfortable house, a good dog to take walks with and a good job.

---

Ahhhhhhh, ok. So purpose of our existence is entirely subjective. I suppose that means you're very understanding of someone seeing things differently than you do. Like, say, someone who doesn't think it's important to leave the campsite better than you found it? After all, they have a different purpose, Jinx. You don't care about their religion, and they don't care about your purpose. It's all up to the individual what life is really about. Since this is "the only life we have" and all. Eat, drink, and be merry. Why the responsibility to future generations of an insignificant species who is a scourge to poor Mother Earth, right? Your worldview tends to make your stated purpose meaningless.

Jinx 2 said:

---

corncob pipe said:

---

do you feel safe now

---

Not from you.

But at least most people on Sicem now know that you have several accounts on SicEm under different names, that your various alt nicks conversed with each other and gave each other approval points, and that you stalked me online, including my FB page and my Twitter account. You must have some sort of a management system to keep all your alt-nicks straight.

And now you're trying to use the same tactic on Quash--claiming he's Cinque or me or whoever else you don't like. I don't know anyone who has actually met Cinque, although I was under the impression that he was an African American man from Fort Worth or Dallas. But lots of people know Quash off-line, and tactics like that undermine what's left of your credibility.

Pretty sure DaveyBear is you. Pretty sure Valhalla bear is Golem.

Just ignore me and leave me alone.

And if Ashley or whoever will ever delete my account--which you and Golem may be able to facilitate, since you both seem to be on cozy terms with the mods--I'll be gone.

---

You're a loon.

And oh BTW you and your buddy quash don't get it. Nobody was crappy to you because you're a woman. People are crappy to you because you're a tool

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Some people don't view same-sex attraction as a 'cross' but as a naturally occuring variation. As is their right in any nation that touts separation of church and state.

---

First, science has not established what causes Same-sex attraction. Blindness, deafness, malformations, etc., are naturally occurring. These are considered crosses to bear.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Same-sex attraction as 'sin" or a "cross to bear" is a religious belief--a very bigoted one, IMO, and not one all Christian churches share.

---

I never called it a sin to have Same-sex attraction. I will argue all day that it is a cross to bear. No one wakes up upon discovery and says, "YEAH, I'm Gay!" Most struggle for years, if not a lifetime.

Humans are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. That is how all species grow, prosper, and evolve. Same-sex attraction is against the natural law.

As Christians, we are called to love ALL people. I do my best to do so. That doesn't mean that I have to love the behaviors of all people.

---

You think humans are 'designed.'

I think we evolved, and that being gay--which has been a constant since the dawn of time--must have some benefit, or it would have been selected out.

There are so many things that can and do go wrong with our 'design'--genes that cause cancer and alzhiemers, extra cromosomes causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities, chronic issues like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, a horrible death sentence like Huntington's disease. As the sister of a profoundly disabled brother who died at 32 with his multitude of issues never fully diagnosed or understood, I've seen the worst result of randomness and find that the miracle is that things go right so much of the time.

---

Your 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph are contradictory.

If homosexuality must have some "benefit" or else it would have been "selected" out . . . . then kindly tell me the benefit of cancer, alzhiemers, and chromosomal disorders "causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities." Since, you know, those things haven't been selected out either.

---

The point where we probably disagree is that there is a Plan or a Purpose. I don't believe there is, and I believe that imbues us with greater responsibility for our fates and the fate of all life on earth, not less. We are doing a very poor job of stewarding the environment that created us. The cost for that could be our own extinction.

---

Who cares? If there's no purpose, then so what? Species go extinct all the time.

Plus, I mean, wouldn't the planet be better off without us, in your opinion? I'd think earth-worshippers like you would almost be rooting for our extinction, not living in fear of it.

---

Do you think purpose in life must be based in religion?

I don't. I don't believe in a God that controls the universe right down to the minute details of everyday life. What I think instead is that makes us responsible for choosing how to give our lives meaning and purpose--a big responsibility. Religion is one option, but that means you must accept someone else's definition of what you must do and must not do. And, in the case of Christianity and other religions, it means you must believe in an afterlife in which you are rewarded or punished for the choices you make. I particularly dislike a purpose driven by fear of hell or eternal damnation or the promise of some sort of heavenly reward, like 72 virgins (and what about THEIR enjoyment of the afterlife? Having to be a sex slave for some jerk with a food catching beard for all eternity sounds like the virgins are being punished with eternal misery to reward one guy for pleasing God).

I belief this is the only life we have, and the reward and punishment we reap comes in real time. Or not. Some really bad people are rewarded with wealth and comfort, while some really good ones suffer random awfulness like an ALS diagnosis or the death of a spouse or child.

My purpose is to leave the campsite better than I found it, by raising good children and doing good work, and also to savor the days I have to learn and walk my dog and read and work. I feel lucky to have two grown daughters I love, a good life partner, a comfortable house, a good dog to take walks with and a good job.

---

Ahhhhhhh, ok. So purpose of our existence is entirely subjective. I suppose that means you're very understanding of someone seeing things differently than you do. Like, say, someone who doesn't think it's important to leave the campsite better than you found it? After all, they have a different purpose, Jinx. You don't care about their religion, and they don't care about your purpose. It's all up to the individual what life is really about. Since this is "the only life we have" and all. Eat, drink, and be merry. Why the responsibility to future generations of an insignificant species who is a scourge to poor Mother Earth, right? Your worldview tends to make your stated purpose meaningless.

---

You are conflating agnosticism with individualism.

If anything, my concern for people and my conviction that we must work together to preserve the planet for everyone may be stronger than yours, because I don't exclude people of other faiths or no faith (especially, in the case of evangelical Christians, Muslims), nor do I believe we're going to be bailed out of drowning in our own waste by the Second Coming, which may seem to make issues like clean air, clean water, trash-free oceans and climate change seem less urgent. If you think God's in control and that you're his chosen people, you may think there's an exit strategy. If you don't, our incredible hubris in fouling our nest strikes you as incredibly stupid and short-sighted.

"Leave the campsite better than you found it" is a strong ethic for me.

I feel just as strongly about that as something everyone needs to do as some evangelical Christians feel about eliminating any form of abortion as a legal choice for all women or about eliminating civil rights for gay people because that's legitimizing sin.

The fact that my beliefs and convictions aren't religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong, and that I won't act to support them. Just as the fact that your beliefs and convictions ARE religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong or stop you from advocating for laws forcing everyone to adhere to them, regardless of whether they share your beliefs about reproductive rights or gay civil rights.

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I would definitely not kick my child out. However, I can understand the parents point of view about worshiping together. Although I currently attend a southern baptist church, I don't agree with every interpretation of the Bible that has been presented...but I won't at any church I attend. You have to learn to ignore what you don't agree with OR the family could worship together in their home.

I raised my kids in a southern baptist church. One fell in love with a girl of a different denomination and although that denomination believes/does things differently, I just told him that I am glad he's going to church.

Proverbs 22:6

---

No, I don't understand their attitude. Suicide can be a result. They look stupid too.

---

I'm sure you don't understand. Anything outside your pro-abortion, anti-Christan rhetoric is difficult for you.

---

Fadskier, if your child was an unrepentant gay, would he go to hell. ( I Corinthians 6:9)
If so, send him/her to me. I know a loving God loves them just like they are. My God is not bound by some ancient 2,000 text that is oblivious to the world homosexuality and written by culturally twisted writers. They are inspired but not everlasting in their understanding of homosexuality. They are to culturally bound.
God loves gays and calls them
To discipleship, ordination and marriage. There ain't nothing you can do about. God is sovereign and calls who God wants to call, ordain, and love another human being.
Send your children to me. I know this God personally.

---

This personal god you speak of has been a deciever since he decieved Adam and Eve.

ValhallaBear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

corncob pipe said:

---

do you feel safe now

---

Not from you.

But at least most people on Sicem now know that you have several accounts on SicEm under different names, that your various alt nicks conversed with each other and gave each other approval points, and that you stalked me online, including my FB page and my Twitter account. You must have some sort of a management system to keep all your alt-nicks straight.

And now you're trying to use the same tactic on Quash--claiming he's Cinque or me or whoever else you don't like. I don't know anyone who has actually met Cinque, although I was under the impression that he was an African American man from Fort Worth or Dallas. But lots of people know Quash off-line, and tactics like that undermine what's left of your credibility.

Pretty sure DaveyBear is you. Pretty sure Valhalla bear is Golem.

Just ignore me and leave me alone.

And if Ashley or whoever will ever delete my account--which you and Golem may be able to facilitate, since you both seem to be on cozy terms with the mods--I'll be gone.

---

You're a loon.

And oh BTW you and your buddy quash don't get it. Nobody was crappy to you because you're a woman. People are crappy to you because you're a tool

---

First, I'm going to absolve Quash of being tarred with the accusation of being "my buddy" amongst your band of loyal followers.

I've never personally met Quash or, to my knowledge, anyone else posting on this forum in person, but we've posted on this forum since 2009, so I know that Quash is more of a true libertarian and that he and I tend to agree on social issues and disagree on government regulation. We have figured out that we were at Baylor at the same time and know some of the same people. But we did not know each other at Baylor.

Quash is not me. He is not Cinque. I am not Cinque. THAT is a common trolling tactic here to try to drive anyone whose opinion the cabal of uber-conservatives don't like off the board. And there always has to be a whipping boy--often Waco1957 or Cinque these days--to help get everybody all riled up. It's the same tactic Trump used in the election--Hillary--and has used since--the media, James Comey, Bob Mueller. Somebody's always against him, and he's always whining about it while accusing the other side of whining. And while everyone is expressing their horror and anger at Fake News and Hillary and the MSM, he's putting damn near every member of his family on the government payroll, playing golf every weekend (something Obama got slammed for, but Trump totally gets a pass for), and tweeting like a madman and enacting tariffs. That tactic works pretty well on this forum.

What Quash and Waco (and I'll give Sam and D.C. credit for this though we don't agree on much of anything) have in common is that we want to actually discuss issues with people who came from the same background as us and attended the same school rather than call people names, tell people they're stupid or crazy, or troll people. I'd like to be able to disagree politely, with no name calling or misstatements of other poster's positions to make them appear different or more extreme. Quash called Baylorfans "the sandbox" and has a much more sanguine view of the mudwrestling debate ethic on this site than I do.

But it's not worth it if I'm going to be stalked and trolled because you don't like my views.

I started this thread because I was flummoxed that, in this day and time, a father would literally kick his son out of the house for being gay, not being receptive to conversion therapy and not wanting to attend a church where he was despised as an openly gay man. The father is a member of a church that preaches we are all sinners and saved only through love so unconditional that an all-powerful God sent his son to live and die as a human to redeem us. What could lead this father to conclude his son was irredeemable at age 18 and boot him out of the house, to the point where he was forced to sleep on a couch at a friend's in order to finish high school? I wondered how other Southern Baptists viewed this. And it turns out that while they might be heart-sick and disappointed if one of their children came out as gay and showed no inclination to either hide it or view it as a "cross" they must bear with a lifetime of celibacy, they wouldn't boot him out of the house or refuse to help with his education or stop loving him. That's comforting.

So back off and leave me alone. Or intervene with the mods and get them to close my account. I think the dollar I paid's about to expire.

Jinx 2 said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

corncob pipe said:

---

do you feel safe now

---

Not from you.

But at least most people on Sicem now know that you have several accounts on SicEm under different names, that your various alt nicks conversed with each other and gave each other approval points, and that you stalked me online, including my FB page and my Twitter account. You must have some sort of a management system to keep all your alt-nicks straight.

And now you're trying to use the same tactic on Quash--claiming he's Cinque or me or whoever else you don't like. I don't know anyone who has actually met Cinque, although I was under the impression that he was an African American man from Fort Worth or Dallas. But lots of people know Quash off-line, and tactics like that undermine what's left of your credibility.

Pretty sure DaveyBear is you. Pretty sure Valhalla bear is Golem.

Just ignore me and leave me alone.

And if Ashley or whoever will ever delete my account--which you and Golem may be able to facilitate, since you both seem to be on cozy terms with the mods--I'll be gone.

---

You're a loon.

And oh BTW you and your buddy quash don't get it. Nobody was crappy to you because you're a woman. People are crappy to you because you're a tool

---

First, I'm going to absolve Quash of being tarred with the accusation of being "my buddy" amongst your band of loyal followers.

I've never personally met Quash or, to my knowledge, anyone else posting on this forum in person, but we've posted on this forum since 2009, so I know that Quash is more of a true libertarian and that he and I tend to agree on social issues and disagree on government regulation. We have figured out that we were at Baylor at the same time and know some of the same people. But we did not know each other at Baylor.

Quash is not me. He is not Cinque. I am not Cinque. THAT is a common trolling tactic here to try to drive anyone whose opinion the cabal of uber-conservatives don't like off the board. And there always has to be a whipping boy--often Waco1957 or Cinque these days--to help get everybody all riled up. It's the same tactic Trump used in the election--Hillary--and has used since--the media, James Comey, Bob Mueller. Somebody's always against him, and he's always whining about it while accusing the other side of whining. And while everyone is expressing their horror and anger at Fake News and Hillary and the MSM, he's putting damn near every member of his family on the government payroll, playing golf every weekend (something Obama got slammed for, but Trump totally gets a pass for), and tweeting like a madman and enacting tariffs. That tactic works pretty well on this forum.

What Quash and Waco (and I'll give Sam and D.C. credit for this though we don't agree on much of anything) have in common is that we want to actually discuss issues with people who came from the same background as us and attended the same school rather than call people names, tell people they're stupid or crazy, or troll people. I'd like to be able to disagree politely, with no name calling or misstatements of other poster's positions to make them appear different or more extreme. Quash called Baylorfans "the sandbox" and has a much more sanguine view of the mudwrestling debate ethic on this site than I do.

But it's not worth it if I'm going to be stalked and trolled because you don't like my views.

I started this thread because I was flummoxed that, in this day and time, a father would literally kick his son out of the house for being gay, not being receptive to conversion therapy and not wanting to attend a church where he was despised as an openly gay man. The father is a member of a church that preaches we are all sinners and saved only through love so unconditional that an all-powerful God sent his son to live and die as a human to redeem us. What could lead this father to conclude his son was irredeemable at age 18 and boot him out of the house, to the point where he was forced to sleep on a couch at a friend's in order to finish high school? I wondered how other Southern Baptists viewed this. And it turns out that while they might be heart-sick and disappointed if one of their children came out as gay and showed no inclination to either hide it or view it as a "cross" they must bear with a lifetime of celibacy, they wouldn't boot him out of the house or refuse to help with his education or stop loving him. That's comforting.

So back off and leave me alone. Or intervene with the mods and get them to close my account. I think the dollar I paid's about to expire.

---

How am I stalking and trolling you?
It's your call not mine.
Why can't you just leave? Who/What is making you post here? Is this the battered wife syndrome? You know you're being abused but just can't leave.
If you say women on this forum are treated differently...then why are you demanding to be treated differently?

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I would definitely not kick my child out. However, I can understand the parents point of view about worshiping together. Although I currently attend a southern baptist church, I don't agree with every interpretation of the Bible that has been presented...but I won't at any church I attend. You have to learn to ignore what you don't agree with OR the family could worship together in their home.

I raised my kids in a southern baptist church. One fell in love with a girl of a different denomination and although that denomination believes/does things differently, I just told him that I am glad he's going to church.

Proverbs 22:6

---

No, I don't understand their attitude. Suicide can be a result. They look stupid too.

---

I'm sure you don't understand. Anything outside your pro-abortion, anti-Christan rhetoric is difficult for you.

---

Fadskier, if your child was an unrepentant gay, would he go to hell. ( I Corinthians 6:9)
If so, send him/her to me. I know a loving God loves them just like they are. My God is not bound by some ancient 2,000 text that is oblivious to the world homosexuality and written by culturally twisted writers. They are inspired but not everlasting in their understanding of homosexuality. They are to culturally bound.
God loves gays and calls them
To discipleship, ordination and marriage. There ain't nothing you can do about. God is sovereign and calls who God wants to call, ordain, and love another human being.
Send your children to me. I know this God personally.

---

This personal god you speak of has been a deciever since he decieved Adam and Eve.

---

Nope. My God is the God the Great Commandment. My God doesn't let a 5,000 year old wrong sexual cultural understanding stand the way of love. Gay ain't sin no more except whatever straight sin is. Sexual identity in and of itself is not a sin. Gay or straight it's always been chastity in singleness and fidelity in marriage

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I would definitely not kick my child out. However, I can understand the parents point of view about worshiping together. Although I currently attend a southern baptist church, I don't agree with every interpretation of the Bible that has been presented...but I won't at any church I attend. You have to learn to ignore what you don't agree with OR the family could worship together in their home.

I raised my kids in a southern baptist church. One fell in love with a girl of a different denomination and although that denomination believes/does things differently, I just told him that I am glad he's going to church.

Proverbs 22:6

---

No, I don't understand their attitude. Suicide can be a result. They look stupid too.

---

I'm sure you don't understand. Anything outside your pro-abortion, anti-Christan rhetoric is difficult for you.

---

Fadskier, if your child was an unrepentant gay, would he go to hell. ( I Corinthians 6:9)
If so, send him/her to me. I know a loving God loves them just like they are. My God is not bound by some ancient 2,000 text that is oblivious to the world homosexuality and written by culturally twisted writers. They are inspired but not everlasting in their understanding of homosexuality. They are to culturally bound.
God loves gays and calls them
To discipleship, ordination and marriage. There ain't nothing you can do about. God is sovereign and calls who God wants to call, ordain, and love another human being.
Send your children to me. I know this God personally.

---

This personal god you speak of has been a deciever since he decieved Adam and Eve.

---

I thought that Christians were supposed to do the loving and serving and God was supposed to do the judging.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I would definitely not kick my child out. However, I can understand the parents point of view about worshiping together. Although I currently attend a southern baptist church, I don't agree with every interpretation of the Bible that has been presented...but I won't at any church I attend. You have to learn to ignore what you don't agree with OR the family could worship together in their home.

I raised my kids in a southern baptist church. One fell in love with a girl of a different denomination and although that denomination believes/does things differently, I just told him that I am glad he's going to church.

Proverbs 22:6

---

No, I don't understand their attitude. Suicide can be a result. They look stupid too.

---

I'm sure you don't understand. Anything outside your pro-abortion, anti-Christan rhetoric is difficult for you.

---

Fadskier, if your child was an unrepentant gay, would he go to hell. ( I Corinthians 6:9)
If so, send him/her to me. I know a loving God loves them just like they are. My God is not bound by some ancient 2,000 text that is oblivious to the world homosexuality and written by culturally twisted writers. They are inspired but not everlasting in their understanding of homosexuality. They are to culturally bound.
God loves gays and calls them
To discipleship, ordination and marriage. There ain't nothing you can do about. God is sovereign and calls who God wants to call, ordain, and love another human being.
Send your children to me. I know this God personally.

---

This personal god you speak of has been a deciever since he decieved Adam and Eve.

---

I thought that Christians were supposed to do the loving and serving and God was supposed to do the judging.

---

Anybody that says a homosexual union is the equivalent of a biblical marriage between one man and one woman has been deceived. That is not coming in judgement, that is a simple fact. The deceiver has been at work from the beginning of mankind and he is still at it today.

The bible also tells us to guard our doctrine with diligence as the bereans. Pointing out blatant falsehood is not judgement. It is discernment.

47's has to reconcile his heart with God, not me.

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I would definitely not kick my child out. However, I can understand the parents point of view about worshiping together. Although I currently attend a southern baptist church, I don't agree with every interpretation of the Bible that has been presented...but I won't at any church I attend. You have to learn to ignore what you don't agree with OR the family could worship together in their home.

I raised my kids in a southern baptist church. One fell in love with a girl of a different denomination and although that denomination believes/does things differently, I just told him that I am glad he's going to church.

Proverbs 22:6

---

No, I don't understand their attitude. Suicide can be a result. They look stupid too.

---

I'm sure you don't understand. Anything outside your pro-abortion, anti-Christan rhetoric is difficult for you.

---

Fadskier, if your child was an unrepentant gay, would he go to hell. ( I Corinthians 6:9)
If so, send him/her to me. I know a loving God loves them just like they are. My God is not bound by some ancient 2,000 text that is oblivious to the world homosexuality and written by culturally twisted writers. They are inspired but not everlasting in their understanding of homosexuality. They are to culturally bound.
God loves gays and calls them
To discipleship, ordination and marriage. There ain't nothing you can do about. God is sovereign and calls who God wants to call, ordain, and love another human being.
Send your children to me. I know this God personally.

---

I disagree. I never said that they would go to hell. Where did I say that? In fact, where did I say anyone would go to hell? Once again, #falseteacher.

ValhallaBear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

corncob pipe said:

---

do you feel safe now

---

Not from you.

But at least most people on Sicem now know that you have several accounts on SicEm under different names, that your various alt nicks conversed with each other and gave each other approval points, and that you stalked me online, including my FB page and my Twitter account. You must have some sort of a management system to keep all your alt-nicks straight.

And now you're trying to use the same tactic on Quash--claiming he's Cinque or me or whoever else you don't like. I don't know anyone who has actually met Cinque, although I was under the impression that he was an African American man from Fort Worth or Dallas. But lots of people know Quash off-line, and tactics like that undermine what's left of your credibility.

Pretty sure DaveyBear is you. Pretty sure Valhalla bear is Golem.

Just ignore me and leave me alone.

And if Ashley or whoever will ever delete my account--which you and Golem may be able to facilitate, since you both seem to be on cozy terms with the mods--I'll be gone.

---

You're a loon.

And oh BTW you and your buddy quash don't get it. Nobody was crappy to you because you're a woman. People are crappy to you because you're a tool

---

First, I'm going to absolve Quash of being tarred with the accusation of being "my buddy" amongst your band of loyal followers.

I've never personally met Quash or, to my knowledge, anyone else posting on this forum in person, but we've posted on this forum since 2009, so I know that Quash is more of a true libertarian and that he and I tend to agree on social issues and disagree on government regulation. We have figured out that we were at Baylor at the same time and know some of the same people. But we did not know each other at Baylor.

Quash is not me. He is not Cinque. I am not Cinque. THAT is a common trolling tactic here to try to drive anyone whose opinion the cabal of uber-conservatives don't like off the board. And there always has to be a whipping boy--often Waco1957 or Cinque these days--to help get everybody all riled up. It's the same tactic Trump used in the election--Hillary--and has used since--the media, James Comey, Bob Mueller. Somebody's always against him, and he's always whining about it while accusing the other side of whining. And while everyone is expressing their horror and anger at Fake News and Hillary and the MSM, he's putting damn near every member of his family on the government payroll, playing golf every weekend (something Obama got slammed for, but Trump totally gets a pass for), and tweeting like a madman and enacting tariffs. That tactic works pretty well on this forum.

What Quash and Waco (and I'll give Sam and D.C. credit for this though we don't agree on much of anything) have in common is that we want to actually discuss issues with people who came from the same background as us and attended the same school rather than call people names, tell people they're stupid or crazy, or troll people. I'd like to be able to disagree politely, with no name calling or misstatements of other poster's positions to make them appear different or more extreme. Quash called Baylorfans "the sandbox" and has a much more sanguine view of the mudwrestling debate ethic on this site than I do.

But it's not worth it if I'm going to be stalked and trolled because you don't like my views.

I started this thread because I was flummoxed that, in this day and time, a father would literally kick his son out of the house for being gay, not being receptive to conversion therapy and not wanting to attend a church where he was despised as an openly gay man. The father is a member of a church that preaches we are all sinners and saved only through love so unconditional that an all-powerful God sent his son to live and die as a human to redeem us. What could lead this father to conclude his son was irredeemable at age 18 and boot him out of the house, to the point where he was forced to sleep on a couch at a friend's in order to finish high school? I wondered how other Southern Baptists viewed this. And it turns out that while they might be heart-sick and disappointed if one of their children came out as gay and showed no inclination to either hide it or view it as a "cross" they must bear with a lifetime of celibacy, they wouldn't boot him out of the house or refuse to help with his education or stop loving him. That's comforting.

So back off and leave me alone. Or intervene with the mods and get them to close my account. I think the dollar I paid's about to expire.

---

How am I stalking and trolling you?
It's your call not mine.
Why can't you just leave? Who/What is making you post here? Is this the battered wife syndrome? You know you're being abused but just can't leave.
If you say women on this forum are treated differently...then why are you demanding to be treated differently?

---

Her demands have nothing to do with her sex. To claim otherwise just shows how sexist you really are.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I would definitely not kick my child out. However, I can understand the parents point of view about worshiping together. Although I currently attend a southern baptist church, I don't agree with every interpretation of the Bible that has been presented...but I won't at any church I attend. You have to learn to ignore what you don't agree with OR the family could worship together in their home.

I raised my kids in a southern baptist church. One fell in love with a girl of a different denomination and although that denomination believes/does things differently, I just told him that I am glad he's going to church.

Proverbs 22:6

---

No, I don't understand their attitude. Suicide can be a result. They look stupid too.

---

I'm sure you don't understand. Anything outside your pro-abortion, anti-Christan rhetoric is difficult for you.

---

Fadskier, if your child was an unrepentant gay, would he go to hell. ( I Corinthians 6:9)
If so, send him/her to me. I know a loving God loves them just like they are. My God is not bound by some ancient 2,000 text that is oblivious to the world homosexuality and written by culturally twisted writers. They are inspired but not everlasting in their understanding of homosexuality. They are to culturally bound.
God loves gays and calls them
To discipleship, ordination and marriage. There ain't nothing you can do about. God is sovereign and calls who God wants to call, ordain, and love another human being.
Send your children to me. I know this God personally.

---

This personal god you speak of has been a deciever since he decieved Adam and Eve.

---

I thought that Christians were supposed to do the loving and serving and God was supposed to do the judging.

---

Anybody that says a homosexual union is the equivalent of a biblical marriage between one man and one woman has been deceived. That is not coming in judgement, that is a simple fact. The deceiver has been at work from the beginning of mankind and he is still at it today.

The bible also tells us to guard our doctrine with diligence as the bereans. Pointing out blatant falsehood is not judgement. It is discernment.

47's has to reconcile his heart with God, not me.

---

In your defense you site a 2,000 year old document that had no idea of what a homosexual was. Paul pointed to a perverse practice among Romans that any human being would abhor. BUT it does not follow that his comment should be interpreted for ALL time adcondrmnation of gays. I differ on my interpretation of the Bible not its authority. Forrest wishes to say hi Interpration is good for all time. It's not. It's one interpretation among many. That gay is sin is a 2,000 teaching only means that it took us that long to understand homosexuality.
Gay or gay behavior and the morals for sexual conduct are the same. Gays don't get a pass. Mark 10 is talking about divorce not one man one woman. Read it very carefully Forrest.

Waco1947 said:

---

Sexual orientation- chosen or hereditary- is the responsibility and choice of the person. It is also beyond the scope of the law and should be a protected class. Why should anyone care with what sexi identity chooses to identify.

---

Why should someone's sexual proclivities give them special protection?

On that note, your first sentence negates your second sentence. Why don't you afford people the same freedom's you're affording people with certain sexual preferences? And, using your own language, why is it your business to tell someone how they should feel about another person's sexual activites?

Also, as is common with you, the third sentence is literally indecipherable in the English language.

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Some people don't view same-sex attraction as a 'cross' but as a naturally occuring variation. As is their right in any nation that touts separation of church and state.

---

First, science has not established what causes Same-sex attraction. Blindness, deafness, malformations, etc., are naturally occurring. These are considered crosses to bear.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Same-sex attraction as 'sin" or a "cross to bear" is a religious belief--a very bigoted one, IMO, and not one all Christian churches share.

---

I never called it a sin to have Same-sex attraction. I will argue all day that it is a cross to bear. No one wakes up upon discovery and says, "YEAH, I'm Gay!" Most struggle for years, if not a lifetime.

Humans are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. That is how all species grow, prosper, and evolve. Same-sex attraction is against the natural law.

As Christians, we are called to love ALL people. I do my best to do so. That doesn't mean that I have to love the behaviors of all people.

---

You think humans are 'designed.'

I think we evolved, and that being gay--which has been a constant since the dawn of time--must have some benefit, or it would have been selected out.

There are so many things that can and do go wrong with our 'design'--genes that cause cancer and alzhiemers, extra cromosomes causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities, chronic issues like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, a horrible death sentence like Huntington's disease. As the sister of a profoundly disabled brother who died at 32 with his multitude of issues never fully diagnosed or understood, I've seen the worst result of randomness and find that the miracle is that things go right so much of the time.

---

Your 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph are contradictory.

If homosexuality must have some "benefit" or else it would have been "selected" out . . . . then kindly tell me the benefit of cancer, alzhiemers, and chromosomal disorders "causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities." Since, you know, those things haven't been selected out either.

---

The point where we probably disagree is that there is a Plan or a Purpose. I don't believe there is, and I believe that imbues us with greater responsibility for our fates and the fate of all life on earth, not less. We are doing a very poor job of stewarding the environment that created us. The cost for that could be our own extinction.

---

Who cares? If there's no purpose, then so what? Species go extinct all the time.

Plus, I mean, wouldn't the planet be better off without us, in your opinion? I'd think earth-worshippers like you would almost be rooting for our extinction, not living in fear of it.

---

Do you think purpose in life must be based in religion?

I don't. I don't believe in a God that controls the universe right down to the minute details of everyday life. What I think instead is that makes us responsible for choosing how to give our lives meaning and purpose--a big responsibility. Religion is one option, but that means you must accept someone else's definition of what you must do and must not do. And, in the case of Christianity and other religions, it means you must believe in an afterlife in which you are rewarded or punished for the choices you make. I particularly dislike a purpose driven by fear of hell or eternal damnation or the promise of some sort of heavenly reward, like 72 virgins (and what about THEIR enjoyment of the afterlife? Having to be a sex slave for some jerk with a food catching beard for all eternity sounds like the virgins are being punished with eternal misery to reward one guy for pleasing God).

I belief this is the only life we have, and the reward and punishment we reap comes in real time. Or not. Some really bad people are rewarded with wealth and comfort, while some really good ones suffer random awfulness like an ALS diagnosis or the death of a spouse or child.

My purpose is to leave the campsite better than I found it, by raising good children and doing good work, and also to savor the days I have to learn and walk my dog and read and work. I feel lucky to have two grown daughters I love, a good life partner, a comfortable house, a good dog to take walks with and a good job.

---

Ahhhhhhh, ok. So purpose of our existence is entirely subjective. I suppose that means you're very understanding of someone seeing things differently than you do. Like, say, someone who doesn't think it's important to leave the campsite better than you found it? After all, they have a different purpose, Jinx. You don't care about their religion, and they don't care about your purpose. It's all up to the individual what life is really about. Since this is "the only life we have" and all. Eat, drink, and be merry. Why the responsibility to future generations of an insignificant species who is a scourge to poor Mother Earth, right? Your worldview tends to make your stated purpose meaningless.

---

You are conflating agnosticism with individualism.

If anything, my concern for people and my conviction that we must work together to preserve the planet for everyone may be stronger than yours, because I don't exclude people of other faiths or no faith (especially, in the case of evangelical Christians, Muslims), nor do I believe we're going to be bailed out of drowning in our own waste by the Second Coming, which may seem to make issues like clean air, clean water, trash-free oceans and climate change seem less urgent. If you think God's in control and that you're his chosen people, you may think there's an exit strategy. If you don't, our incredible hubris in fouling our nest strikes you as incredibly stupid and short-sighted.

"Leave the campsite better than you found it" is a strong ethic for me.

I feel just as strongly about that as something everyone needs to do as some evangelical Christians feel about eliminating any form of abortion as a legal choice for all women or about eliminating civil rights for gay people because that's legitimizing sin.

The fact that my beliefs and convictions aren't religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong, and that I won't act to support them. Just as the fact that your beliefs and convictions ARE religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong or stop you from advocating for laws forcing everyone to adhere to them, regardless of whether they share your beliefs about reproductive rights or gay civil rights.

---

Thanks. I think your positions about human life being meaningless in a grander scheme (subjective purpose only) but also having a need to tend to mother earth for future generations are inconsistent.

Also, despite your barbs about religions, your beliefs seem pretty religious as well. Although in keeping with the aforementioned inconsistency they seem to be a mix of Nature Worship and Humanism. For what it's worth, you do seem more "holier than thou" and self-impressed than most mainstream religious folks I know.

Lastly, despite your veiled digs, I don't know a single Christian friend or acquaintance that is in favor of "eliminating civil rights for gay people." That's just an absurd accusation. You're right that many are, however, in favor of being on the right side of history on the issue of slaughtering millions of tiny defenseless humans. And they should be, because the practice is absolutely monstrous. But nobody is trying to eliminate civil rights. They might be opposed to people receiving special consideration based on the people they choose to share a bed with. And yes, they consider the practice of homosexuality to be a sin (among many other sins that everyone they know commits) but that doesn't make them anti civil rights. I suspect you know this.