International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Poles Blasting EU for Gay Flag
Source:
Church Militant
URL Source: https://www.churchmilitant.com/news ... poles-blasting-eu-for-gay-flag
Published: May 19, 2018
Author: Alexander Slavsky
Post Date: 2018-05-19 10:25:11 by IbJensen
Keywords: None
Views: 18470
Comments: 151
Claims that display normalizes homosexuality BRUSSELS (ChurchMilitant.com) - Brussels is getting backlash from Poland for flying a gay flag outside of the European Parliament. On Thursday, a rainbow flag was hoisted up in front of the building for the first time in its history, marking "International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia." Despite outcry from Polish conservatives, the European Union said, "Regrettably, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons in Europe are still subject to serious discrimination and maltreatment on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity." Ryszard Legutko, co-chairman of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, said in a letter to the European Parliament that Thursday's initiative displayed "just one lobby group." He questioned why the Parliament would not promote other unofficial "international days" like those celebrating museums, beer or students. Since 1990, May 17 has been remembered as the anniversary of the removal of homosexuality from the International Classification of Diseases of the World Health Organization. But Legutko blasted the display of a rainbow flag, saying it endorses a "moral revolution" that privileges same-sex couples. There are "practically no ... attacks" on those with same-sex attraction, Legutko emphasized. There are 'practically no ... attacks' on those with same-sex attraction. This didn't stop the European Commission and European External Action Service, also in Brussels, from illuminating its headquarters with the colors of the gay flag. Frans Timmermans, vice president of the European Commission, said, "It's time we put an end to the widespread discrimination against LGBTI people together." However, Legutko instead recommended hoisting a flag with a fish — a symbol of Christianity — to symbolize the millions of Christians suffering persecution worldwide.
Poster Comment: Many of us are sick and tired of politicians kissing the asses of queers! Resurrect the law that outlaws homosexual acts and proselytizing today's thoroughly confused youth. The belong hidden under a rock. Widespread LGBTQI discrimination? Where? When? By whom? If it happens there must have been major stories in the press. But nothing. Instead what I see are Christians being slaughtered and persecuted by the thousands over the last 20 years and not a word from the atheistic marxists in Brussels, London, Berlin, Paris.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: IbJensen (#0)
It looks like a total non-event with 200 people attending, probably over half of them paid government workers at the EU Ministry of Sodomy.
Looking again, I was too generous in my crowd estimate. It wasn't 200 people, it wasn't even 100. And some of them talked like American tourists.
Nah. Government has no business in people's private consensual sex lives. None. I can see delegitimizing gay marriage, but for that to happen the Christian majority would need to actually vote the part. And they don't. And won't. We should stop mollycoddling emotional sensitivities, but we should not go back to outlawing private sexual behavior.
Yeah who cares if those Catholics molest little kids. It is private and consensual right?
Nonsensical non-sequitur
So you were wrong. There should be laws against perverted sex acts. Or are you sticking with your original concept in contradiction of scripture?
But Legutko blasted the display of a rainbow flag, saying it endorses a "moral revolution" that privileges same-sex couples. Celebrating a day that will long live in psychological and psychiatric infamy and deterioration.
Bullshit! These sick freaks attempt to recruit youngsters to follow their path to their sickening methods of achieving sexual gratification....but then you know this! Further, there is no 'Christian majority' anymore as those of us left abhor the placing of these sex freaks atop a pedestal to be more revered than heterosexuals. And even further, all serial killers have been proven to be homosexual. They're afflicted with a serious mental disease. And lastly, any ingesting of fecal matter is proof that these shit-heels are not worthly of acceptance in a polite society.
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
I said private consensual sex lives. The age of consent is included within my comment. I’m not a bit wrong.
So you maintain the age of consent. Doesn’t mean you outlaw adult activity.
You react with the same luke warmness that the Pope does when faggots are discovered in the Vatican in positions of influence. Your indifference to evil is your pc weakness. Why are catholics so tolerant of faggots?
By 'adult activity' do you mean where one male shoves his pe-pee up another's poo-poo? And furthermore, the faggots shove their mouths up that poo-poo hole and in doing so ingests fecal matter. Their methods of 'love making' are injurious to their health. Why, God forbid, they might even die of a serious disease. Better get a checkup.
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
There is one thing to consider, they cannot reproduce by normal means, this makes them a dying breed
Yeah, all of the gross aspects of homosexual sodomy are what I mean by adult activity. It's legal between consenting adults, and ought to be legal. They're welcome to it. I don't need to get a checkup with regards to those things. Do you? Private sex between consenting adults is their business, and the law does not belong there.
Sarcasm?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
No, fact
In that case you are a fool. Homosexuals father or give birth to children every day,and have done so since the dawn of time.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Now homos are getting their own flag? They sure do like to dress up,don't they? Who is their ambassador to the UN,Elton John,or Boy Jorge Bush?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
You would agree that they do it a lower rate, based on common sense? Over the course of several generations such genes would be wiped out of the pool. Ergo - homosexuality is acquired.
Any other anti-personal freedom laws you want passed,comrade? And if you seriously think "today's thoroughly confused youth" that are heterosexuals can actually be talked into becoming homosexuals,you are a bi-sexual that is already a member of that group.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Naw,I'm guessing 150 of them were reporters,2 or 3 were people who were lost and looking for directions,several were cops,and the rest were people employed by some pro-homo think tank.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Not so much any more unless they're rich and hire a surrogate mother. The bigger thing now is two gay guys raising an adopted Chinese baby girl somewhere in the suburbs. Hardly any gay guys bother to get married and pretend to be straight any more. With gays absenting themselves from the gene pool more than they ever have, you have to wonder if we'll see a result from this. If gaiety tends to run in families (for whatever reason), there should be a lot fewer gays in 20-30 years as a result.
Of course. First of all,there are FAR fewer true homosexuals than there are bi-sexuals and heterosexuals. I am speaking of bi-sexual and heterosexual people as people who have those desires,regardless of if they are sexually active or not. Over the course of several generations such genes would be wiped out of the pool. Ain't no such thing in the known universe. We are ALL born with both female and male genes. Somehow or another the "correct balance" of genes, for what of a more scientific description, to create a completely heterosexual baby,gets out of whack,and a baby will be born with a genetic inclination to be sexually attracted to people of the same gender,or people of both genders. These people have no more control over who they are sexually attracted to than you do,so why do you think it is permissible for government to punish them for what amounts to a genetic birth defect? BTW,don't even THINK that you can deny that all of us are both with both male and female genetic codes until you can come up with an explanation of why males are born with nipples. BTW-2,NONE of this means that you personally have to like any of it. It just means that government doesn't have the right to dictate private behavior to people just because we don't like or approve of what they might be doing in private.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I don't. Same way with adulterers (as they feel sexually attracted to other people's wives) , I do not want government to punish them.
You would have a point if you could show us where it is only illegal for homosexuals to molest children,and just peachy-keen for pedophiles to molest children of the opposite sex. You can't,so you don't have an argument. Pedophilia is about the sexual attraction to CHILDREN.not just homosexual attraction to children of the same gender as the offender. I am far from being an authority on this issue,but it seems like I read years ago that MOST pedophiles have a gender preference,but will abduct and rape children of either gender because their sexual "kink" is for children,not children of a specific gender. This kind of conduct just cannot be allowed. They either need to be permanently sealed away from contact with any and all children,or chemically castrated as well as given drugs to decrease their sexual desire by checking in at a clinic every day and given the drug under medical supervision. If they are not willing to sign up for that,they just need to be locked away,
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Who gets to determine what is perverted,you?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Where did you pick up on that little factoid? Hear if from your cult leader during Sunday services at the compound?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Because Catholic Priests are their "mainline to Gawd",and Catholic Priests are not allowed to marry or date women. Kinda sets the tone for a certain type of male to want to become a Priest,doesn't it?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
How old are you,9? Does your mom know you are posting here?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Only if you live in a yuppie community like Hollywood,NYC,Bridgeport,etc,etc,etc. The majority of children born to homosexuals are born to married male and female parents,and are usually the result of at least one partner being bi-sexual,in the closet due to guilt feelings,and trying to "pass" as what we all laughingly call "normal".
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
My apologies for misunderstanding you.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
There is another possible reason as well. A few that I know personally, sorely miss having a normal family life. They feel alone, and are sad when they see other people children and grandchildren. They told me this more than one time. And curiously, they are quite conservative and dislike all those "LGBT" activists.
You're living in the past.
I'm all for it. There's nothing discriminatory or unconstitutional about regulating behavior. If we don't like it, why should we have to put up with it? If liberals can ban prayer in schools -- a constitutional right protected by the first amendment -- we can certainly ban homosexual behavior.
These people have no more control over who they are sexually attracted to than you do,so why do you think it is permissible for government to punish them for what amounts to a genetic birth defect? I don't. You should. What about those born with "what amounts to a genetic birth defect" an attraction to young children? Animals? Dead bodies? They get a pass also because they were "born that way"? There's a thing called "self- control". I don't care what you're attracted to. If society is against it, control yourself. We do not have to accept perversion.
Why are catholics so tolerant of faggots? Because I believe in human liberty, and when it comes to victimless crimes, I believe that such things should be decriminalized so they are not crimes at all. I do not want to pay police, prosecutors and prison guards, and empower them to intervene in people's bedrooms. I think people who are obsessed about the subject are themselves closeted perverts in some sense or others, sort of like cross-dressing Nancy-boy J. Edgar Hoover who loved to spy on people to get their sexual secrets, then blackmail them using it. Because of that long-standing tradition of law enforcement and government to use evidence of criminalized private sex to control people, I want the power removed from government to do that. Monica Lewinsky and Stormy Daniels and that guy who Obama used to blow are not of concern to me, and I want to make sure the law stays with me, so that people who ARE concerned about these things are left without power to do anything about it. I am not indifferent to evil: I think that extorting political concessions from people using the threat of revealing their sex lives is much, MUCH more evil than the actual sex acts. You don't agree, obviously. The parameters of the law have been worked out in the public square, and the people agree with me a lot more than they agree with you, so you lose.
If. Truth is, society is more against police intrusion in the bedroom than it is against perversion, and we - the majority -are right about that. So we've stripped away the power of you, the minority, to enforce laws on private sexual behavior. You still hate it, but you've lost the law. We took it from you, and we're not giving it back. You have to accept that perversion is legal, because it is, and we're not going to let you make it illegal again.
You are a true democrat (little d): what "we", don't like, we don't put up with. That's how we got to tolerating gays, legalizing marijuana, even ending the Vietnam War and racial segregation. We, the majority, finally got tired of putting up with things we didn't like, and we changed the law to suit us. It's why we have a progressive tax code instead of a flat tax or a national sales tax. It's why alcohol prohibition was thrown out. It's why abortion was kept legal once the Supreme Court changed the law. It's why the obscenity laws were swept away in all but name, and why sports betting will be sweeping across the USA soon. It's why the 55 MPH speed limit didn't hold. It's not hard to look at a couple of more things that we're beginning to like less and less: police brutality and school shootings. On all of the various issues, the only one I can see that the people have gotten wrong has been abortion. So, I'm all for going the route you suggest: If WE don't like it, we outlaw it. WE is the people, the electorate. We don't CARE about gay sex, and we don't LIKE laws that go into the bedroom. So now the former is legal, and the latter have been swept aside. YOU don't like what the people like on a lot of vectors, which is why it's a mistake for you to take such a democratic line. Democracy works for me and the way I want to see things, it REALLY doesn't work for you. You're an authoritarian at heart. The people don't like what you like. So yes, there's nothing discriminatory or unconstitutional about regulating behavior. if we don't like it, we should we have to put up with it? Let's put these things to a vote. Wait - we already have, in state after state. My side won.
I'm against the public, not private, behavior of gays. I don't want my children exposed to perversion and a lifestyle choice associated with the spread of a deadly disease and other STDs, rampant drug use, sex orgies, sex with strangers, different sex partners every week, and a high rate of depression and suicide. Even those gays who "fall in love" and "get married" feel no obligation to remain sexually monogamous. So go ahead and engage in your private behavior. I won't stop you.
And curiously, they are quite conservative and dislike all those "LGBT" activists. I've had the same experiences with a few I have known. The sad and simple truth is that most people just want to live normal lives and be happy. Sounds easy to do,doesn't it?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
You're living in the past. Really? Some super creature somewhere has developed a new and improved Mark 5 human?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
It depends on the behavior and the situation,and you have to put up with it for the same reasons other people have to put up with YOUR brain farts,as long as you are not harming anyone else. Nobody died and made you a public personality monitor. If liberals can ban prayer in schools -- a constitutional right protected by the first amendment -- we can certainly ban homosexual behavior. First of all,there is NOTHING the least bit "liberal" about those people,so quit bragging on them. Secondly,you are a bleeping clueless fool if you can't understand that what YOU are demanding is PRECISELY the same thing you are bitching about,the right to deny other people their rights to live their lives in peace.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Gays made their gains through the courts, not through the legislatures. Let's be clear about that.
Are you REALLY so stupid you can't figure that out? You should have been born in Germany or Russia in the 20's. You would have fit right in with the official police state state of mind back then,and made a good work camp guard.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
ATTENTION MISTER WHITE! NEENER,NEENER!
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
You sure don't sound like it. Seems to me every post you make is "there oughta be a law to make faggots illegal!"
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Acts against NATURE should be condemned. Homosexuality does nothing to further mankind. It is why NATURE bit back, with AIDS.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Unfortunately your theorem isn't as supported as well as we might hope, there seems to be more of them or perhaps the zombie hordes have always been with us, hiding in the sewers like allegators
Not so. The Supreme Court swept aside statutes barring gay marriage, but anti-discrimination statutes have been put into place through the vote in states and municipalities all over the country. In this sense, it is similar to Roe v. Wade, or to Prohibition. Had a vote been taken to legalize abortion in 1973, it would have failed, but the Supreme Court ruled. Were it put to a vote today, abortion would remain legal. In a similar vein, Prohibition was pushed through by organized Christian Temperance organizations, but once the law was in place the public at large resented the law, broke it on a massive scale, and ultimately overcame the standard apathy to come out and vote. Indeed, the drive to end Prohibition assisted FDR in getting elected President the first time. The Courts and the ballot box work together to change things. Frequently the court breaks entrenched political power, and the people go to the ballot box to protect their gains against the revanche
Condemned, sure. But outlawed? No. Empowers the police and politicians too much. If people want to piss on each other and roll around in feces, I think there's something wrong with them. If they do it in the street that needs to be stopped. But to empower the authorities to go into private places to stop and punish things that people do in private? No. It's much worse to have such powerful police than it is to have people committing acts against nature. "My dear, I don't care what people do so long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses." - Mrs. Patrick Campbell I agree with her.
What? Wait. You mean the sewers AREN'T swarming with zombies and alligators?
I suppose it follows, then, to ask "Where do you draw the line?" After all, people can molest children, beat slaves, drown puppies, traffic heroin and make bombs in private. Do we just let that go? No. You draw the line at murder, non-consensual sex, slavery, animal cruelty and terrorism. Drugs is where the issue gets muddier. Is it better to maintain drug prohibition and thereby keep the general level of drug abuse and drug addiction lower in the society, as alcohol prohibition did (50% reduction in cirrhosis during prohibition - it massively reduced alcoholism and drunkness, but at the price of intrusion and organized crime)? Or is it better to let people consume what they will unmolested, and treat the results medically? I would say it's a line-drawing exercise, just as drinking ages are. Strong drugs such as LSD and opiods are terrifically destructive fast. Weak drugs, such as cannabis or nicotine, don't destroy most people who have used them, and most people have tried them at one point or other in their lives. The line is drawn where democracy draws it. If I were King, or running a political party, I would call of marijuana to be treated as tobacco, and for the drinking age to be lowered to 18. I expect that in our democracy, I will eventually win on the first point: pot is gradually being legalized. I'm not really comfortable with that: I would have preferred that the harsh drug laws from Rockefeller until now really had stamped out drugs. But they didn't, and they won't, and I'm not willing to go on chewing up lives in a losing war. I expect that I would lose on the second: when the drinking age was 18 there was a lot more death on the roads from drunken high schoolers.
Ergo - homosexuality is acquired. The basic concept behind the reasoning is flawed. Is adultery acquired? What about democracy?
It is not. You do not understand how natural selection work. Tendency toward adultery is based on genes. Why? Because it helps to pass MORE genes to the next generation. Tendency toward equality and justice is supported by the selection as it secures more genes for the weaker to pass. So is tendency to dominate and grab more - it helps strong to increase their share in the pool. You will say it is contradictory. Yes, because nature is not a legal code.
We would have to open up a discussion of nature, law, science, God, existence, philosophy to take this one to ground. I could have that discussion with you, if you really wanted it. This forum is a strange place to try to have such a discussion, because it will be like Socrates and Plato having a discussion around a campfire...in a jungle full of angry bears and wild bucks in rutting season. Still, if you really want to have that discussion, we can. Could be interesting.
These topics are more like work for me. Actually it was in my past. I could explain one thing or two, but to debate, the topics would have to be more advanced. For example how the neo-Lamarckian schemes and original (pre-genetic) Darwinism relate to gene sharing and communication within ecosystems and biosphere as a whole. Also how the gene switching is regulated. Also the role of inter-population segregation in targeted streams of micro-evolution. Evolution of human gene pools interacting with collective psyche. Etc ...
For example how the neo-Lamarckian schemes and original (pre-genetic) Darwinism relate to gene sharing and communication within ecosystems and biosphere as a whole. Also how the gene switching is regulated. Also the role of inter-population segregation in targeted streams of micro-evolution. Evolution of human gene pools interacting with collective psyche. Etc ... I didn't say debate. I find debate useless and uninteresting. Nobody ever convinced me of anything by taking an adversarial position to me and fighting with me. Not one time, in 55 years, has anybody ever convinced me of a single thing by debate. Debate is completely useless. I said "discuss", which is different.
From Wiki: "The strongest expansions in LGBT rights in the United States have come from the United States Supreme Court. In four landmark rulings between the years 1996 and 2015, the Supreme Court invalidated a state law banning protected class recognition based upon homosexuality, struck down sodomy laws nationwide, struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, and made same- sex marriage legal nationwide." "Adoption of children by same-sex married couples is legal nationwide since June 2015 following the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges." When you can't get the votes, plead your case in front of a socially liberal court.
I'll agree with you when nature files a suit in court and testifies,and wins.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Who is doing that?
Who,like all the other commie "do-gooder" organizations was anything BUT "temperate".
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Unfortunately common sense is very uncommon,and WAAAAY too many people confuse their own personal biases with common sense. "Why,if I had MY way........."
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
No,you don't. You confuse religious doctrine and prejudices with nature. Nature doesn't give a flaming flip WHAT you,me,or anyone else thinks. Nature is something we deal with by trying to adapt to it,not something we give orders.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
You have no excuse at all for your arguments against the existence of homosexuality.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
In my opinion what's acquired is the predisposition to homosexuality -- as with the predisposition to pedophilia, alcoholism, drug use, smoking or being overweight, to name a few. Doesn't mean you have to engage in that behavior, or that you're entitled to engage in that behavior, or that the rest of us have to accept that behavior as normal.
Yep. That's our system. The quickest way to ban abortion completely is to get five pro-life justices and have them abolish abortion nationwide as a matter of constitutional right of persons to life. The power is there. The only question is: who is to wield it?
That is true. The only behavior we HAVE to engage in, involuntarily, is breathing and excreting. So, the question is: what are you ENTITLED to engage in? I think we would both come down on the side of saying "What the law of our land lets us do." So then it's purely a question of what that law should be (and who decides). I think that the law should let people have whatever sex they please with other consenting adults, and I think the law should not give any recourse to those who dislike that. And that's actually what our law DOES, right now, so I am content with it. The only question, then, is whether or not we have to ACCEPT legal behavior as "normal". You and I both don't think that homosexual activity is "normal". It's deviant. I shrug my shoulders at it because I just don't care what people do. You are horrified by it. I think it's important that you don't get to express your horror legally in any way, that you essentially have to passively accept something you really don't like, even if you don't think it's normal at all, because the law says it's legal. In the same vein, I know that abortion is the intentional pre-meditated murder of an innocent unborn child. It horrifies me, and if I had the power, I would outlaw it and punish those who commit it. But the law is against me, so however abnormal I find the activity and the law, I just have to lump it. If it's important enough to me, I can emigrate to get away from that law, or I can persuade other people to agree with me and get an administration in there that will put five like-minded people on the Supremes. In general, I find the liberalizing and relaxing of legal restraints on personal liberty to be a very good thing and I support it. I think we went too far with abortion, but everything else seems, on balance, positive to me. Including letting gays have whatever sex they want to have. I don't care. And I don't think that people who DO care, like you do, should have any say in it. So the law is permissive, and the politics have to be strong enough to stop you in your tracks. One of us is going to be unhappy. In general, moralistic, puritanical and racist types have had their politics beaten down and beaten back over the course of American history, and greater and greater liberty has emerged. I strongly support that trend, both of freeing people from puritanical laws, and of putting into place the political and legal structures to prevent your side from regaining momentum to ever be able to change any of the rules back. Ergo, for example, in the case of race, not only did slavery and segregation need to be formally outlawed on paper, but we needed the FBI and internal intelligence and law enforcement apparatus of state to go in and smash the KKK and related organizations, to prosecute and persecute and beat them down sufficiently that people recognized that they would pay a heavy social, economic, political and economic price if they sided with the losing side of that fight. The past was racially oppressive. People did not change their minds easily. So once the racists were defeated in physical and legal battle, they needed to be forcibly oppressed by the government, persecuted, so that people would be afraid to join their ranks or mouth support for them, for fear of their own well being. This was effective. The KKK was once a mighty organization that struck fear into many, both physical fear on the ground and also in the halls of power. But they were defeated and reduced, to the point that only a crazy person on the margins who was so filled with racial hatred that he would be willing to give up any prospects of a decent job or a normal life would join. In some lands in history, masturbation was a mortal sin, and was punished violently through public whipping or worse. Unmarried heterosexual fornication and gay sex in private between consenting adults both fall into the category of masturbation: things that are nobody's business, that nobody should be able to punish. Since some people want to, and are unhappy if those things are allowed, those people have to be kept unhappy, by making damned sure they cannot wrest back control of the law to reimpose their views. It's all based on power.
You meant "acquired" or "inherited"? There are two common etiologies of homosexuality: One is a distant father and domineering mother. This causes fear of woman and longing for a male figure. Then the second might add up - a seduction by a pederast in early adolescence.
Not exactly. Into category of mutual masturbation falls female homosexuality and sometimes male homosexuality. Heterosexual fornication is not a masturbation. Serious unnatural sin is anal sex, also among heterosexual couples, perhaps lighter in the later case. At least so say canons of the Orthodox Church that deal with sins and penance.
I did not mean the mechanics. I meant to say that these are all grave sexual sins, according to the dominant religions anyway.
Well, that would work in a society consisting solely of responsible adults -- as would most Libertarian ideas. But our society also consists of impressionable children along with irresponsible adults who expect, nay demand, the rest of us to pick up the tab when things go bad for them. Meaning, your argument is specious.
Ah. I had assumed you defined them the same way. I meant the predisposition was "inherited". Given that predisposition, environment and sexual experiences would then influence the individual's decision to take the path of homosexuality. The bottom line is that I believe homosexuality is not genetic and people choose that lifestyle because of the above.
Nope. It would be the behavior you choose to do because you're you. No one gets to tell YOU what to do. You're "entitled" to do whatever your personal moral compass allows. An example of this would be Jeremiah Johnson or any of his mountain men friends. They live above the treeline and away from civilization. Yor problem is that you want to behave like a mountain man but live among the rest of us. Doesn't work that way.
Masturbation is not grave, mutual is not either. And fornication like sex before the marriage is not very grave.
Obviously the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church have different views of sex. Masturbation is, and always has been, a very grave sin - a mortal sin of sexual immorality - in the Catholic Church. The catechism confirms this. So, while I agree with you, based on the mildness of the Torah towards this sin, calling it a mere uncleanness, the Catholic Church holds masturbation to be porneia, a gravely disordered sin, and notes that the mental aspect involved constitutes lust in the heart and mind, which Jesus identified as adultery. So, our discussion has uncovered another enormous difference between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and a very ancient one.
Perhaps harshness of Latin Church toward minor sexual transgressions is a result of mandatory celibacy that affected mindset of their clergy? BTW, the church canons that I mentioned are from long before Schism, so perhaps Western attitudes were formed by the scholastic celibate scholars during Middle Ages? I wonder how much hypocrisy was involved there and guilt tripping?
The Catholic Church says that its moral views on this date from the early church, from long before the Schism. So, this is an example of something on which the Church that was once united always disagreed, apparently, between East and West. In a similar vein, the Eastern Orthodox allow remarriage after divorce. I don't know if they always have, but they do now. The Catholic Church never did - to the point of losing England on account of it.
The Whore of Babylon's "Moral views" are a crock of Bullshyte exemplified by how it plays the shell game with predators like Joseph Maskell and E. Neil Magnus.
But our society also consists of impressionable children along with irresponsible adults who expect, nay demand, the rest of us to pick up the tab when things go bad for them. Meaning, your argument is specious. My argument is the law of the land. Your argument is your own reasoning, and it has not persuaded the bulk of the American people. Our laws already permit consenting adults to perform whatever sex acts they please in private, and also on film for the Internet to see. Our laws recognize that impressionable children should be protected from such things, and so we have an age of consent, we have rules against pornographic information being distributed or viewed by minors. We have ages of legal marriage. We have struck what we, as a society, consider to be a reasonable balance between adults' rights of sexual liberty, and the need to protect children from sex before they are mature. You don't agree with where the society has drawn the line. I do, so I include myself as part of the "we" that have set the rule where we have set it. It would be one thing if you were taking the position I do on abortion - that it is evil, and wrong, and SHOULD BE outlawed, but is, in fact, legal. I call the law itself evil in the case of abortion. If you did that regarding the laws of sexual liberty, because you disagree with the degree of permissiveness in our society, then I would have little to say to you other than that we disagree on the amount of sexual liberty there should be. Trouble is, though, that's not what you are arguing. You are speaking as though your opinion on these matters IS the law, as though you are the final arbiter not of right and wrong, but of what the law IS. And you are not. The law IS, in fact, precisely where I think it ought to be on the subject: very broad personal liberty, with some protection for children - but not so much protection for children that private adult sexual behavior, and public adult affectionate non-sexual behavior (hand-holding, kissing, snuggling), is restricted. Where the law IS, is where I think it should be. You object to it quite strongly, but you speak as though your opinion, which is NOT the law, and which, in fact, has absolutely no force or authority in our society (just as my opinion on abortion has no authority in our society), WERE the law. You have called my "argument" specious. It's not specious. It is operant. It is authoritative. The Law IS what I have said I like, and it IS NOT what you think on the subject. So, you can lament how bad things have become that our laws are so permissive - O Tempus! O Mores! - and there's little I could say to that other than "I disagree". But when you take the tone of a king, or a grand inquisitor, as though you are the arbiter of what the law is and what arguments are acceptable - well, I have to call you out on it, because that's just not true. Someone like Stone could come along and say that the law of society is beneath the Law of God, and that I am some sort of evil heathen for wanting societal laws to be less restrictive than the laws of God. At least then he would be able to refer to an actual law that our civil laws breach. I do precisely that when speaking of abortion, which is the pre-meditated murder of innocent children, under the law of God - but NOT under the law of the state in which we live. There's a realism to the way I discuss these things. There's an authoritarian unrealism to the way that you discuss it. Your viewpoint USED TO BE the law of the land, just as slavery and segregation USED TO BE the law of the American South. But the South lost that fight, and now the law down South is a law that most there opposed at one point. Likewise, the law of sexual restriction and illegality of homosexual or unmarried heterosexual contact has been swept away. The folks who believed in those old laws fought for them, against people like me, who fought against them. They lost. The law on those subjects is what I say it is, and what I want it to be, not what they say it is. With abortion, I've clearly lost the battle at present. Not sure whether the war can eventually be won or not on that front. But I never make the mistake of equating my personal opinion of things with the law. Where the law agrees with my opinion, I am happy. Where it doesn't, I am sad or irritated. In no case do I do what you do, and assert that my opinion, where its faction has already lost control of the law, is nevertheless "the law". It isn't. To think that it is, is delusional.
Don't know who they are.
Well, so they say.
Yes, we DO say. And you fellows in Eastern Orthodoxy say that your way of doing things is the way it has always been. And in truth, documentary evidence of both positions existing simultaneously exists. Which REALLY means that the Church was never actually united way back then, it was just so spread out and had such greater issues pressing that these differences that have always separated East and West did not come to the forefront for about a millennium. When they did, and Europe was stable enough that Christians could fight about these differences that were always there, they did fight about them, and each claimed - truthfully - that THEIR way of doing was "original". There hasn't been REAL Christian unity in belief or doctrine since the beginning. The Acts of the Apostles are full of the contentions of the Apostolic generation, and it never got better than that afterwards. Neither the Catholic NOR the Orthodox Churches would ever want to admit THAT, so each goes on believing itself to be authentic and original, which is actually true, but each considers all other ways to have "fallwn away" from the original purity, which each asserts they alone represent. And that is patently false. Those who are honest enough to admit that the evidence shows greater diversity than most would like, are quick to then change the discussion to questions of hiearchical authority. From my perch, the failures of both churches on that score are howlingly self-evident. Then the Protestants came along and blew things up. Meanwhile the Oriental Orthodox could claim that BOTH the Catholics and the EO have lapsed into error and heresy, but if they did claim such a thing, nobody would listen or care, because, really, who are THOSE PEOPLE to have an opinion. Theological wisdom from Africa or India or the deep middle east? Please! My own view: the Quakers have gotten it more right than anybody else, as far as actually listening to God goes.
She came to West from the East. All Seven Ecumenical Councils (that defined basic dogmas of Christian Faith like Holy Trinity) were conducted in the Greek speaking East and at none of them the Bishop of Rome was present at them. The first Latin translation was done several generations after Apostles and called Vulgate (vulgar) ie for the uneducated people who did not know Greek. Map below, also remember that the East was more densely populated at that time. Germanic tribes that dominated Latin West were theologically crude and self-willed. They introduced Germanic notion of guilt that combined with Latin legalism did a lot of harm to the Western souls.
Penal Substitution has its origin in Anselm of Canterbury. Anselm was a Roman Catholic archbishop during the 11th century. His seminal work, Cur Deus Homo, expressed for the first time in the history of the church the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement. Anselm wrote that the problem Jesus came to solve was that mankind did not give God his due. Every time someone sinned, they incurred a divine debt, a debt in magnitude to the one to whom it was due. Because God is infinite, any sin against him requires an infinite payment. But man, being finite, has no way to pay. God does not forgive without payment, so man is without hope, lost until a savior should come. But God in his mercy sent his Son to make that payment for us. Only an infinite being could make an infinite payment, so he exacted that payment from himself. This is what Jesus accomplished at the cross. Anselm was influenced in the development of this doctrine by many sources in his cultural context. Anselm lived within a medieval common law that had developed out of Germanic tribal law. The Germans assigned value to human life on the principle of weregild, the honor given by one’s standing in the tribal community. The higher one’s position, the higher the honor assigned. When a member’s honor was affronted, payment had to be made to restore that honor. In most circumstances, this payment was life. The exception to this rule was for slaves. If someone killed the slave of another, the offender had to make recompense by paying the value of the slave to the owner. Slave’s had no value in and of themselves because of their low position, but did have value to their master. If someone killed or offended the honor of a freeman, life had to be paid for life. Honor was life, so any damage to another’s honor required your very existence as recompense. To offend a king, by extension of the value placed on his position, demanded the highest payment of all. Anselm extended this model to God’s relationship with man, saying that, because God is of infinite honor, any sin against him requires an infinite payment, without which God will not forgive. Five hundred years after Anselm, John Calvin took his ideas a step further, saying that the debt owed to God by mankind was one of punishment. God had to punish sin because he was just. And when man sinned, he incurred God’s wrath toward himself, since God hates sin. The only way to appease this wrath is to make payment. Because God is infinite, the payment made must be infinite. Man, being finite, could not provide such a sacrifice, so God in Christ provided it himself. Read further at:
Are you cradle Orthodox or a Protestant swinging a thymiato? You sound like the latter.
You sound like the latter. I am a cradle atheist. Why?
Why? Because the way that you argue for the superiority of Orthodoxy sounds like the Protestant converts I've listened to in the past. Cradle Catholics and cradle Jews just don't think like that. It's an angle that shuts down polite conversation. Converts will bicker, but the cradle Catholics won't.
Was I impolite? Most of my friends are cradle Catholics. Those who care about content of their faith, do bicker occasionally. Others often are closet atheists. You see, when I end up in a polite company where debating religion or politics or philosophy is considered a bad manner, I leave as fast as I can. Life is too short.
Actually it goes back to the 6th century BC. One can find the source of the doctrine in Isaiah 53. There were even church fathers who opined Substitution as well. I can give you some quotes if you want.
Yes, your RCIA cohorts over at the other site and Free Republic are quite zealous. But the cradle Catholics (I was one) are great to talk with and friendly.
Why not. Let me see.
What type of Red Herring argument is it? I stated logically my case and you in response obfuscate topic with how my arguments sound similar to Protestant converts. No more talk about of what proper doctrine of atonement for sins is? Case closed?
Pretty much, yeah. I'm not really interested in Orthodox reasoning. You're sure you're right, and that is why you lost the whole East to the Muslims. The West managed to salvage Greece back from the Muslims, by armed force and aid. And Greece persisted for a century. Now it has basically gone atheist with the rest of Europe. So, what did your "Orthodoxy" get you? Islam, mostly. A failed theology that ended up a splinter. That's what I will talk about. Your doctrines did not remove slavery. The Muslims did. So the Muslims won, because they offered superior human freedom to Byzantine Orthodoxy. Case closed. From my perspective. The Catholics? Sure, I can tell you what's wrong with us. It's why we're dying. The Protestants? Sure, I can go after them, but why bother? Truth is, the closest religion to what Christ actually taught is the Quakers. And they are the ones who abolished slavery, got women the vote, got single pricing and conscientious objection put into law. So if I have to fight FOR a religion based on actual practice and theological belief, I'll go stand with the Quakers. I'm a Catholic because I'm French and Irish, was born that way, and was a Catholic when God healed my neck and grabbed my face and flew the dove into my head. I dance with the one that brung me. I also recognize the things wrong with the Catholic Church, and how intractable the Catholics, like the Orthodox and the Protestants, all are to changing ANY aspect of their tradition, no matter how evil, stupid, self-destructive, un-Christlike or illogical it is. I've heard all of the legalistic arguments - and I'm a far better lawyer than anybody who has ever argued them. The flaws in the arguments are obvious, but those who argue them are not good lawyer and don't even see them. And why bother? Nobody ever changes his mind about any of these things. Argument is futile. Religion is only ever changed by external events and funerals.
I abandoned atheism, because I cam to the conclusion that it is an erroneous worldview. Then I started the search for what Truth really is. First through philosophy, then through religious investigation. That is how I found Orthodoxy. For me you are simply French and Irish who keeps RC religion as a coat of arms. Nothing more, nothing less. You put your blood before God. Lord Jesus said: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
Eusebius of Caesarea And Aquila is in exact agreement with Symmachus. With regard first to the words which are apparently said in the Person of our Saviour: "Heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee," you will notice in Symmachus they are not so rendered, but thus: "Heal my soul, even if I have sinned against thee." And He speaks thus, since He shares our sins. So it is said: "And the Lord hath laid on him our iniquities, and he bears our sins." Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, (467) became a curse on our behalf: "Whom, though he knew no sin, God made sin for our sake, giving him as redemption for all, that we might become the righteousness of God in him." [...] But since being in the likeness of sinful flesh He condemned sin in the flesh, the words quoted are rightly used. And in that He made our sins His own from His love and benevolence towards us, He says these words, adding further on in the same Psalm: "Thou hast (b) protected me because of my innocence," clearly shewing the impeccability of the Lamb of God. And how can He make our sins His own, and be said to bear our iniquities, except by our being regarded as His body, according to the apostle, who says: "Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members?" And by the rule that "if one member suffer all the members suffer with it," so when the many members suffer and sin, He too by the laws of (c) sympathy (since the Word of God was pleased to take the form of a slave and to be knit into the common tabernacle of us all) takes into Himself the labours of the suffering members, and makes our sicknesses His, and suffers all our woes and labours by the laws of love. And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, (d) and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. And what is that but the price of our |196 souls? And so the oracle says in our person: "By his stripes we were healed," and "The Lord delivered him for our sins," with the result that uniting Himself to us and us to Himself, and appropriating our sufferings, He can say, "I said, Lord, have mercy on me, heal my soul, (468) for I have sinned against thee," and can cry that they who plot against Him, not men only but invisible daemons as well, when they see the surpassing power of His Holy Name and title, by means of which He filled the world full of Christians a little after, think that they will be able to extinguish it, if they plot His death. This is what is proved by His saying: "My enemies have spoken evil of me, saying, When shall he die and his name perish?" - Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica, X.1 Eusebius of Caesarea: Demonstratio Evangelica. Tr. W.J. Ferrar (1920) -- Book 10 Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica, X.1 Chrysostom, Homily on Galatians 3:3 (ACD, vol. 3, p. 108) The people were liable to punishment since they had not fulfilled the whole Law. Christ satisfied a different curse, the one that says, “Cursed is everyone that is hanged on a tree.”. Both the one who is hanged and the one who transgresses the Law are accursed. Christ, who was going to lift that curse, could not properly be made liable to it, yet he had to receive a curse. He received the curse instead of being liable to it, and through this he lifted the curse. Just as, when someone is condemned to death, another innocent person who chooses to die for him releases him from that punishment, so Christ also did. In reality, the people were subject to another curse, which says, Cursed is every one that continues not in the things that are written in the book of the Law. Deuteronomy 27:26 To this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree. As then both he who hanged on a tree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed, and as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it, therefore Christ took upon Him such another, and thereby relieved us from the curse. It was like an innocent man's undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others. For, He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth. Isaiah 53:9;1 Peter 2:22 And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it. CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 3 on Galatians (Chrysostom) Chrysostom Homily 3 on Galatians Augustine “This, the catholic faith has known of the one and only mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who condescended to undergo death—that is, the penalty of sin—without sin, for us. As He alone became the Son of man, in order that we might become through Him sons of God, so He alone, on our behalf, undertook punishment without ill deservings, that we through Him might obtain grace without good deservings. Because as to us nothing good was due so to Him nothing bad was due. Therefore, commending His love to them to whom He was about to give undeserved life, He was willing to suffer for them an undeserved death.” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book 4, chap. 7) CHURCH FATHERS: Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book IV (Augustine) Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book IV Augustine Hilary of Poitiers “He blotted out through death the sentence of death, that by a new creation of our race in Himself He might sweep away the penalty appointed by the former Law. He let them nail Him to the cross that He might nail to the curse of the cross and abolish all the curses to which the world is condemned.” He suffered as man to the utmost that He might put powers to shame. For Scripture had foretold that He Who is God should die; that the victory and triumph of them that trust in Him lay in the fact that He, Who is immortal and cannot be overcome by death, was to die that mortals might gain eternity. CHURCH FATHERS: On the Trinity, Book I (Hilary of Poitiers) On the Trinity, Book I Hilary of Poitiers Cyril of Jerusalem If Phinees, when he waxed zealous and slew the evil-doer, staved the wrath of God, shall not Jesus, who slew not another, but gave up Himself for a ransom, put away the wrath which is against mankind?…Further; if the lamb under Moses drove the destroyer far away, did not much rather the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world, deliver us from our sins? The blood of a silly sheep gave salvation; and shall not the Blood of the Only-begotten much rather save?…Jesus then really suffered for all men; for the Cross was no illusion, otherwise our redemption is an illusion also…These things the Saviour endured, and made peace through the Blood of His Cross, for things in heaven, and things in earth. For we were enemies of God through sin, and God had appointed the sinner to die. There must needs therefore have happened one of two things; either that God, in His truth, should destroy all men, or that in His loving-kindness He should cancel the sentence. But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ took our sins in His body on the tree, that we by His death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness.--St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XIII CHURCH FATHERS: Catechetical Lecture 13 (Cyril of Jerusalem) Catechetical Lecture 13 Cyril of Jerusalem
I wrote the answer I wanted to give. Jesus tapped me on the shoulder and reminded me to turn the other cheek. So I deleted it. Go in peace. I will say no more here.
If that were indeed THE case, there would be *zero* converts to the church of Christ from what were the respective inherited faiths. There are those who are compelled to engage in a spiritual hunger and sojourn that leads not only to critical thinking but to The Truth. The only thing preventing one from being drawn straight to The Holy Spirit is...pride.
Yep, that has definitely been my experience in dealing with people.
There must needs therefore have happened one of two things; either that God, in His truth, should destroy all men, or that in His loving-kindness He should cancel the sentence. But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ took our sins in His body on the tree, that we by His death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness. --St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XIII Great and helpful post in its entirety. St. Cyril sez it well. Whereas even most Christians distill the work of Jesus Christ as simply having "died for our sins", the extent to which Jesus swept away sin, blotted, cancelled, and otherwise ransomed HIMSELF in our place for all mankind's self-inflicted curses and penalties -- wiping away ALL debt of and by the flesh and spirit -- isn't nearly fully considered or appreciated. Granted, it can be difficult to wrap our collective head around just how and what the sacrifice of a sin-less Jesus Christ did. Your citations in the above by highly regarded "Church Fathers" is eye-opening and further reason to appreciate our Gift of Grace. If there was a flow-chart of how many ways man is condemned without the Blood of Christ, it would be scary.
Which is obviously why the best teachers and mentors of Christ's word and Gospel have always been...the humble and the gracious. The moment the message becomes more about THEM and self-promotion (i.e. Prot Televangelists or yes, like Francis), the less apt the Believer becomes an effective Christian and disciple. There can be no "cult of personality" in God's Kingdom or for His discipleship. And sure, there is such a thing as righteous anger and pressing a winning point but unfortunately some of our failures do have more to do with our respective pride and ego massaging "the win".
“He blotted out through death the sentence of death, that by a new creation of our race in Himself He might sweep away the penalty appointed by the former Law. He let them nail Him to the cross that He might nail to the curse of the cross and abolish all the curses to which the world is condemned.” I will answer this passage for now. This sentence and curse was executed after our Foreparents did not pay heed to the Divine warning. "“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Adam and Eve, deceived by jealous Satan, ate the fruit, lost their innocence and lost communion with God. By their fall they brought the misfortune and death upon the universe and themselves. God had to impose the burden of suffering and to expel the from Paradise, so they would not eat the fruit of immortality and did not remain for ever in company of Satan, what was Satan's objective. The Second Adam, The Second Hipostasis of Godhead took upon Himself human nature, body and soul, to restore the original perfection yet taking the consequences of the original fall, including death to descend into Hades the land of dead freeing the souls of the reposed. This way he broke the curse and reopened way back to the Paradise. Christ is Victorious Orpheus, who freed human soul from Hades where His mythical prefiguration failed. From the Sermon of Saint John Chrysostom (400AD): "Christ is risen from the dead, by death he hath overcome death, and to them in the graves hath he given life." "Therefore let everyone enter into the joy of the Lord. The first and the last, receive your wages. Rich and poor, dance with each other. The temperate and the slothful, honour this day. Ye who have fasted and ye who have not, rejoice this day. The table is fully laden; all of you delight in it. The calf is plenteous, let no one depart hungry. Let everyone enjoy this banquet of faith. Let everyone take pleasure in the wealth of goodness. Let no one lament his poverty, for the universal kingdom has appeared. Let no one bewail for his transgressions, for forgiveness has risen from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Saviour’s death has set us free. He who was held by death, eradicated death. He plundered Hades when He descended into Hades. He embittered it, when it tasted of His flesh, and this being foretold by Isaiah when he cried: Hades said it was embittered, when it encountered Thee below. Embittered, for it was abolished. Embittered, for it was ridiculed. Embittered, for it was put to death. Embittered, for it was dethroned. Embittered, for it was made captive. It received a body and by chance came face to face with God. It received earth and encountered heaven. It received that which it could see, and was overthrown by Him whom he could not see. Where, O death, is your sting? Where, O Hades is your victory? Christ is risen, and thou art cast down. Christ is risen, and the demons have fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen, and life is liberated. Christ is risen, and no one remains dead in a tomb. For Christ having risen from the dead, has become the first-fruits of those that have fallen asleep. To Him be glory and power, for ever and ever."
"Christ is risen from the dead, by death he hath overcome death, and to them in the graves hath he given life." "Therefore let everyone enter into the joy of the Lord. The first and the last, receive your wages. Rich and poor, dance with each other. The temperate and the slothful, honour this day. Ye who have fasted and ye who have not, rejoice this day. The table is fully laden; all of you delight in it. The calf is plenteous, let no one depart hungry. Let everyone enjoy this banquet of faith. Let everyone take pleasure in the wealth of goodness. Let no one lament his poverty, for the universal kingdom has appeared. Let no one bewail for his transgressions, for forgiveness has risen from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Saviour’s death has set us free. He who was held by death, eradicated death. He plundered Hades when He descended into Hades. He embittered it, when it tasted of His flesh, and this being foretold by Isaiah when he cried: Hades said it was embittered, when it encountered Thee below. Embittered, for it was abolished. Embittered, for it was ridiculed. Embittered, for it was put to death. Embittered, for it was dethroned. Embittered, for it was made captive. It received a body and by chance came face to face with God. It received earth and encountered heaven. It received that which it could see, and was overthrown by Him whom he could not see. Where, O death, is your sting? Where, O Hades is your victory? Christ is risen, and thou art cast down. Christ is risen, and the demons have fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen, and life is liberated. Christ is risen, and no one remains dead in a tomb. For Christ having risen from the dead, has become the first-fruits of those that have fallen asleep. To Him be glory and power, for ever and ever." A great Ransom quote from St John Chrysostom. The Eastern Orthodox view of atonement via Ransom is Biblical and historical as you point out. However, not the complete picture. John Chrysostom (c. 350-407), Homilies on Second Corinthians Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. I, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1969), Homily XI, sect. 6, p. 335. If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain;and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son (who was himself of no such character), that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation; and then if, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude? This then let us also now consider with ourselves, and groan bitterly for the provocations we have offered our Benefactor; nor let us therefore presume, because though outraged he bears it with long-suffering; but rather for this very reason be full of remorse. Homily XI, sect. 6 I think given the quotes (which were in context and links provided to entire works for examination of context) the early fathers understood what we call Substitution and Penal Substitution atonement. They never used those theological terms but clearly understood it from Holy Scriptures as they taught such. That was my point in posting the quotes. Not to argue Christus Victor nor Ransom theories. I'm arguing "all of the above." From Athanasius: IX-For the Word, perceiving that no otherwise could the corruption of men be undone save by death as a necessary condition, while it was impossible for the Word to suffer death, being immortal, and Son of the Father; to this end He takes to Himself a body capable of death, that it, by partaking of the Word Who is above all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all, and might, because of the Word which had come to dwell in it, remain incorruptible, and that thenceforth corruption might be stayed from all by the Grace of the Resurrection. Whence, by offering unto death the body He Himself had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from any stain, straightway He put away death from all His peers by the offering of an equivalent. 2. For being over all, the Word of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life of all satisfied the debt by His death. And thus He, the incorruptible Son of God, being conjoined with all by a like nature, naturally clothed all with incorruption, by the promise of the resurrection. For the actual corruption in death has no longer holding- ground against men, by reason of the Word, which by His one body has come to dwell among them. 3. And like as when a great king has entered into some large city and taken up his abode in one of the houses there, such city is at all events held worthy of high honour, nor does any enemy or bandit any longer descend upon it and subject it; but, on the contrary, it is thought entitled to all care, because of the king's having taken up his residence in a single house there: so, too, has it been with the Monarch of all. 4. For now that He has come to our realm, and taken up his abode in one body among His peers, henceforth the whole conspiracy of the enemy against mankind is checked, and the corruption of death which before was prevailing against them is done away. For the race of men had gone to ruin, had not the Lord and Saviour of all, the Son of God, come among us to meet the end of death.
To short circuit it. I do not believe in God of Anzelm and Calvin. You can consider me an atheist in such meaning. It is not my God.
It is not my God. I get it you don't want to admit early church fathers actually taught Substitution and penal Substitution.
You can read many things into Church Fathers. If I had to take penal Substitution as Christian teaching, I would not find Christ and His loving kindness there. I would not be a Christian. I would rather become Talmudic Jew than believe in Anselm and Calvin or come close to their cold harsh and vengeful hearts. Their God is false.
Yessirree!
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Has your ox been gored?
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Do your own work. Just type 'homosexual serial killers' in Google and a plethora of names and statistics will enlighten you. Best keep an eye on your homosexual buds!
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
You don't appear to be very bright.
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
No marching to underscore their 'Gay Pride' and no proselytizing.
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
If they don't die by natural or unnatural causes they die of self-inflicted disease. Really: ingesting fecal matter has to be bad for one's health.
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Freedom of Speech. Nazis have the right to march in Skokie. KKK has the right to public rallies. Occupy Wall Street has the right to hang out and be hippies. Gays get to prance down Broadway. So do the Irish, on St. Patrick's Day. Everybody gets to proselytize his religious, political or sexual beliefs. Patriots get to parade the flag, and yahoos get to burn it. Freedom of speech.
Current thinking seems to be it does wonders in some circumstances but I wouldn't recommend it. I doubt the average homo thinks about such matters in their lust otherwise, if they did, they would have to question what they are doing
I demonstrated quite a few early fathers taught both Substitution and Penal Substitution. It's the complete Biblical view and the ECFs I quoted show this. Admitting what is obvious does not subtract from Christ's loving kindness. It actually makes one more reverent of the gift of God's Grace.
What about loving kindness of God the Father Almighty? He is not able to show it otherwise than torturing His own Son to pay the debt? (Even in Germanic religion the spear of laws guarded by Odin could be broken.) Were countless Jews, Greeks and Romans enthusiastically willing to dedicate their lives to persecution and suffering (St. Peter also was crucified and many others), because their good hearts were moved by such image?
No real surprise that you would "think" that.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Perhaps they could endorse an effective mouthwash and dentifrice.
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
It's plain to see that you like parades.
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
I DO like parades, especially controversial ones, because they demonstrate that this is a free country. That said, the only parade I actually watch is the 4th of July parade in my town. I dont watch parades - I just like to know people can have them. And I like to know that the people who wanted to stop them failed.
Were countless Jews, Greeks and Romans enthusiastically willing to dedicate their lives to persecution and suffering (St. Peter also was crucified and many others), because their good hearts were moved by such image? This above is post modern atheistic "optics." With regards to Isaiah 53 and the Suffering Servant, Isaih 55:8 must be taken into consideration.
Show it. You quote: Complete non sequitur. BTW Anselm and Calvin thoughts are all too human, taken from Germanic tribal law, payment of wergild.
No problem. The atheistic rant is God is a big "meanie." To soften the Holy God of the Bible and His wrath against sin, some Christians are trying to 'soften' the image of God to appease a post-modern sensitive society. You quote: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” Complete non sequitur. Absolutely not. It is a fact. When we try to encapsulate God in man's understanding according to man's ways error will occur. As I mentioned the Ransom theory is solid. It is just incomplete. I quoted the fathers who quoted and commented on the pertinent Holy Scriptures. They teach Jesus satisfied the Father's wrath by suffering and dying for us. BTW Anselm and Calvin thoughts are all too human, taken from Germanic tribal law, payment of wergild. Anselm was more about satisfying honor than satisfying the wrath of God against law breakers. Isaiah 53: NASB 1Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. 3He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. 4Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. 7He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. 8By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due? 9His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. 10But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. 11As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. 12Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors. I think it is all too clear why the early fathers I quoted taught what they did. That Jesus Christ satisfied the wrath of God against sin. Colossians 2: NASB 8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 9For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.
You apparently have no children who would watch such disgusting acts performed in a circus they call a parade.
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
We're New Yorkers. Nothing phases us. We're not afraid of much of anything. Are the folks elsewhere so weak that they can't see the freak parade pass by without jumping up to join it? Your fear about such things seems childish. In truth, the degree of your hysteria about it sounds like somebody speaking from the pain of having been molested as a child. For the record, that should not happen to anybody, and if it happened to you, I'm really sorry that it did. But just because a traumatized kid picked up a gun and shot up a school does not mean that nobody should be allowed to have guns. And just because you, or I, were molested or raped as children does not mean that consensual sex between adults should be restricted, or that public displays of affection, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should be repressed by law. The two things are related: widespread gun possession DOES mean more school shootings, and the general acceptance of sexual expression does mean more sexual expression, and more incidence of child molestations. The fact of increased criminality and more victimhood is the high price of human liberty. It is a price that Americans have always been willing to pay. Yes, in New York the freak parade goes on daily, and children grow up seeing it. And when they are adults they'll either laugh at it, like the well- adjusted do, or they'll join it. Either way, that is their right, that is freedom, that is liberty, that is what America is about - from OUR perspective. The loss of life and innocence is a regrettable price that a free world pays for being free.
Do you actually know how full of shit your prattle sounds?
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
It is not God's wrath, it is YOURS wrath that you ascribe to him. Well, yes. Post-modern sensitive society does not like anymore burning people alive, so they stopped to believe your presentation of Divine bloodthirstiness. It was appealing to the many, centuries ago, you should be sent back in time 1000 years, or 3000 would be even better.
Nope. I think it sounds true.
That's cute. Well, yes. Post-modern sensitive society does not like anymore burning people alive, so they stopped to believe your presentation of Divine bloodthirstiness. It was appealing to the many, centuries ago, you should be sent back in time 1000 years, or 3000 would be even better. When did Orthodoxy embrace Universalism or Annihilationism?
Orthodoxy embraced direct personal teachings of Christ and His Apostles. Remained persistent for almost 2000 years. Later theological debates were resolved through the Seven Ecumenical Councils over following eight centuries.
"Annihilationism is incompatible with Orthodoxy (so it was condemned by the 5th Ecumenical Council)" http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=33701.0 The anathemas of the local Council of Constantinople in 453, which is understood by most commentators to be confirmed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553, posthumously excommunicated Origen and anyone following specific points of his teachings. These anathemas condemned his protology of pre-existent souls and his eschatology of universal restoration of all things "which follows from" his protology. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Apocatastasis There will not be Apocatastasis. But it does not mean that all could not be saved if they wanted, but they will not as they have free will. Satan did not have to turn away from God, but he did.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=33701.0 The anathemas of the local Council of Constantinople in 453, which is understood by most commentators to be confirmed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553, posthumously excommunicated Origen and anyone following specific points of his teachings. These anathemas condemned his protology of pre-existent souls and his eschatology of universal restoration of all things "which follows from" his protology. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Apocatastasis There will not be Apocatastasis. But it does not mean that all could not be saved if they wanted, but they will not as they have free will. Satan did not have to turn away from God, but he did. Glad we cleared that up. Now that we cleared up that point we can discuss why you think I'm making up the references to the wrath of God. Here are NT references:
Here are NT references: Wrath of God I am sorry, but I am not able to address so many passages. I am picking one, probably the one you would pick. "Rom 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him." The original text in Greek that DOES NOT mention "wrath OF GOD". Only wrath. I would understand this passage: "Ewen more, after being reconciled with righteousness thanks to His blood, we shall be also saved from the eternal separation from God" (wrath being state of separation from God caused by unrighteousness)
I found a nice Orthodox explanation of those passages:
I have a copy as well. Question is "whose wrath." Verse 10 tells us: Romans 5: 9Even more so then, since we are now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from wrath through him! 10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more shall we be saved by his life! (The EOB or) Eastern/ Greek Orthodox New Testament based on the Official Text of the Greek Orthodox Church (Patriarchal Text of 1904)
A Biblical View of Christ's Death Very good article. I agree that we should always start with the Incarnation when discussing soteriology. And frankly, I find the article you linked correct, but incomplete. The author is correct most Protestants translate hilasterion as propitiation and do so according to the Hebrew understanding of the word. For example the author says: “The hilasterion is the place where the impurity resulting from the sins of Israel is ritually cleansed once a year…what Paul is saying is that God has put forward Christ as a ‘mercy seat of faith’, not ‘an expiation’ [or] a ‘sacrifice of atonement’” [Finlan, 40] That is to say, Jesus Christ has been made the mercy seat for our sins. He is where Christians are purified. He is the place of our union with God, not the means of satisfying an angry Father. What he leaves out of the Mercy Seat allusion is the High Priest had to sprinkle blood on the Mercy Seat to even come close to the presence of God. Once again, it begs the question why blood had to be put on the Mercy Seat? Leviticus 16: NASB 2The LORD said to Moses: “Tell your brother Aaron that he shall not enter at any time into the holy place inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, or he will die; for I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat. 3“Aaron shall enter the holy place with this: with a bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. 4“He shall put on the holy linen tunic, and the linen undergarments shall be next to his body, and he shall be girded with the linen sash and attired with the linen turban (these are holy garments). Then he shall bathe his body in water and put them on. 5“He shall take from the congregation of the sons of Israel two male goats for a sin offering and one ram for a burnt offering. 6“Then Aaron shall offer the bull for the sin offering which is for himself, that he may make atonement for himself and for his household. 7“He shall take the two goats and present them before the LORD at the doorway of the tent of meeting. 8“Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for the scapegoat. 9“Then Aaron shall offer the goat on which the lot for the LORD fell, and make it a sin offering. 10“But the goat on which the lot for the scapegoat fell shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make atonement upon it, to send it into the wilderness as the scapegoat. 11“Then Aaron shall offer the bull of the sin offering which is for himself and make atonement for himself and for his household, and he shall slaughter the bull of the sin offering which is for himself. 12“He shall take a firepan full of coals of fire from upon the altar before the LORD and two handfuls of finely ground sweet incense, and bring it inside the veil. 13“He shall put the incense on the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of incense may cover the mercy seat that is on the ark of the testimony, otherwise he will die. 14“Moreover, he shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the mercy seat on the east side; also in front of the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times. 15“Then he shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering which is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. 16“He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities. 17“When he goes in to make atonement in the holy place, no one shall be in the tent of meeting until he comes out, that he may make atonement for himself and for his household and for all the assembly of Israel. 18“Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the LORD and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat and put it on the horns of the altar on all sides. 19“With his finger he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it seven times and cleanse it, and from the impurities of the sons of Israel consecrate it. 20“When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. 21“Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. 22“The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness. The above shows death to Aaron if satisfaction not met. The Mercy Seat still required a blood sacrifice.
Amen! I could spend hours on this subject as I know you could as well. This phenomena has been directly out of fear of the Leftist-MSM (with their homofascists-in-charge "news" editors) running front page stories, like (BLANK-BLANK IS A HOMOPHOBE). But then many of these psychos become politicians to immunize and hide their proclivities behind the power they attain, don't they? Shame on feckless "Christians" or any righteous person who justifies and enables the entire homofascist agenda (whose goal is to exterminate Christians/Christianity) -- as well as their mission to infect and abuse our culture and with it our children (and their very souls). Resurrect the law that outlaws homosexual acts and proselytizing today's thoroughly confused youth. The belong hidden under a rock. They should just fly their Freak-Flag down in their dungeon or home where it belongs. But no -- these perverts are given license to shake it in 5 year old Johnny face. WHERE-EVER. That's NOT "Free Speech", it's Assault on a Child. And assault on the rest of us. Fascist Homosexuals are an angry, toxic bunch...And yes, THEY are major reason for much confusion, irrationality and insanity irrationality these recent days. As they've finagled positions of power (whether Politicians, Teachers, Clergy, etal), among other perverted priorities they've managed to criminalize the Good and reward and sanction Evil as part of their Crotch-Cult. The coercive proselytizing through PUBLIC school -- at that, at EARLY age -- OVER the objection of parent WHILE funded by taxpayers is MIND-RAPE. This is criminality on a scale which to many of us (the sane) is mega child-abuse and assault, outrageous to the nth degree. It is satanic, and that's not being hyperbolic about it. Those personally responsible for hammering through this militant homo-fascist agenda during saner times (which wasn't long ago) would have been given thorough beating. IF they survived. Widespread LGBTQI discrimination? Where? When? By whom? Yep, it's BS. Just like "Hate Crimes" and "Hate Speech". Claiming "HOMOPHOBIA!!" is as weaponized as "RACIST!", "ISLAMOPHOBIA!", "Xenophobia!" and "#ME TOO!!" All these Fake Victims have ONE thing in common: They are openly waging a war against Christendom, Sovereignty, Whites, Men, and Conservatism....and Common Sense. The Homofascists will remain offensive and in control of Public School until the day in NYC all 2nd Grade boys are required to be made-up and dressed like little girls while watching gay porno as a "teachable moments. Instead what I see are Christians being slaughtered and persecuted by the thousands over the last 20 years and not a word from the atheistic marxists in Brussels, London, Berlin, Paris. 100% TRUTH! These demonic Euro-Worms and their vicious assault on Christians, the preborn, the truth, and with it, all that is right and good sicken me. The Lord's Wrath and Justice is coming.
TOUCHE! And...WHY NOT?? EU and Leftist hypocrites: "Nope. Too 'polarizing'" (as bigoted homofascist-Leftists continue to bash and demonize Christians with impunity.)
I think Poland is the most Catholic country left in Europe. Even Italy isn't as devoutly Catholic. Poland might be more Catholic than the pope. Well, at least more than Pope Frank is. [I like reading TheLibertyDaily where they routinely refer to the "Marxist pope" and have taken to describing Xlinton as "Democrat Rapist Bill Clinton". And your former governor is called "Bloated RINO Chris Christie". They're a fun-loving bunch. LOL]
Not even the sign of the Fisherman does not stand in when it's time for Americans to address our Flag! This is a national thing rather than one dealing with Christianity. Time for a civil war Where leftist heads are cracked open in order to see if there's anything inside.
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Undoubtedly. And easily the most principled, holding onto Christendom, and in ways even more "American" (in the context of resemblance to a past pro-traditional America) than the US. Italy is now mostly CINO-Heathen. Poland might be more Catholic than the pope. Well, at least more than Pope Frank is. The Devil is more "Catholic" than this Pope. [I like reading TheLibertyDaily where they routinely refer to the "Marxist pope" and have taken to describing Xlinton as "Democrat Rapist Bill Clinton". And your former governor is called "Bloated RINO Chris Christie". They're a fun-loving bunch. LOL] Checked out the site, love it. Thanks for the link. (Yeah, I like it's caricatured embellishment of Christie, Bubba, and the usual cast of political cartoon characters.)
Most days, it is delightfully mean-spirited. It's a Drudge wannabe but I got tired of Drudge. He started collecting to much info, holds some policy positions I didn't like.
Can you kindly clarify? Time for a civil war Where leftist heads are cracked open in order to see if there's anything inside. We're already engaged in CW2. "The Resistance", led by Hitlery and Antifa indeed openly did declare war. Yes, the only step NOT taken is in answering the instigation and Leftist "Resistance". Big Picture Stuff: The PTB-Deep State have been facilitating "The Resistance" Op in an attempting to create Chaos--> Anarchy--> Martial Law situation.
Yeah, the Drudge-like interface is cool. I have bookmarked The Liberty Daily. (I suggest everyone also do so while blowing off Drudge.) Good way of putting it (delightfully mean-spirited), though still not nearly s mean-spirited as the usual MSM-Resistance. Drudge has become a centrist-Dem, bi-polar and cowardly. Truth used to be much more important to him. I reckon he's been co-opted by the PTB. As to his harvesting info, I've noticed a yuge uptick in that from nearly every site these days. So annoying.
If you're on Firefox, try Privacy Badger. It really solves a lot of problems with tracking, cookies, etc. Easy to control. I like it better than my AdBlock clone and NoScript. Actually, I use all three together but Privacy Badger takes care of so many things automatically and I don't have to fuss with its settings site-by-site as you do with some other privacy tools.
Privacy Badger -- do I necessarily need the latest version of FF? Already have NoScript, uBlock, Ghostery and Disconnect. Conflicts?
Not sure. I think you'd want a fairly recent release, like v58+. I'm using NoScript and uBlock Origin here, no problem. I did disable Ghostery because, well, it isn't all that useful IMO. It's really better if you're studying how you're being tracked. I don't know the Disconnect extension you mention. Privacy Badger is written to detect who is tracking you from website to website and does most everything automatically, very little need to make any settings. All that stuff you find yourself adjusting on uBlock and NoScript is suddenly a lot less important because Privacy Badger does nearly all of it automatically. PB is also good for people who don't understand all the endless technical issues involved in other extensions like uBlock and Noscript. You don't have to know what an XSS cross-site scripting vulnerability is. I can guarantee you, no granny in America has any idea what that is. But PB makes it pretty easy and it is informative. It just works and you almost never click on it to adjust it. But if you have to, you can see who is and is not tracking info on you. I'm thinking about uninstalling Chrome. A lot is surfacing about its tracking habits and attempts to phone home with info to Google. Fine browser but it is turning into spyware, it seems.
Why? Are you stupid? No banner stands in for the Stars and Stripes, or for that matter the Stars and Bars.
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Uhh...but...it's a resource hog. AND so intrusive. I'm using NoScript and uBlock Origin here, no problem. I did disable Ghostery because, well, it isn't all that useful IMO. It's really better if you're studying how you're being tracked. I don't know the Disconnect extension you mention. No Ghostery? Seems to swat away a bunch of intrusive sites. Disconnect is probably unnecessary redundancy. Privacy Badger is written to detect who is tracking you from website to website and does most everything automatically, very little need to make any settings. All that stuff you find yourself adjusting on uBlock and NoScript is suddenly a lot less important because Privacy Badger does nearly all of it automatically...But PB makes it pretty easy and it is informative. It just works and you almost never click on it to adjust it. But if you have to, you can see who is and is not tracking info on you. The latter parts make it intriguing because NoScript adjustments is a PITA. But effective. I'm thinking about uninstalling Chrome. A lot is surfacing about its tracking habits and attempts to phone home with info to Google. Fine browser but it is turning into spyware, it seems. Now THAT I've hoid dings about. Yup, a Data Harvester.
Unnecessary 'tude and Friendly Fire. You weren't clear. That's not my fault. No banner stands in for the Stars and Stripes, or for that matter the Stars and Bars. Well, excuse me. As for me, "No King but Jesus". If/when I stand, I stand out of honor and respect NOT for "The Flag" but for the men who whose principles it represents. If you wanna go there, why turn it into an Idol?
If you try Privacy Badger, you probably won't want Ghostery any more. You could just try it. You don't have to uninstall anything to run it. Any of these extensions can be made inactive without uninstalling. I only uninstalled Ghostery because it seemed so unnecessary. For a few weeks, I kept it inactive but then I just dumped it because PB was doing a better job IMO. PB is from EFF's best programming talents and they are no slouches.
#2. To: IbJensen (#0)
#3. To: IbJensen (#0)
Resurrect the law that outlaws homosexual acts
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
#5. To: A K A Stone (#4)
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
#7. To: IbJensen (#0)
Since 1990, May 17 has been remembered as the anniversary of the removal of homosexuality from the International Classification of Diseases of the World Health Organization.
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
We should not go back to outlawing private sexual behavior.
#9. To: A K A Stone (#6)
#10. To: IbJensen (#8)
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
So you maintain the age of consent. Doesn’t mean you outlaw adult activity.
#13. To: IbJensen (#0)
#14. To: IbJensen (#12)
#15. To: paraclete (#13)
There is one thing to consider, they cannot reproduce by normal means, this makes them a dying breed
#16. To: sneakypete (#15)
#17. To: paraclete (#16)
No, fact
#18. To: IbJensen (#0)
#19. To: sneakypete, paraclete (#17)
Homosexuals father or give birth to children every day,and have done so since the dawn of time.
#20. To: IbJensen (#0)
Resurrect the law that outlaws homosexual acts and proselytizing today's thoroughly confused youth.
#21. To: Tooconservative (#1)
It looks like a total non-event with 200 people attending, probably over half of them paid government workers at the EU Ministry of Sodomy
#22. To: sneakypete (#17)
In that case you are a fool. Homosexuals father or give birth to children every day,and have done so since the dawn of time.
#23. To: A Pole (#19)
You would agree that they do it a lower rate, based on common sense?
#24. To: sneakypete (#23)
These people have no more control over who they are sexually attracted to than you do,so why do you think it is permissible for government to punish them for what amounts to a genetic birth defect?
#25. To: A K A Stone (#4)
Yeah who cares if those Catholics molest little kids. It is private and consensual right?
#26. To: A K A Stone (#6)
There should be laws against perverted sex acts.
#27. To: IbJensen (#8)
And even further, all serial killers have been proven to be homosexual.
#28. To: A K A Stone (#11)
Why are catholics so tolerant of faggots?
#29. To: IbJensen (#12)
By 'adult activity' do you mean where one male shoves his pe-pee up another's poo-poo?
#30. To: Tooconservative (#22)
Not so much any more unless they're rich and hire a surrogate mother.
#31. To: A Pole (#24)
I don't. Same way with adulterers (as they feel sexually attracted to other people's wives) , I do not want government to punish them.
#32. To: sneakypete (#30)
The majority of children born to homosexuals are born to married male and female parents,and are usually the result of at least one partner being bi-sexual,in the closet due to guilt feelings,and trying to "pass" as what we all laughingly call "normal".
#33. To: sneakypete (#30)
The majority of children born to homosexuals are born to married male and female parents,and are usually the result of at least one partner being bi-sexual,in the closet due to guilt feelings,and trying to "pass" as what we all laughingly call "normal".
#34. To: IbJensen (#0)
Resurrect the law that outlaws homosexual acts and proselytizing today's thoroughly confused youth.
#35. To: A Pole (#24)
#36. To: A K A Stone (#11)
You react with the same luke warmness that the Pope does when faggots are discovered in the Vatican in positions of influence. Your indifference to evil is your pc weakness.
#37. To: misterwhite (#35)
If society is against it, control yourself. We do not have to accept perversion.
#38. To: misterwhite (#34)
I'm all for it. There's nothing discriminatory or unconstitutional about regulating behavior. If we don't like it, why should we have to put up with it?
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
So we've stripped away the power of you, the minority, to enforce laws on private sexual behavior.
#40. To: A Pole (#32)
There is another possible reason as well. A few that I know personally, sorely miss having a normal family life. They feel alone, and are sad when they see other people children and grandchildren. They told me this more than one time.
#41. To: Tooconservative (#33)
The majority of children born to homosexuals are born to married male and female parents,and are usually the result of at least one partner being bi-sexual,in the closet due to guilt feelings,and trying to "pass" as what we all laughingly call "normal".
#42. To: misterwhite (#34)
(Edited)
I'm all for it. There's nothing discriminatory or unconstitutional about regulating behavior. If we don't like it, why should we have to put up with it?
#43. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
We, the majority, finally got tired of putting up with things we didn't like, and we changed the law to suit us.
#44. To: misterwhite (#35)
You should. What about those born with "what amounts to a genetic birth defect" an attraction to young children? Animals? Dead bodies? They get a pass also because they were "born that way"?
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
If. Truth is, society is more against police intrusion in the bedroom than it is against perversion, and we - the majority -are right about that. So we've stripped away the power of you, the minority, to enforce laws on private sexual behavior. You still hate it, but you've lost the law. We took it from you, and we're not giving it back.
#46. To: misterwhite (#39)
I'm against the public, not private, behavior of gays.
#47. To: sneakypete (#46)
#48. To: A Pole (#19)
Homosexuals father or give birth to children every day, and have done so since the dawn of time. You would agree that they do it a lower rate, based on common sense? Over the course of several generations such genes would be wiped out of the pool. Ergo - homosexuality is acquired.
#49. To: misterwhite (#43)
Gays made their gains through the courts, not through the legislatures. Let's be clear about that.
#50. To: GrandIsland (#47)
Acts against NATURE should be condemned.
#51. To: paraclete (#48)
perhaps the zombie hordes have always been with us, hiding in the sewers like allegators
#52. To: All (#50)
But to empower the authorities to go into private places to stop and punish things that people do in private? No.
#53. To: A Pole (#19)
(Edited)
Over the course of several generations such genes would be wiped out of the pool.
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#53)
The basic concept behind the reasoning is flawed.
Is adultery acquired? What about democracy?
#55. To: A Pole (#54)
#56. To: Vicomte13 (#55)
Still, if you really want to have that discussion, we can. Could be interesting.
#57. To: A Pole (#56)
These topics are more like work for me. Actually it was in my past. I could explain one thing or two, but to debate, the topics would have to be more advanced.
#58. To: Vicomte13 (#49)
Not so. The Supreme Court swept aside statutes barring gay marriage, but anti-discrimination statutes have been put into place through the vote in states and municipalities all over the country.
#59. To: GrandIsland (#47)
Acts against NATURE should be condemned.
#60. To: Vicomte13 (#50)
But to empower the authorities to go into private places to stop and punish things that people do in private?
#61. To: Vicomte13 (#49)
Prohibition was pushed through by organized Christian Temperance organizations
#62. To: Vicomte13 (#52)
No. You draw the line at murder, non-consensual sex, slavery, animal cruelty and terrorism.
#63. To: A Pole (#54)
It is not. You do not understand how natural selection work.
#64. To: A Pole (#56)
(Edited)
For example how the neo-Lamarckian schemes and original (pre-genetic) Darwinism relate to gene sharing and communication within ecosystems and biosphere as a whole. Also how the gene switching is regulated. Also the role of inter-population segregation in targeted streams of micro-evolution. Evolution of human gene pools interacting with collective psyche. Etc ...
#65. To: A Pole (#19)
Ergo - homosexuality is acquired.
#66. To: misterwhite (#58)
When you can't get the votes, plead your case in front of a socially liberal court.
#67. To: misterwhite (#65)
Doesn't mean you have to engage in that behavior, or that you're entitled to engage in that behavior, or that the rest of us have to accept that behavior as normal.
#68. To: misterwhite (#65)
(Edited)
In my opinion what's acquired is the predisposition to homosexuality
#69. To: Vicomte13 (#67)
Unmarried heterosexual fornication and gay sex in private between consenting adults both fall into the category of masturbation
#70. To: A Pole (#69)
Not exactly. Into category of mutual masturbation falls female homosexuality and sometimes male homosexuality. Heterosexual fornication is not a masturbation.
#71. To: Vicomte13 (#67)
In general, I find the liberalizing and relaxing of legal restraints on personal liberty to be a very good thing and I support it.
#72. To: A Pole (#68)
(Edited)
You meant "acquired" or "inherited"?
#73. To: Vicomte13 (#67)
So, the question is: what are you ENTITLED to engage in? I think we would both come down on the side of saying "What the law of our land lets us do."
#74. To: Vicomte13 (#70)
I meant to say that these are all grave sexual sins, according to the dominant religions anyway.
#75. To: A Pole (#74)
#76. To: Vicomte13 (#75)
(Edited)
#77. To: A Pole (#76)
(Edited)
#78. To: Vicomte13 (#77)
The Catholic Church says that it's moral views on this date from the early church
#79. To: misterwhite (#71)
Well, that would work in a society consisting solely of responsible adults -- as would most Libertarian ideas.
#80. To: VxH (#78)
#81. To: Vicomte13 (#77)
The Catholic Church says that its moral views on this date from the early church, from long before the Schism.
#82. To: A Pole (#81)
Well, so they say.
#83. To: Vicomte13 (#82)
the Church was never actually united way back then, it was just so spread out and had such greater issues pressing that these differences
#84. To: Vicomte13 (#83)
Germanic tribes that dominated Latin West were theologically crude, self-willed and arrogant. They introduced Germanic notion of guilt that combined with Latin legalism did a lot of harm to the Western souls.
#85. To: A Pole (#84)
#86. To: Vicomte13 (#85)
(Edited)
Are you cradle Orthodox or a Protestant swinging a thymiato?
#87. To: A Pole (#86)
(Edited)
I am a cradle atheist. Why?
#88. To: Vicomte13 (#87)
It's an angle that shuts down polite conversation. Converts will bicker, but the cradle Catholics won't.
Converts will bicker, but the cradle Catholics won't.
#89. To: A Pole (#84)
Penal Substitution has its origin in Anselm of Canterbury. Anselm was a Roman Catholic archbishop during the 11th century.
#90. To: Vicomte13 (#87)
Converts will bicker, but the cradle Catholics won't.
#91. To: redleghunter (#90)
There were even church fathers who opined Substitution as well. I can give you some quotes if you want.
#92. To: Vicomte13 (#87)
Because the way that you argue for the superiority of Orthodoxy sounds like the Protestant converts
#93. To: A Pole (#92)
Case closed?
#94. To: Vicomte13 (#93)
I'm a Catholic because I'm French and Irish,
#95. To: A Pole (#91)
Why not. Let me see.
#96. To: A Pole (#94)
(Edited)
#97. To: A Pole (#94)
For me you are simply French and Irish who keeps RC religion as a coat of arms. Nothing more, nothing less. You put your blood before God.
#98. To: Vicomte13, A Pole (#93)
Why bother? Nobody ever changes his mind about any of these things. Argument is futile.
#99. To: Liberator (#98)
The only thing preventing one from being drawn straight to The Holy Spirit is...pride.
#100. To: redleghunter (#95)
...For we were enemies of God through sin, and God had appointed the sinner to die.
#101. To: Vicomte13 (#99)
Yep, that has definitely been my experience in dealing with people.
#102. To: redleghunter (#95)
(Edited)
Hilary of Poitiers [ 350AD ]
#103. To: A Pole (#102)
From the Sermon of Saint John Chrysostom (400AD):
#104. To: redleghunter (#103)
#105. To: A Pole (#104)
To short circuit it. I do not believe in God of Anzelm and Calvin. You can consider me an atheist in such meaning.
#106. To: redleghunter (#105)
(Edited)
I get it you don't want to admit early church fathers actually taught Substitution and penal Substitution.
#107. To: misterwhite (#34)
we can certainly ban homosexual behavior.
#108. To: sneakypete (#29)
#109. To: sneakypete (#27)
#110. To: sneakypete (#18)
#111. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
#112. To: paraclete (#13)
#113. To: IbJensen (#111)
No marching to underscore their 'Gay Pride' and no proselytizing.
#114. To: IbJensen (#112)
Really: ingesting fecal matter has to be bad for one's health.
#115. To: A Pole (#106)
If I had to take penal Substitution as Christian teaching, I would not find Christ and His loving kindness there. I would not be a Christian.
#116. To: redleghunter (#115)
(Edited)
Admitting what is obvious does not subtract from Christ's loving kindness. It actually makes one more reverent of the gift of God's Grace.
#117. To: IbJensen (#110)
You don't appear to be very bright.
#118. To: paraclete (#114)
doubt the average homo thinks about such matters in their lust
#119. To: Vicomte13 (#113)
Everybody gets to proselytize his religious, political or sexual beliefs.
#120. To: IbJensen (#119)
#121. To: A Pole (#116)
What about loving kindness of God the Father Almighty? He is not able to show it otherwise than torturing His own Son to pay the debt? (Even in Germanic religion the spear of laws guarded by Odin could be broken.)
#122. To: redleghunter (#121)
(Edited)
This above is post modern atheistic "optics."
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,”
#123. To: A Pole (#122)
(Edited)
This above is post modern atheistic "optics." Show it.
#124. To: Vicomte13 (#120)
I DO like parades, especially controversial ones,
#125. To: IbJensen (#124)
(Edited)
You apparently have no children who would watch such disgusting acts performed in a circus they call a parade.
#126. To: Vicomte13 (#125)
In truth, the degree of your hysteria about it sounds like somebody speaking from the pain of having been molested as a child. For the record, that should not happen to anybody, and if it happened to you, I'm really sorry that it did
#127. To: redleghunter (#123)
To soften the Holy God of the Bible and His wrath against sin,
some Christians are trying to 'soften' the image of God to appease a post-modern sensitive society.
#128. To: IbJensen (#126)
#129. To: A Pole (#127)
It is not God's wrath, it is YOURS wrath that you ascribe to him.
#130. To: redleghunter (#129)
When did Orthodoxy embrace Universalism or Annihilationism?
#131. To: redleghunter (#130)
(Edited)
When did Orthodoxy embrace Universalism or Annihilationism?
#132. To: A Pole (#131)
When did Orthodoxy embrace Universalism or Annihilationism? "Annihilationism is incompatible with Orthodoxy (so it was condemned by the 5th Ecumenical Council)"
#133. To: redleghunter (#132)
(Edited)
Now that we cleared up that point we can discuss why you think I'm making up the references to the wrath of God.
#134. To: redleghunter (#133)
#135. To: A Pole (#133)
#136. To: A Pole (#134)
I found a nice Orthodox explanation of those passages:
#137. To: IbJensen (#0)
Many of us are sick and tired of politicians kissing the asses of queers!
#138. To: IbJensen, redleghunter, Stoner, no gnu taxes, TooConservative, A K A Stone (#0)
Legutko instead recommended hoisting a flag with a fish — a symbol of Christianity — to symbolize the millions of Christians suffering persecution worldwide.
#139. To: Liberator (#138)
(Edited)
#140. To: Liberator (#138)
#141. To: Tooconservative (#139)
I think Poland is the most Catholic country left in Europe. Even Italy isn't as devoutly Catholic.
#142. To: Liberator (#141)
(Edited)
Checked out the site, love it. Thanks for the link. (Yeah, I like it's caricatured embellishment of Christie, Bubba, and the usual cast of political cartoon characters.)
#143. To: IbJensen (#140)
Not even the sign of the Fisherman does not stand in when it's time for Americans to address our Flag! This is a national thing rather than one dealing with Christianity.
#144. To: Tooconservative (#142)
#145. To: Liberator (#144)
As to his harvesting info, I've noticed a yuge uptick in that from nearly every site these days. So annoying.
#146. To: Tooconservative (#145)
#147. To: Liberator (#146)
(Edited)
Privacy Badger -- do I necessarily need the latest version of FF?
Already have NoScript, uBlock, Ghostery and Disconnect. Conflicts?
#148. To: Liberator (#143)
Can you kindly clarify?
#149. To: Tooconservative (#147)
I think you'd want a fairly recent release, like v58+.
#150. To: IbJensen (#148)
Why? Are you stupid?
#151. To: Liberator (#149)
No Ghostery? Seems to swat away a bunch of intrusive sites. Disconnect is probably unnecessary redundancy.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]