Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> >>>the difference between bona fide Christians and those who merely
> >>>assume the title for political expedience.

> >>ROTFL - I'm not even gonna ask!!

> > Why's that, Bill? Afraid you might accidentally learn something?

> Oh yes, Daniel. I fear knowledge and learning. Thinking hurts so much.

Well, c'mon, you present me with a golden opportunity like that and expect
me not to jump on it? ;-) In all seriousness, I'm sure you can probably
figure out the difference between a genuine Christian and a
self-proclaimed phony if you think about it for awhile. Here's food for
thought to help you get started:

What does it mean to be a Christian? Is it enough just to say "I accept
Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour?" What if one goes to church
every Sunday, is *that* enough? How 'bout if one says the words, goes to
church *and* gives money to Christian charities, would *that* make one a
Christian?

Or is all of that maybe necessary to varying degrees but not sufficient?
Is it maybe necessary to walk the walk as well as talking the talk? To
really spend time and effort thinking "What would Jesus do?"...and then
spend time and effort doing it?

> Funny how *only* *you* can simultaneously understand what it is to be
> gay and Christian/christian.

I've not made that assertion.

> They'll probably have Michael Moore in a seat of prominence again at
> their next convention and still not be able to agree on what the heck
> happened.

Perhaps. I dislike Michael Moore and his disingenuous work.

DS

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> >>>the difference between bona fide Christians and those who merely
> >>>assume the title for political expedience.

> >>ROTFL - I'm not even gonna ask!!

> > Why's that, Bill? Afraid you might accidentally learn something?

> Oh yes, Daniel. I fear knowledge and learning. Thinking hurts so much.

Well, c'mon, you present me with a golden opportunity like that and expect
me not to jump on it? ;-) In all seriousness, I'm sure you can probably
figure out the difference between a genuine Christian and a
self-proclaimed phony if you think about it for awhile. Here's food for
thought to help you get started:

What does it mean to be a Christian? Is it enough just to say "I accept
Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour?" What if one goes to church
every Sunday, is *that* enough? How 'bout if one says the words, goes to
church *and* gives money to Christian charities, would *that* make one a
Christian?

Or is all of that maybe necessary to varying degrees but not sufficient?
Is it maybe necessary to walk the walk as well as talking the talk? To
really spend time and effort thinking "What would Jesus do?"...and then
spend time and effort doing it?

> Funny how *only* *you* can simultaneously understand what it is to be
> gay and Christian/christian.

I've not made that assertion.

> They'll probably have Michael Moore in a seat of prominence again at
> their next convention and still not be able to agree on what the heck
> happened.

Perhaps. I dislike Michael Moore and his disingenuous work.

DS

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Abeness wrote:

> > The government has a long history of protecting us from doing stupid
> > things, like driving without seat belts, riding a motorcycle without a
> > helmet, smoking crack etc. The ban on gay marriage is just one of
> > those things, I see this ban as an unfair privilege for gays. Why
> > should the government protect them from marriage when heteros have no
> > such protection?

> LOL! Actually, this very theme was addressed in an episode of the West
> Wing I saw recently.

"Law and Order", too.

> Very funny. Honestly, if this is such a devisive issue, it may be best
> to leave marriage out of the hands of the State...

Civil Unions for everyone, as far as the state is concerned -- religions
free to promulgate whatever definition of marriage they wish within their
own membership. Liberty and justice for all. What a concept.

DS

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Abeness wrote:

> > The government has a long history of protecting us from doing stupid
> > things, like driving without seat belts, riding a motorcycle without a
> > helmet, smoking crack etc. The ban on gay marriage is just one of
> > those things, I see this ban as an unfair privilege for gays. Why
> > should the government protect them from marriage when heteros have no
> > such protection?

> LOL! Actually, this very theme was addressed in an episode of the West
> Wing I saw recently.

"Law and Order", too.

> Very funny. Honestly, if this is such a devisive issue, it may be best
> to leave marriage out of the hands of the State...

Civil Unions for everyone, as far as the state is concerned -- religions
free to promulgate whatever definition of marriage they wish within their
own membership. Liberty and justice for all. What a concept.

DS

Matt Whiting wrote:
> I wasn't at all comparing helmet laws to homosexual marriage. I was
> just pointing how how the homosexual crowd is so quick to brand anyone
> who disagrees with their lifestyle as being hateful. That is simply
> rubbish and anyone with half a brain knows that. Hate and disagree are
> worlds apart. I strongly oppose homosexual marriage legalization, but I
> don't hate homosexuals.

The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to
"disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it
doesn't damage their property or personal liberties? Live and let live.
It's fine if you don't want to live like someone else does, you have
freedom of choice, but why do you feel it necessary to prevent them from
doing so?

Seems fairly simple to me. But then I have gay friends who are perfectly
nice, kind, caring citizens out to make the world a better place just
like other folks I respect, and I cannot imagine telling them that they
can't get married if they so choose. Think of some aspect of your
lifestyle that you take seriously. How'd you like it if the majority of
citizens in your state decided they didn't like your lifestyle and
passed a law against it?

Matt Whiting wrote:
> I wasn't at all comparing helmet laws to homosexual marriage. I was
> just pointing how how the homosexual crowd is so quick to brand anyone
> who disagrees with their lifestyle as being hateful. That is simply
> rubbish and anyone with half a brain knows that. Hate and disagree are
> worlds apart. I strongly oppose homosexual marriage legalization, but I
> don't hate homosexuals.

The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to
"disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it
doesn't damage their property or personal liberties? Live and let live.
It's fine if you don't want to live like someone else does, you have
freedom of choice, but why do you feel it necessary to prevent them from
doing so?

Seems fairly simple to me. But then I have gay friends who are perfectly
nice, kind, caring citizens out to make the world a better place just
like other folks I respect, and I cannot imagine telling them that they
can't get married if they so choose. Think of some aspect of your
lifestyle that you take seriously. How'd you like it if the majority of
citizens in your state decided they didn't like your lifestyle and
passed a law against it?

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> Civil Unions for everyone, as far as the state is concerned -- religions
> free to promulgate whatever definition of marriage they wish within their
> own membership. Liberty and justice for all. What a concept.

Sounds good to me.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> Civil Unions for everyone, as far as the state is concerned -- religions
> free to promulgate whatever definition of marriage they wish within their
> own membership. Liberty and justice for all. What a concept.

Sounds good to me.

stylesandsmiles wrote:
> PEOPLE PLEASE, UNLESS YOU HAVE A HONDA, KEEP THE POLITICS OUT OF HERE!

HAH! I HAVE A HONDA! GUESS THAT MEANS I CAN BOTH POLITICK AND SHOUT, AY??

;-))

stylesandsmiles wrote:
> PEOPLE PLEASE, UNLESS YOU HAVE A HONDA, KEEP THE POLITICS OUT OF HERE!

HAH! I HAVE A HONDA! GUESS THAT MEANS I CAN BOTH POLITICK AND SHOUT, AY??

;-))