Audience urges board to 'stop the ind...

Audience urges board to 'stop the indifference:" Chambersburg school...

There are 405 comments on the Chambersburg Public Opinion story from Feb 27, 2013, titled Audience urges board to 'stop the indifference:" Chambersburg school.... In it, Chambersburg Public Opinion reports that:

UPDATED: CHAMBERSBURG -- Nine Chambersburg Area school board members were told that gay, lesbian and transgender teens are three times more likely to kill themselves than their peers, and that the same students feel more disenfranchised and bullied than any other group.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chambersburg Public Opinion.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#186 Mar 22, 2013
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
Already proven homosexuality is a sin, you don't have to accept it but it still doesn't change God's word.
No you haven't.

You've shown that abusive and coercive homosexuality is a sin, but you haven't shown a single verse where the Bible condemns loving, committed same-sex relationships.

You're distorting God's word to support your preexisting bigotry. The Bible simply does not say what you think it says. You are flat out wrong.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#187 Mar 22, 2013
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
Look I'm sure plenty of guys have wasted their seed on you and I'm sure you were loving them but it's still a sin.
Oh, grow up, jackass.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#188 Mar 22, 2013
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
New Testament
Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but He did condemn all forms of sexual immorality:
What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you.(TNIV, Mark 7:20-23
The apostle Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, wrote the verses most often quoted on this subject:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.(NIV, 1st Corinthians 6:9-11)
There are two other New Testament mentions of homosexual acts, in Romans 1:25-27 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10. In this passage from Romans, again in the context of idolatry, Paul mentions women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones," which might apply to lesbian acts:
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.(NIV, Romans 1:25-27)
Galatians 5:19-21
19Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Leviticus 18.22 says,“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”(NRSV) And Leviticus 20.13 says,“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”(NRSV)
As much as you would like to make these MY words, they are not. They are God's word. I'm flattered that you think so highly of me to author the passages but I'm just a man married to a woman, happily married, not interested in other men, just so you know.
Historiographically, there is an evident reason for Saul's focus: Saul was a Platonist and Stoic.

Have a pleasant and easy read:

http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2004/...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#189 Mar 22, 2013
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
????
See above.

It really is a fine read.
Nerd Rage

Chambersburg, PA

#190 Mar 22, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Historiographically, there is an evident reason for Saul's focus: Saul was a Platonist and Stoic.
Have a pleasant and easy read:
http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2004/...
I've heard it before so I surely won't waste my time on F.F. Powell who is a Progressive Christian because their church accepts gay lifestyles as a non-sin. You link me to someone who wrote an article about "Paul" and how he was either wrong or influenced wrongly. Either way it doesn't matter. The old Testimate and the New speak against homosexuality. Just because you don't like it and traditional christianity doesn't accept it doesn't make it right because Progressive Christianity does; doesn't change God's word that he denounces it. Christanity does not believe it, Catholicism doesn't believe it and certainly not Islam. If you want to live a gay lifestyle then do so, no one is judging you but don't be naive in thinking that it's ok in God's eyes because someone who refutes Paul or God's word.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#191 Mar 23, 2013
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
Already proven homosexuality is a sin, you don't have to accept it but it still doesn't change God's word.
I agree - it's a sin. At least that's how most churches interpret it, and it's the dogma that holds sway in Christianity, not the Bible itself which is intentionally ambiguous. It's why you have to have Christian apologists and so-called "experts" interpreting a book thousands of years old that isn't even a primary historical source. You guys are going back and forth like this matters. Nerd thinks gay is a sin, Dan doesn't. What does believing either change for either of you? Nothing. Adultery is a sin in the Bible too, so how many God-fearing Christians cheat on their spouses and live with themselves by simply asking forgiveness.

Perhaps my biggest problem with Christianity is that there's is so much discussion about what is an isn't a sin. It seems to me that all of you are having trouble following Christ's actual message - particularly when you use to justify discrimination of others, just as many used the Bible to justify slavery and, later, segregation.
Nerd Rage

Chambersburg, PA

#192 Mar 23, 2013
Effington wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree - it's a sin. At least that's how most churches interpret it, and it's the dogma that holds sway in Christianity, not the Bible itself which is intentionally ambiguous. It's why you have to have Christian apologists and so-called "experts" interpreting a book thousands of years old that isn't even a primary historical source. You guys are going back and forth like this matters. Nerd thinks gay is a sin, Dan doesn't. What does believing either change for either of you? Nothing. Adultery is a sin in the Bible too, so how many God-fearing Christians cheat on their spouses and live with themselves by simply asking forgiveness.
Perhaps my biggest problem with Christianity is that there's is so much discussion about what is an isn't a sin. It seems to me that all of you are having trouble following Christ's actual message - particularly when you use to justify discrimination of others, just as many used the Bible to justify slavery and, later, segregation.
Good point but Christianity is not the only religion that follows the Bible also Christianity ACCEPTS anyone gay or not. It is done with the notion that the sinful behavior will change just as hopes that a thief will hopefully not steal. It is viewed as the same. There will always be extreemist and they should be ignored. It has never been ok to justify discrimination through Jesus, that is where the extreemist try to justify their actions. Christians take the blame for the crazies not everyone is like that. Christians don't care if you're gay or not, it's the prayers to God that they believe will guide you away from sin. Unfortunately some believe that you cannot seperate their lifestyle from the person. Thank you for the civil tone.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#193 Mar 23, 2013
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
I've heard it before so I surely won't waste my time on F.F. Powell who is a Progressive Christian because their church accepts gay lifestyles as a non-sin. You link me to someone who wrote an article about "Paul" and how he was either wrong or influenced wrongly. Either way it doesn't matter. The old Testimate and the New speak against homosexuality. Just because you don't like it and traditional christianity doesn't accept it doesn't make it right because Progressive Christianity does; doesn't change God's word that he denounces it. Christanity does not believe it, Catholicism doesn't believe it and certainly not Islam. If you want to live a gay lifestyle then do so, no one is judging you but don't be naive in thinking that it's ok in God's eyes because someone who refutes Paul or God's word.
You've got the wrong "Powell" there. lol

No bias on the part of the author is evident. One can place the writings of Saul and Plato and the Stoic Philosophers side-by-side and see Saul's plagiarisms very clearly.

Why do I get the feeling that you've never read any Classical Greek philosophy? Saul certainly did. It was most likely part of his curriculum to become a lawyer and earn his Roman Citizenship.

The issue regarding Saul doesn't have to do with whether or not I "like" what he (and his followers) wrote. It's the SOURCE of the material.

Now, if you want to assert that Plato, the Stoics and Philo of Alexandria were prophets of the Father and, as such, were suitable for quoting as Divine teachings, I'd certainly like to read your support for such an assertion.

The next issue is that you CONFLATE the anthology of old writing (in totum) with "the word of God", when this is obviously and provable not so.

Biblicism, Inerrency and Sola Scriptura are self-refuting tautologies ... and HERESY.

The accounts have Yeshua stating (in agreement with several prophetic sources) that not everything in the Mosaic/Levitical/Deuteronomic codes/accounts are prophetic utterence (divine in source). He says so EXPLICITLY. Remember where? If not everything in the anthology is of prophetic utterence, then not everything can be deemed the "word of God". Except for one school of Pharisees, the Jews certainly never considered it so.

Another example is in the tract "Jude" which, while considered "canonical" by most Saulian/Nicene sects, clearly quotes as valid a few sources which are not themselves viewed as part of the canon either by Jews or Xians. This means that a supposed ly divine source makes reference to a non-divine source for authority in a few of it's points. This is, to say the least, highly problematic for those who wish to heretically assert that ALL of their canon is of divine origin; and this, without addressing the problems of Textual Variations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Jude#...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_variants...

Biblicism is heresy because it is irrational, and because it's foundation is based upon error, and tends to produce error among seekers, not the least of which is idolatry of an anthology of writings.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#194 Mar 23, 2013
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point but Christianity is not the only religion that follows the Bible also Christianity ACCEPTS anyone gay or not. It is done with the notion that the sinful behavior will change just as hopes that a thief will hopefully not steal. It is viewed as the same. There will always be extreemist and they should be ignored. It has never been ok to justify discrimination through Jesus, that is where the extreemist try to justify their actions. Christians take the blame for the crazies not everyone is like that. Christians don't care if you're gay or not, it's the prayers to God that they believe will guide you away from sin. Unfortunately some believe that you cannot seperate their lifestyle from the person. Thank you for the civil tone.
Disregarding snyper's response, which I think we can both agree is insightful if not heavy-handed - I'm just trying to figure out what this has to do with gay marriage. Or a high-school's right to have a club to support LGBT equality.

What you think - what your pastor thinks - what society thinks - is irrelevant. This country is founded upon the principle of protecting the minority. And in my libertarian opinion, any edict, proclamation, law or amendment that limits the rights of individuals is bullshit.

Everyone should have the right to marry. Your moral objection, justified or not, is (or should be) irrelevant. Because the only objection is a religious one.

And that's what "freedom of religion" really means. Worship who/what/where/when you want. But don't use it to justify or create laws.
THE LARD

Carlisle, PA

#195 Mar 24, 2013
I would argue that the Church lost the gay marriage issue long, long ago - when they allowed marriage to be secularized.

Marriage - was (and should be) a chruch thing - a vow before God. The Govt couldn't have any say in your ceremony.

Now its Judge thing...no God involved. Today, the God part is more of an afterthought or frill.

Its sort of sign that people really don't have much faith anymore. Supreme authority? The Govt - apparently.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#196 Mar 24, 2013
Effington wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree - it's a sin...
Of course, it's the only sin that isn't chosen, that cannot be changed, that harms no one, is a natural God-given trait, and doesn't distance the "sinner" from a relationship with God.

That's one weird kind of sin.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#197 Mar 24, 2013
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
I've heard it before so I surely won't waste my time on F.F. Powell who is a Progressive Christian because their church accepts gay lifestyles as a non-sin...
What is a "gay lifestyle?"

We all live the same ones everyone else does, including the religious lifestyle and the married lifestyle.

Are you saying that positive things marriage and family life, and a belief in God, are sins if gay people are involved? What a strange idea.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#198 Mar 24, 2013
THE LARD wrote:
I would argue that the Church lost the gay marriage issue long, long ago - when they allowed marriage to be secularized.
Marriage - was (and should be) a chruch thing - a vow before God. The Govt couldn't have any say in your ceremony.
Now its Judge thing...no God involved. Today, the God part is more of an afterthought or frill.
Its sort of sign that people really don't have much faith anymore. Supreme authority? The Govt - apparently.
No Christian denomination will EVER be forced to marry anyone. But no American should ever be forced to find some Christian denomination to join in order to marry, either.

LEGAL marriage should never REQUIRE a person to join one religion of another, and I think it's odd that you seen to feel they should.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#199 Mar 24, 2013
Nerd Rage wrote:
The old Testimate and the New speak against homosexuality.
It explains the state of being of straight people
.
Gay people's state of being is directly opposite:
.
++++++++++
Matthew 19:9> "And I say vnto you, Whosoeuer shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery."
.
Matthew 19:10> ¶ His disciples say vnto him, "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marrie."
.
Matthew 19:11> But hee said vnto them, "All men cannot receiue this saying, saue they to whom it is giuen."
.
Matthew 19:12> "For there are some Eunuches, which were so borne from their mothers wombe: and there are some Eunuches, which were made Eunuches of men: and there be Eunuches, which haue made themselues Eunuches for the kingdome of heauens sake. He that is able to receiue it, let him receiue it."
++++++++++
http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#200 Mar 24, 2013
THE LARD wrote:
I would argue that the Church lost the gay marriage issue long, long ago - when they allowed marriage to be secularized.
Marriage - was (and should be) a chruch thing - a vow before God. The Govt couldn't have any say in your ceremony.
Now its Judge thing...no God involved. Today, the God part is more of an afterthought or frill.
Its sort of sign that people really don't have much faith anymore. Supreme authority? The Govt - apparently.
You've touched on a VERY important point.

Religionists are attempting to de-secularize not just Civil Marriage, but our Nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Recons...

Some worthwhile listening:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php...

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#201 Mar 24, 2013
THE LARD wrote:
I would argue that the Church lost the gay marriage issue long, long ago - when they allowed marriage to be secularized.
Marriage - was (and should be) a chruch thing - a vow before God. The Govt couldn't have any say in your ceremony.
Now its Judge thing...no God involved. Today, the God part is more of an afterthought or frill.
Its sort of sign that people really don't have much faith anymore. Supreme authority? The Govt - apparently.
So you're saying that everyone who ever got married, in the history of time, always got married in a church until the church "allowed" marriage to be secularized?

I'm getting annoyed with you "sad sign of the times" people. Old coots have been complaining about how "things used to be better in the good old days" for hundreds of years.
THE LARD

Carlisle, PA

#202 Mar 25, 2013
Effington wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying that everyone who ever got married, in the history of time, always got married in a church until the church "allowed" marriage to be secularized?
I'm getting annoyed with you "sad sign of the times" people. Old coots have been complaining about how "things used to be better in the good old days" for hundreds of years.
Eff - You're misinterpreting my remarks.

Im not saying one is any better than the other.

And, I dont mean "allow" as in "permit"

I mean it more in the sense of "become mixed up with (over a long period of time)"

With the main point being - secularized marriage left the door open for gay marriage, long ago.

I have no problem if one church or another wants to preserve their version of "marriage" and only endorse that version.

What believers and religionists should start doing is - just start getting married by a church...and thats it.

Don't do the Gov't/state part...after all...why?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#203 Mar 25, 2013
Nerd Rage wrote:
Thank you for the civil tone.
Oh, the irony!

LOL!
Nerd Rage wrote:
So, blow it out your ass idiot. I couldn’t care any less about your racist and bigoted remarks.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#204 Mar 25, 2013
THE LARD wrote:
<quoted text>
Eff - You're misinterpreting my remarks.
Im not saying one is any better than the other.
And, I dont mean "allow" as in "permit"
I mean it more in the sense of "become mixed up with (over a long period of time)"
With the main point being - secularized marriage left the door open for gay marriage, long ago.
I have no problem if one church or another wants to preserve their version of "marriage" and only endorse that version.
What believers and religionists should start doing is - just start getting married by a church...and thats it.
Don't do the Gov't/state part...after all...why?
Well, most people do the government part because that's the part that provides the legal and financial protections and benefits.

And most people, religious or otherwise, aren't about to give that up for religious reasons.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#205 Mar 25, 2013
THE LARD wrote:
<quoted text>
Eff - You're misinterpreting my remarks.
Im not saying one is any better than the other.
And, I dont mean "allow" as in "permit"
I mean it more in the sense of "become mixed up with (over a long period of time)"
With the main point being - secularized marriage left the door open for gay marriage, long ago.
I have no problem if one church or another wants to preserve their version of "marriage" and only endorse that version.
What believers and religionists should start doing is - just start getting married by a church...and thats it.
Don't do the Gov't/state part...after all...why?
There are lots of reasons to do the government part of marriage. Over 1,100 reasons.

There are approximately 1,100 government benefits for people who are married - such as over 170 tax benefits to married couples, Social Security benefits, inheritance rights, federally regulated health insurance benefits, child custody laws, Family & Medical Leave benefits, immigration benefits, and on and on.

That's the reason to do the government part - the enormous disadvantage of NOT being married under the law. And that's the unequal treatment under the law that same-sex couples are fighting.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Transgender Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Hot Shemale looking for top non Arab (Feb '15) 6 hr oz77alan 15
I need a sexy massage in jeddah 8 hr Ziaya_04 2
Bottom in khobar 9 hr 21top 3
looking syrian bottom in jeddah 12 hr khann 10
goodlooking filipino offering massage in jeddah (Jul '13) 12 hr khann 701
Meet Here Gays ( JEDDAH ) (Mar '14) 17 hr sjeddahmrrr 198
News The Latest: Obama pledges federal support in fl... 17 hr WasteWater 10
More from around the web