Jihad is big in Christianity too

[TonyGosling]

Jihad is big in Christianity too - here is one of the most famous Bible quotes on the subject and the traditional Christian view.
The monarch is supposed to be the defender of this faith using these spiritual weapons as hereby described.

Ephesians 6:10-20 King James Bible
Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

http://www.lectionarystudies.com/sunday21bae.html
i] The belt. As Christian soldiers prepared for battle, we are to put on truthfulness like a belt. In simple terms, tell the truth.

ii] The breastplate. We are to put on right behavior like a breastplate. Be Christ-like is the exhortation.

iii] Shoes. We are to put on peacefulness like shoes. The most popular interpretation is in terms of witnessing, evangelism. Yet, Paul possibly means something like speaking peace - being peaceful rather than argumentative.

iv] The shield. We are to take up trustworthiness like a shield. Again, this image is often interpreted in the terms of faith in Christ - saving faith. Yet, when treated as an ethical quality, the shield represents faithfulness rather than faith in God.

v] The helmet. We are to put on salvation like a helmet. This image is not an easy one. The most accepted view is to see the image in the terms of assurance - "be sure of your salvation." Yet, this is not really an ethical exhortation, but then there is no need to expect Paul to make all the pieces of armor ethical. To support this view Isaiah 59:17 describes God as wearing victory like a helmet.

vi] The sword. We are to take up prayer like a sword. The accepted interpretation is the taking up of the word of God, the Bible. So, the exhortation is that we read the Bible and believe in it. There is though a strong possibility that the exhortation is to prayer. The sword then represents praying in the Spirit. This view sees the prayer of faith through the Spirit as prayer according to the will of God (prayer that is based on His promises).

[fish5133]

Nice one Tony

[Jayhawk]

Not sure what you're implying here.
The monarch? This applies to all christians and refers to their spiritual battle. Jihad is understood to have something to do with terrorism, whether or not it does.
Can you clarify what you're saying?

[landless peasant]

My idea of Jihad is it can mean anything, like a personal battle to quit smoking or drinking etc. Jihad means struggle, thats what I have all ways thought can someone clear that up?

[ian neal]

Not sure what you're implying here.
The monarch? This applies to all christians and refers to their spiritual battle. Jihad is understood to have something to do with terrorism, whether or not it does.
Can you clarify what you're saying?

This perception that jihad is external rather than internal, violent rather than non-violent and linked to terrorism is highly dangerous.

All major religions describe a struggle between 'good' and 'evil'. Jihad is this struggle. It need not be violent. Indeed it is my belief that good can not be promoted through violence and terrorism.

[petros]

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.John 18:36

There are will always be militant groups calling themselves 'Chrsitian'. See the link below.

http://apostasywatch.com/delusion/christianjihad.html

[TonyGosling]

And this Archbishop character has got to be dodgey! JUst take a look at this. Whatever you may think about the rights and wrongs of being gay the Bible tells us that Jesus and his followers and the God of the Old Testament was dead against it.... so why does the Druid Archbishop do this kind of thing in secret? Out of compassion?


Druid Archbishop holds secret service for gay clergy

Archbishop sparks row after holding secret communion for gay clergy
By OLINKA KOSTER - 31st December 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

The Archbishop of Canterbury held a secret communion for gay glergy
A row erupted yesterday after it emerged the Archbishop of Canterbury kept the details of a communion service for gay clergy so secret that he failed to inform the Bishop of London it was taking place in his diocese.

Dr Rowan Williams reignited the row that is causing divisions within the Anglican Church after agreeing to hold a Eucharist for homosexual, lesbian, bisexual and transgender clergy.


Exteremely dodgey looking man who is supposed to be, in some way, connected with God

Details of the service, attended by around 100 people, emerged yesterday, with the Archbishop said to have spoken openly about the future for gay people in the church.

His critics expressed anger that as well as choosing to give communion at the meeting, he also failed to seek permission from the Right Rev Richard Chartres before making an "incursion" on his patch.

They said Dr Williams risked being seen as discourteous, with suggestions from some quarters that he was close to breaching canon law.

The service was held at the end of last year (2007) in All Hallows by the Tower, a 7th Century church in the City of London, after the original venue, the liberal St Peter's Church in Belgravia, was "outed" on a hostile website.

The Bishop of London was not aware the meeting was taking place at All Hallows.

At the secret gathering, Dr Williams gave communion followed by a talk on "present realities and future possibilities for lesbians and gay men in the church".

The Bishop of London has the option of reporting the Dr Williams to the Archbishop of York

Yesterday, questions were raised about the event by prominent church voices.

Chris Sugden, executive secretary of the evangelical movement Anglican Mainstream, said: "Who knew what when, and whether anybody asked permission or not is straining at a knat while swallowing a camel.

"The camel is the Archbishop celebrating a communion service with the call for people to repent of their sins and live a new life with those who clearly have no intention of changing their behaviour.

"It is an embarrassment to the Bishop of London who had previously told his synod it would not be taking place at St Peter's Church. When it took place elsewhere, it looked as if he had been withholding information."

The previous Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, 72, who is more conservative than Dr Williams, told the Times: "I am sure that Rowan was acting for the very best of reasons viz. to show that he cares for all and wishes to hold minorities in the church.

"What would I have done? I would not have agreed to a private Eucharist; after all, the Eucharist by definition is open to all Christians.

"I am surprised to hear that the Bishop of London's permission was not sought... If that is so then it is a failure of courtesy but it could be a member of staff's fault."

The Rev Rod Thomas, chairman of the Church of England's influential Reform grouping, said: "There are two issues here - one is whether the Archbishop should have presided at this service in the first place.

"The fact he did was quite provocative for those that hold to a biblical position on homosexuality.

"I think it has been his desire to try to accommodate both sides of this debate that has led to the current break-up of the Anglican church. It has actually increased the sense of indiscipline.

"As far as consulting the Bishop, I think the norm is that you do, but if this had been an uncontroversial issue then nobody would have started questioning whether or not he had broken canon law."

Canon law states that "every bishop is within his diocese, the principal master, and to him belongs the right...of ordering, controlling and authorising all services in churches".

However, another section appears to exonerate Dr Williams, as it also allows ministers to invite a "priest or deacon" to serve in their church for up to seven days without telling the bishop.

A spokesman for the Archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth Palace said: "It does not appear that he was in breach of canon law."

A spokesman for the Bishop of London, who is away for New Year, also played down the controversy, saying: "The extent to which the Bishop of London is annoyed has been exaggerated - he's not annoyed in fact and canon law was not broken.

"The whole thing seems to have been blown out of proportion."

However, a church source said: "I expect this goes against the grain of the Bishop of London because he is an orthodox Anglican, but he's also the sort of man who wouldn't want to cause a fuss."

The meeting was organised by the Clergy Consultation, a support group for gay clergy, ordinands and Anglican monks and nuns.

Secrecy was so tight that a list of names attending was sent to Lambeth Palace with orders that it be shredded as soon as Dr Williams had read it.

One of those present was gay priest Rev Colin Coward, of the gay pressure group Changing Attitude.

He told a national newspaper: "The consultation has always met in confidentiality of venue and time to preserve the safety of those who come."

The Rev Bertrand Olivier, vicar of All Hallows, added: "It's nothing to do with the Bishop. Why would the Bishop need to be told?"

[petros]

Should there be a public forum Dispelling pernicious myths about Jesus Christ and the Bible, Christian activists explain and discuss spiritual resistance, the Great Commision, against New World Order Totalitarianism. Exposing and eradicating the Global Web of Deceit or Mystery Babylon?

PS if it's violent, it's not Christian.

[TonyGosling]

Jesus did throw the money changers out of the temple.



Actually, he overturned their tables and that's not against the person so, strictly speaking, non-violent

PS if it's violent, it's not Christian.

[fish5133]

"be angry and sin not"

the righteous anger of Christ resulted in direct action which could be considered or labelled by some as hooligan/yobbish. The "be angry and sin not" is a warning to us to consider our actions wisely.
Our wiser forefathers realised this and help us to channel our anger through the right of free speech, the right to demonstrate, right to free assembly etc. Our unwiser politicians try to remove these freedoms at their peril.


"the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds" 2 Cor 10 v 4

[petros]

"be angry and sin not"

the righteous anger of Christ resulted in direct action which could be considered or labelled by some as hooligan/yobbish. The "be angry and sin not" is a warning to us to consider our actions wisely.
Our wiser forefathers realised this and help us to channel our anger through the right of free speech, the right to demonstrate, right to free assembly etc. Our unwiser politicians try to remove these freedoms at their peril.


"the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds" 2 Cor 10 v 4

Nice references.

I'm not sure if Tony is advocating whipping people. It has been advocated over the centuries that war can be justified in the Bible. Men like Calvin and Augustine of Hippo have argued for a just war.

And heretical organizations like the JWs have not permitted national service.

However the main thrust of the new testament appears to be Christians attack spiritual strongholds through proclaiming the truth and calling down the power of God through prayer.

What are the chances that there will a dedicated Christian section on this site?

[xmasdale]

And this Archbishop character has got to be dodgey! JUst take a look at this. Whatever you may think about the rights and wrongs of being gay the Bible tells us that Jesus and his followers and the God of the Old Testament was dead against it....

There is no Biblical record of Jesus or his immediate disciples saying anything about homosexuality, either pro or anti. I defy anyone to find a biblical quotation to support this allegation. The Old Testament Jewish law was, however, anti and so was St Paul, who never met Jesus.

St Paul also supported the institution of slavery, as is illustrated by this quotation from his first letter to Timothy:

1 Tim 6
"1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them."

His Letter to Philemon is about how he is sending Philemon's run-away slave back to him and asking him to treat the slave kindly.

Christians did not really begin to oppose slavery until the 18th century and that despite St Paul's views on the subject. That suggests to me that they were now understanding the spirit of Christianity and no longer treating it as a religion of rules to be obeyed but as a religion of a spirit of love and truth in accordance with this saying of St Paul's:

"2 Corinthians 3
5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

so why does the Druid Archbishop do this kind of thing in secret? Out of compassion?

I submit because he too does not take Christianity or the Bible as a set of rules to be obeyed, but as an account of the growth of human understanding of the spirit of love and truth within the Judao-Christian tradition.

If he were an 18th century Archbishop of Canterbury who was opposed to slavery he might well have found himself in conflict with local Bishops who supported it. If he had been holding a service for Christian abolitionists in a diocise where the local Bishop was a slavery supporter, he might have been unwise to do so in a blaze of publicity. Simply not doing something in public does not necessarily mean there is an attempt to deceive or to employ double standards. I have no idea about what Church of England protocol is on the issue of an archbishop holding a service in the diocese of a subordinate bishop, but I suspect it is quite likely that what The Rev Bertrand Olivier, vicar of All Hallows, added:

"It's nothing to do with the Bishop. Why would the Bishop need to be told?"

was quite right, because the Bishop of London is noted for his homophobia and, Rowan Williams, prior to his becoming Archbishop of Canterbury, was noted for his support of gay Christians and gay clergy.

BTW St Paul was also noted for his belief that women should play a subservient role to men. Are St Paul's writings really edicts from the Almighty, or are they merely the opinion of one historical Christian?

[TonyGosling]

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10

[TonyGosling]

What do others think?
In the Muslim section?

What are the chances that there will a dedicated Christian section on this site?

[xmasdale]

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10

Yea! Like I said. St Paul was a homophobe, a misogynist and a supporter of slavery - rather nasty attitudes. He has frequently been quoted in an attempt to justify people's intolerant attitudes towards gay people, women and slaves. None of this justifies discrimination against gay people and women, nor support of the institution of slavery. Nor does it justify the making of false claims about the teaching of Jesus, such as that written by Tony in this thread:

"Whatever you may think about the rights and wrongs of being gay the Bible tells us that Jesus and his followers .... was dead against it".

This is untrue - disinformation - something which truthers are normally dead against.

So what is going on here? Is the administrator of this forum trying to make clear that gay people are unwelcome on this site and using his professed Christianity and false claims about the teachings of Jesus in an attempt to justify it?

Perhaps we would all do well to heed teachings of Jesus which do appear in the Bible, rather than imagined ones:

"Matthew 7
1 Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

and

John 8: 7 (in some translations placed elsewhere in John's Gospel)

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Or if St Paul's letter 1 Timothy, quoted above, is to be the measure of the way this forum is to be administered is it now time to make clear that adulterers are unwelcome on this site?

[TonyGosling]

Well there you go again Noel attempting to smear me.
As most people realise I want a diversity of perspectives on 9/11 and the War on Terror and don't impose my personal views on others.

If I were editing a Homosexuals only discussion board you would have a point.

[xmasdale]

I am not trying to smear you. But I don't think that you should expect attacks on gay people and false claims about the teaching of Jesus used to justify these attacks to go unchallenged.

If you claim that Jesus taught against homosexuality you should put up some textual justification for this claim. So far you have failed to do so, putting up instead the words of St Paul, who, I agree, did condemn homosexuality.

I would expect similar challenges to be made if people put on this forum attacks on black people, Jews, Muslims, Christians, women or any other group. There have been attacks on Jews and Christians on this forum and they have been challenged. IMHO those challenges were legitimate. I don't understand why you see a challenge to homphobic attitudes as illigitimate.

I fail to see the relevance of what you wrote to 9/11 or the wider picture.

Noel

[TonyGosling]

After the rancour that has arrived here it may be polite to move this thread out of the Muslims' section?

I'm used to being attacked for quoting the Bible as the sacred Word of our Heavenly Father but I will continue to do it.
Insha'Allah.

[ian neal]

I am not trying to smear you. But I don't think that you should expect attacks on gay people and false claims about the teaching of Jesus used to justify these attacks to go unchallenged..........

Oh dear Tony. You do have a knack of pushing people's buttons and I do wonder why you would choose to do so. 'Attacks on gay people' certainly do break the guidance I set out here

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=1685

In the same way that to refer to gay people in any way that is less favourable than straight people (and visa versa) will be considered offensive and liable to promote hatred and violence and will be deleted.

Basically the forum from the outset has always aimed to be inclusive and welcoming of all peoples' regardless of colour, creed, faith, political affiliation or sexuality. So it goes without saying 'attacks on gay people' will not be tolerated. If you have a problem with this then your position would be untenable.

The question is do these posts constitute such an attack. Technically speaking you posting passages from the bible which are anti-gay or 'homophobic' does not in itself make you or the post homophobic. I could quote the same passages and use it as evidence in a wider argument. That in itself would not make me homophobic.

However I want to avoid semantics. You must surely have been aware that posting these passages and calling the bible the sacred word of our heavenly father could and most probably would be interpretted as meaning that you share these beliefs, that you believe gay people are committing detestable acts and should be killed. Whether that was your intention I don't know, but like I say I do wonder why you choose to post this and why you were unable to anticipate the problem this would create.

So what to do? I'm very reluctant to enter a long debate or to change the moderation set-up. I have no desire to resume responsibility for this site's moderation but at the same time I'm not willing to allow it to be seen to tolerate anti-gay posts. So perhaps I can invite you (either here or in private) to respond to Noel and explain why your posts should not be interpretted as anti-gay. I'll let you decide whether it is best to remove these posts or the whole thread into the private section in order to help defuse this. Thanks

I fail to see the relevance of what you wrote to 9/11 or the wider picture.

Noel

Likewise

[TonyGosling]

The nub of this story really has nothing to do with Homosexuals but whether or not the Church should conduct secret meetings. That being gay is incompatible with the faith, just as sex out of marriage is, is taken as read since the church of England clearly believes they can't conduct this sort of business in the public eye.

In my view it is entirely inappropriate, as inappropriate as all dealings with freemasonry and I wouldn't mind betting the spaced out freak that calls himself the present Archbishop of Canterbury is one of them.

I can see a need for secrecy when churchmen have evidence that they are under attack from the forces of darkness, but not here.

[xmasdale]

I'm used to being attacked for quoting the Bible as the sacred Word of our Heavenly Father but I will continue to do it.
Insha'Allah.

No one has attacked you on this thread for quoting the Bible, Tony. We have both quoted the Bible in this thread, as have others. Let's stick to the point we were debating which was your unsubstantiated allegation that Jesus and his followers preached against homosexuality.

I pointed out that there is no biblical evidence that they did, (with the exception of Paul of Tarsus who can hardly be regarded as an immediate follower of Jesus since the two men never even met) I was the first to point out that Paul, alone among the writers of the New Testament, was anti-gay. And I enquired, as I have of you before, why you keep expressing his anti-gay opinions as a justification for yours, while not apparently at the same time using his opinions on women to justify campaigning against their rights, nor his opinions on slavery to justify a campaign for its reintroduction. But you don't answer my points.

I also invited you to produce further quotes from the Bible to justify your allegation that Jesus preached against homosexuality. You were unable to find any such quotes, so you quoted Paul's letters again, which merely confirmed part of my earlier statement that Paul was anti-gay.

Is St Paul the "sacred word of your Heavanly Father" only when he is expressing his opinions about gay people, or is he also the voice of your Heavanly Father when he supports slavery and the inferior status of women?

After the rancour that has arrived here it may be polite to move this thread out of the Muslims' section?

Whichever section this thread appears in, it might be polite to answer my questions, rather than to obfuscate with another false allegation, this time wrapped in pious language, that you are being attacked for quoting the Bible.

Please quote the New Testament to justify your original claim. If you cannot, your allegation that Jesus preached against homosexuality falls.

[xmasdale]

So what to do? I'm very reluctant to enter a long debate or to change the moderation set-up. I have no desire to resume responsibility for this site's moderation but at the same time I'm not willing to allow it to be seen to tolerate anti-gay posts. So perhaps I can invite you (either here or in private) to respond to Noel and explain why your posts should not be interpretted as anti-gay. I'll let you decide whether it is best to remove these posts or the whole thread into the private section in order to help defuse this. Thanks

I should be sorry if this debate were moved to a private section as I think the issue needs to be debated to its conclusion with a chance for others to join in, tiresome as that is.

It would be a mistake to think that the huge amount of progress made during my nearly forty years of gay rights campaigning did not need defending.

I reached adulthood in a Britain where gay people were subjected to so much pressure (loss of employment, social ostracism, rejection by our families, imprisonment, enforced psychiatric aversion thereapy etc) that we were compelled to live dishonest lives in the closet pretending to be what we were not. Clearly the kind of oppressive attitudes which led to that are still alive and kicking in certain sections of the Church, as is being expressed by Tony. When these attitudes get the upper hand gay and lesbian people find themselves in a moral dilemma: whether to accept the received wisdom that we are moral degenerates (and seek to live either a celibate life or a dishonest married life) or to be honest, come out and endure the punishments which society inflicts upon us. In many countries in the world that still includes death.

I know that this issue seems far from 9/11 and the quest for truth, but if the site administrator expresses homophobic attitudes on this site, removes announcements of events organised by 9/11 groups if the speaker booked is known to be gay, makes sneering remarks on this forum about the sexuality of a high profile supporter of ours and claims that his own prejudices are ordained by God, the issue has to be addressed rather than hidden or papered over.

[Frazzel]

In early christianity, there was a faction of paulinists ie those who followed st Paul, and those who were not followers of him because they saw that some of the things paul was preaching were not things that were preached about by Jesus such as: Jesus said where there is two or more gathered in his name, thre is the church, ie no mention of the need for a church heirarchy, he never supported slavery, nowhere in his sayings is there any views of discriminating against women etc. There is some plausible conjecture that Mary was his chosen and most favourite disciple, but that this would have been seen as unacceptable by some, especially roman converts. St Pauls version of christianity was made to be more dominant, but threads of the other more gentle, more of the people, and more in line with Yeshua, still remain - thank god. This line probably influences the liberation theology that developed in latin america which saw christians supporting the poor peasantry in their struggle against naked capitalism, the latter often (to their shame) supported by the catholic church but not it must be said , supported by all catholics.
the bible has been edited over the centuries to suit various political factions of the day. Yesua wasnt born on dec 25th. some say he was born in july, some say in march. To reach a faithful interpretation of Jesus's original words is a subject that occupies years of study by biblical scholars and iam no expert at all on this matter.
In the quakers bookshop in euston, london, there is a huge volume of texts or other gospels that were taken out of the bible such as the gospel according to mary, and st thomas, among others. these are interesting reading. also there are the discoveries at qumran and the nag hamadi that show sayings more similarity with Yeshua rather than st Paul.
all i know for sure is that 99% of Jesus's sayings urge us to be humble, to be kind, tolerant, understanding, not to judge others, to give to the poor, to help someone in need. To love one another is the most important yet why is it the most difficult?

[TonyGosling]

no need to hide it surely

who suggested that?

[xmasdale]

no need to hide it surely

who suggested that?

I'll let you decide whether it is best to remove these posts or the whole thread into the private section in order to help defuse this.

[xmasdale]

It is very difficult to have an effectitve debate with you, Tony, when you don't respond to the points that other people raise. Instead you tend to respond to points with red herrings which if followed would derail the debate from its main point. One such red herring was your contention that you were being criticised for quoting the Bible, when it was patently obvious that no one was criticising you for that. I was criticising you for falsely alleging that Jesus and his immediate followers preached against homosexuality.

I have pleaded with you to come up with quotations from the Bible to justify that claim, but you have failed to do so. Neither have you been prepared to say honestly "I can't find any".

Ian has asked you whether by quoting these passages from letters attributed to St Paul


"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10

"that you believe gay people are committing detestable acts and should be killed." He points out that if you really mean that you are in breach of the guidelines for this forum. But you don't answer him either.

When I recently breached what you imagined to be a rule on this fourm you went absolutely beserk at me. Eventually you recognised that it wasn't a rule and apologised privately to me for the fuss. Then you bizarrely demanded a public apology from me - for a row that was started by your accusing me of breaking a rule which you later conceded didn't exist. So what should be done with people who really break rules, eh?

I have also asked you whether you take all the letters in the Bible attributed to St Paul as the "sacred word of your heavanly Father" (your expression) and if so, whether you think that, to comply with St Paul's teaching in other matters, slavery should be reintroduced and women deprived of the rights they have gained through long years of struggle. But you don't answer that, either.

I also wonder whether you believe, consistent with St Paul, that fornicators, adulterers (I'm sure we can find plenty of those among the supporters of this campaign ) and idolators should face cruel punishments, but I don't imagine you'll deal with that query either. You seem to be concerned only with homosexuality.

When I have previouly met people with this kind of obsession it has often turned out that they have had a particular personal reason for it. Usually either they have been subjected to unwelcome sexual attentions from someone of their own gender, or they have come to realise they have a certain degree of homosexual tendencies, which conflict with their own sense of what is right and wrong and they have become scared and confused by this. Of course anyone in that situation deserves only sympathy and understanding, rather than condemnation. But the blame for either situation cannot justly be meted out to gay people as a whole.

[TonyGosling]

moved out of Jihad to "The Bigger Picture"

[dontbelievethehype1970]

For all you jihadists out there, listen to this !
(apologies to Ian Neal)

http://myspace.com/ianneal

[TonyGosling]

I suppose the NWO hate anyone who takes them on and so a Jihad, or a Holy war, is unpopular with them.
IMO one prime subtext to the War on Terror is a direct attack on the very idea of the God of Abraham, and any other monotheistic / semitic faith.

It is a struggle stopping the NWO.

On Earth as it is in Heaven (or whatever groovy place you believe in) might be an answer?

[TonyGosling]

visual food for thought????