Question:
> ALL sexual activity outside marriage is SIN.
So… ranching is an insult to your wussy God, right? Do salmon have to marry – even though they don’t actually come in contact with each other? Are the sex organs of plants considered sexual for your purposes? Can God make a Christian so offensive that even God cannot love him?
Response:
[snips] > Based on our modern scientific knowledge of genetics, please tell me how > do you get a viable breeding pool with genetic diversity when you start > out with on one male [Adam] and one female [Eve] of a species?
Actually, it might explain everything. God know, evangelical "Christians" certainly think and behave like inbred idiots.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Here are some organization that can help restore homosexuals to >>God’s intentions of normal manhood. > Maybe they should start with priests that fuck young boys instead of > worrying about two homo adults do.. > ALL sexual activity outside marriage is SIN. Needless to say, marriage > is NOT two men in "love." God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Perhaps the Christia Extremist Right could come up with a new cliche’ catchphrase? > The sins of the Catholic Church are proof that the institution is > demonic,
So I suppose the fall fo a number of evangelical leaders stands as proof that right wing evangelicalism is daemonic as well speck-log-eye-neighbor-own Familiar concepts, MR. Criswell? (I have a real doctorate and 2 post doc fellowships) > Dr. James Slaughter, Professor of Creation "Science?" > Criswell Bible Institute, Dallas, Texas > www.criswell.edu > Listen to our 100,000 watt radio station on 90.9 FM in Texas > or online at www.kcbi.org
– "Woman’s Need calls me as Woman’s Need made me. Her Need I will answer as my maker bade me." Lady Kethryveris
Response:
> ALL sexual activity outside marriage is > SIN. *** God made Adam and Eve . . . .
when and where were Adam and Eve married?
Response:
>>>Here are some organization that can help restore homosexuals to >>God’s intentions of normal manhood. >Maybe they should start with priests that fuck young boys instead of >worrying about two homo adults do.. > ALL sexual activity outside marriage is SIN. Needless to say, marriage > is NOT two men in "love." God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Well since you seem to be such an expert on the Bible, perhaps you can explain something to me. Based on our modern scientific knowledge of genetics, please tell me how do you get a viable breeding pool with genetic diversity when you start out with on one male [Adam] and one female [Eve] of a species? And further, how do you breed that viable genetic pool without incest [which we know is a sin] when you start with only one male and one female? <snip> — This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail "Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
Response:
> What, pray tell, do the graduates do? > I shudder to think about a graduation ceremony. White capes and pointy > white caps?
Close – funeral smocks and mock-drownings. Then they renounce mankind, and dedicate themselves to sending folks to their wild version of an "afterlife".
Response:
>>Here are some organization that can help restore homosexuals to >God’s intentions of normal manhood. > Maybe they should start with priests that fuck young boys instead of > worrying about two homo adults do..
ALL sexual activity outside marriage is SIN. Needless to say, marriage is NOT two men in "love." God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. The sins of the Catholic Church are proof that the institution is demonic, with its proliferation of homosexual priests and worship of Mary. — Dr. James Slaughter, Professor of Creation Science Criswell Bible Institute, Dallas, Texas www.criswell.edu Listen to our 100,000 watt radio station on 90.9 FM in Texas or online at www.kcbi.org
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>> Here are some organization that can help restore homosexuals to >>> God’s intentions of normal manhood. >>I can not believe you are on the faculty of a university. Further, I can >>not >>believe that an entity that spews such hatred could have qualified for an >>FCC license. > Kind of a sad story, actually: > http://www.mindspring.com/~sartor/gradyhs/knon.html > Very sad. Another formulaic religious fire and brimstone purveyor replaces > what seems like a unique station.
The US needs MORE of them. Maybe more gays can be helped.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Here are some organization that can help restore homosexuals to >> God’s intentions of normal manhood. >I can not believe you are on the faculty of a university. Further, I can >not >believe that an entity that spews such hatred could have qualified for an >FCC license. > Kind of a sad story, actually: > http://www.mindspring.com/~sartor/gradyhs/knon.html
Very sad. Another formulaic religious fire and brimstone purveyor replaces what seems like a unique station.
Response:
>> Here are some organization that can help restore homosexuals to >> God’s intentions of normal manhood. > It’s not a *real* school.
Whew. When one of the associate professors can’t even write correct English, I was worrid. > It’s like a beauty school or one of those vocational things for people who > aren’t all that smartificated.
What, pray tell, do the graduates do? I shudder to think about a graduation ceremony. White capes and pointy white caps? > I can not believe you are on the faculty of a university. Further, I can > not believe that an entity that spews such hatred could have qualified > for an FCC license. > Ever watch to the Trinity network or CBN?
Yes, but my need to power vomit cut short those experiences.
Response:
> Here are some organization that can help restore homosexuals to > God’s intentions of normal manhood.
It’s not a *real* school. It’s like a beauty school or one of those vocational things for people who aren’t all that smartificated. > I can not believe you are on the faculty of a university. Further, I can > not believe that an entity that spews such hatred could have qualified for > an FCC license.
Ever watch to the Trinity network or CBN?
Response:
>> Here are some organization that can help restore homosexuals to > God’s intentions of normal manhood. >I can not believe you are on the faculty of a university. Further, I can not >believe that an entity that spews such hatred could have qualified for an >FCC license.
Kind of a sad story, actually: http://www.mindspring.com/~sartor/gradyhs/knon.html
Response:
> Here are some organization that can help restore homosexuals to > God’s intentions of normal manhood.
I can not believe you are on the faculty of a university. Further, I can not believe that an entity that spews such hatred could have qualified for an FCC license.
Response:
Dr. James Slaughter, Professor of Creation Science Criswell Bible Institute, Dallas, Texas www.criswell.edu Dr. Slaughter, I visited the website for Criswell Bible Institute–where you list yourself as Professor of Creation Science–to get an idea of the course of study one might pursue for a degree in Creation Science. I did see a single course in Natural Science. Unfortunately, there was no course description so I have no idea what might be conveyed to students in this course. What puzzles me most, however, is the complete absence of training in chemistry, physics, biology, geology, paleontology or even mathematics. Where did you attain your own knowledge in these sciences to qualify yourself as a professor of Creation Science?
Response:
> Organization: Criswell Biblical Institute > Here are some organization that can help restore homosexuals to > God’s intentions of normal manhood.
The arrogant assumption of the Fundie Christians that homosexuals can be "restored" to God’s intentions of normal manhood is flawed from many viewpoints. * it assumes that homosexuals were once heterosexuals, an assumption that has never been shown by anyone. * It assumes that homosexuality is a learned trait, which can be unlearned, like going on a diet or stopping smoking. There is no evidence for that assumption either. * It arrogantly assumes that "God’s intention" was for "normal manhood", whatever that means. It also assumes that the promoter of this thesis speaks for God, and knows all his intentions. So, I ask: If homosexuality is not part of God’s intention,why does he nt only permit it, but allow it to exist for thousands of years? Also, why to some species of animals have homosexual minorities?
Response:
Controversy, Not Credibility A study of "gay change" with the results media were looking for By Jennifer L. Pozner Thousands of scientific studies are conducted every year, but only a fraction of these ever see newsprint. Even fewer dominate the news cycle for weeks, transform researchers into culture war commentators and move the public debate. At the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting on May 9, two unpublished, non-peer-reviewed studies offered opposing reports about the effectiveness and potential safety risks of "reparative therapy" to "convert" lesbians and gay men to heterosexuality, a practice long-denounced as unethical and futile by the APA and most mental health professionals. For one presentation, titled "200 Subjects Who Claim to Have Changed Their Sexual Orientation from Homosexual to Heterosexual," Columbia professor Robert Spitzer interviewed people who said they had successfully undergone conversion therapy, and reported that 66 percent of these men and 44 percent of the women had indeed achieved "good heterosexual functioning." Spitzer was involved in the APA’s 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. Spitzer said the majority of his subjects were "highly motivated" to change, understandable since they were referred to him primarily by religious right "ex-gay ministries" like Exodus International, who only offered him people they saw as success stories. Of Spitzer’s subjects, only 42 percent of men and 46 percent of women rated themselves as "exclusively homosexual" before they sought therapy to diminish gay feelings. While some might therefore refer to the majority of the subjects as bisexual rather than gay, Spitzer told Extra! he did not include a category for bisexuality in his study "because there’s no accepted definition of what bisexuality is." After therapy, conducted prior to the study, 54 percent of Spitzer’s female subjects and just 17 percent of men rated themselves as "exclusively heterosexual"–a remarkably low rate for a sample of possibly bisexual people self-selected for believing they had changed from gay to straight. Another presentation, by New York psychotherapists Ariel Shidlo and Michael Schroeder, stood in stark contrast: Of 202 randomly recruited subjects who had tried to change their sexual orientation through therapy, 88 percent failed completely, while 9 percent considered themselves successful but were celibate or still struggling with same-sex behavioral "slips"; only six people (3 percent) were actually successful. Additionally, Shidlo and Schroeder found that a great number of their subjects suffered "significant harm" due to instances in which reparative therapists appeared "not to be practicing in a manner consistent with the APA Ethics Code"–encouraging patients to remember childhood abuse as the "cause" of their homosexuality when no such abuse occurred; insisting that lesbians and gays can never live happy, healthy or monogamous lives; or practicing coercion (for example, students at religious universities were sometimes required to attend conversion therapy in order to graduate or receive financial aid). Guess which study got journalistic top-billing and which was given short-shrift? "Smoldering controversy" The day before the APA conference, an Associated Press (5/8/01) story included a provocative lead–"An explosive new study says some highly motivated gay people can turn straight"–but failed to mention that research to be presented at the same symposium suggested the opposite. One outlet after another raced to report Spitzer’s contention that "some people can change from gay to straight, and we ought to acknowledge that." (CBS Radio, 5/9/01)–usually alongside sharp responses from activists like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s David Elliot, who called the study "snake oil, not science" (New York Times, 5/9/01). Outlets stoked a ratings-grabbing "smoldering controversy" (New Orleans Times-Picayune, 5/10/01) with sensationalized language about the likelihood of gays "switching sides" (Time, 5/21/01) "if they really want to" (AP, 5/8/01). "I hope you’re bracing yourself," a CNN interviewer told Spitzer the day he presented his study (5/9/01), "because already it is the buzz of our newsroom." A typical front-page Boston Herald story (5/9/01) framed the study as "reigniting the fiery debate about whether a ‘cure’ exists for homosexuality." Though some reporters discussed the gay change theory in terms of pathology ("Gays Have Mental Illness and Can Be Cured, Doctor Says," London Daily Telegraph, 5/10/01), many outlets were suitably skeptical, noting that Spitzer’s peers dismissed the study as "lacking in scientific rigor" because "there was no control group, no physiological testing or evidence of long-term success" (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/13/01). Time’s Jeffrey Kluger (5/21/01) called Spitzer’s sample biased and his standards "decidedly subjective." Yet aside from one excellent, in-depth interview buried on Newsweek’s website (5/10/01), the most relevant criticism, the Shidlo/Schroeder study directly contesting the efficacy and safety of reparative therapy, was generally ignored or mentioned only in passing, without quoting–or sometimes even naming–the researchers. "Very few reporters asked" for a copy of the study, Shidlo told Extra!; when he offered to send one, "they seemed uninterested." Even stories that seemed to promise a balanced investigation of both APA presentations failed to make good: A Washington Post (5/9/01) article headlined "Studies on Gays Yield Conflicting Findings" gave only one of 18 paragraphs to the Shidlo/Schroeder study. "We have good reason to suspect, based on our data, that many, many people suffer terribly through the [conversion therapy] process," Shidlo told Extra!. "Would we approve a medicine that helped, say 5 out of a hundred people, but severely hurt 35 of the 100, and didn’t help at all the rest? This is a point that the media ignored." "Should all gays try it?" While news reports wondered "Can gays go straight?" (Seattle Times, 5/9/01), conservative writers presented this as a given, in columns headlined "Gays Can Go Straight" (Denver Post, 5/13/01; National Review Online, 5/14/01). Others used Spitzer’s research to justify anti-gay political activism; in a Baltimore Sun op- ed (6/26/01), Allan Medinger, past president of the ex-gay ministry Exodus International, hoped that public acceptance of "homosexuality as a behavioral choice and not an identity" would "enable Christians
Comments