Rep. Kern's Statements

[hoodlum]

how about something like:

Do you choose the color of your skin?

Do you choose how many fingers you have?

Do you choose how big your ears are?

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by Wingnut

Az,
One final question...

Are you or are you not responsible for your own actions?

This is a simple yes or no question. The answer would be something like....
Yes, I'm responsible for my own actions,
or
No, I'm not responsible for my own actions.

Thanks.

To answer your question, yes. Of course. I have always held myself responsible for my actions.

If you are implying that I could 'choose' to not act on my natural desires, I suppose you are correct, but I see no reason  for a vow of celibacy at this stage of my life.

I don't see my actions as 'sinful' however , so I suppose if you do then that's your problem, not mine.

Do you really care what I do in private? Honestly, like I said before I'm really not that exciting.

[RecycleMichael]

I could be gay if it weren't for the sex part. Then, it would be just like hanging out with your buddies.

[Wingnut]

quote: To answer your question, yes. Of course. I have always held myself responsible for my actions.
If you are implying that I could 'choose' to not act on my natural desires, I suppose you are correct, but I see no reason for a vow of celibacy at this stage of my life.

AzBP,
Thank you for your honest answer. That is all I wanted to know.
No sir, I'm really not interested in what you do in your bedroom. As before, my problem, like most others have, is not what you do in your room, it's when it's paraded in front of us and we're told we have to accept it against our beliefs. Example: the Parker case in Mass.
Thank you very much for your openness in this discussion.
Have a great day.

One last thing.....  

quote: I hope you see that I am not trying to mock you. But show that in fact very few people even try to literally follow the Bible. Ignoring translation and censorship issues, it is open to interpretation and contradicts itself. I won't bother with the list again

I can't believe that those silly Bible scholars still make the same mistakes on all the versions of the Bible for the last several hunderd years. Doesn't anyone ever tell those guys about all these errors!!
I can't wait for the gay/agnostic/linguistic/non-believing, Bible scholars team to complete the offical TulsaNow Forum Bible; the Absolutely, Totally, Correct Translation, version 1.0.
What?? They're not working on it? Awwww, i guess now I'm stuck using my old, incorrect, translation! How am I ever going to find the right path??

[]

[okiebybirth]

quote:Originally posted by Wingnut

quote: To answer your question, yes. Of course. I have always held myself responsible for my actions.
If you are implying that I could 'choose' to not act on my natural desires, I suppose you are correct, but I see no reason for a vow of celibacy at this stage of my life.

AzBP,
Thank you for your honest answer. That is all I wanted to know.
No sir, I'm really not interested in what you do in your bedroom. As before, my problem, like most others have, is not what you do in your room, it's when it's paraded in front of us and we're told we have to accept it against our beliefs. Example: the Parker case in Mass.
Thank you very much for your openness in this discussion.
Have a great day.

I don't believe in divorce, but I have it paraded in front of me everyday of my life too and people think I should accept it even though it's against my beliefs.  The bible says,"So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Matthew 19:6).  But everywhere I go I see people who are remarried, and they display their sinful lifestyle in public right in front of me.  I know they are probably fornicating behind closed doors as well.

You know what I do?  Nothing, because "Judge not lest ye be judged".  People seem not to be strict bible literalist these days and instead of worrying about them, I choose to live my own life.  And I have no worries about trying to pass laws to restrict their life because it really doesn't affect me.  We all have different beliefs and I can't think of anyone that literally follows everything in the bible in these days (it would be difficult unless you made your clothes instead of buying them in the marketplace since Deut 22:11 says, "You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.")

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Really Wingnut, if ever there was a false dichotomy or a loaded question.

I choose to drive a Ford.  I choose to type on the internet.  

But the question you want to ask is:  Do you choose to be gay?  Or do you want to know: Are you responsible for acting on your own gayness?

Just ask the question, don't try to set it up.  It's been asked and answered repeatedly in this thread.  If you want to know this posters opinion, just ask - no one is waiting for an AH HA! moment.

Do you choose to be sexual attracted to women?  Either way, is it a choice to act on that drive?

Of course it is, but 99.9% of people chose to act on their sex drives.  So the relevant question reverts to do you chose your sexual orientation.  I don't think I do, but maybe some people are not hard wired and can chose either way...

Wingnut makes the assumption that gay folk would secretly RATHER have sex with the opposite sex, but have chosen not to.  In other words, there IS no such thing as truly "gay" in Wingnut's world; there're only straight people and "depraved" straight people calling themselves gay.

Did I get that right, Wingnut?

That's pretty funny.  Reminds me of something one of my gay friends used to claim:  "Every man could be gay, the ones who aren't just haven't been handled properly or haven't identified with it yet."  Sort of the homo version of the same thing you were saying.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Wingnut

quote: To answer your question, yes. Of course. I have always held myself responsible for my actions.
If you are implying that I could 'choose' to not act on my natural desires, I suppose you are correct, but I see no reason for a vow of celibacy at this stage of my life.

AzBP,
Thank you for your honest answer. That is all I wanted to know.
No sir, I'm really not interested in what you do in your bedroom. As before, my problem, like most others have, is not what you do in your room, it's when it's paraded in front of us and we're told we have to accept it against our beliefs. Example: the Parker case in Mass.
Thank you very much for your openness in this discussion.
Have a great day.

One last thing.....  

quote: I hope you see that I am not trying to mock you. But show that in fact very few people even try to literally follow the Bible. Ignoring translation and censorship issues, it is open to interpretation and contradicts itself. I won't bother with the list again

I can't believe that those silly Bible scholars still make the same mistakes on all the versions of the Bible for the last several hunderd years. Doesn't anyone ever tell those guys about all these errors!!
I can't wait for the gay/agnostic/linguistic/non-believing, Bible scholars team to complete the offical TulsaNow Forum Bible; the Absolutely, Totally, Correct Translation, version 1.0.
What?? They're not working on it? Awwww, i guess now I'm stuck using my old, incorrect, translation! How am I ever going to find the right path??

[]

While I have no doubt about your sincerity about the factual inaccuracies that run through the bible.

There is no need to correct all the errors in the bible and come up with a new book. You want to know what the bible really means? You want the interpretations and views of legal scholars who studied the bible before it got changed? (sorry for sounding like a broken record, but...) Read the Torah and the Talmud.

You can't selectively quote, you need to look at the whole body of the texts.

[dsjeffries]

True followers of the Bible are required by Jesus himself to do exactly as he says, which, according to some people, is the exact text of the Bible.

"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." Deuteronomy 12:32

Better not eat pork or shellfish, wear mixed-fibre clothing, celebrate Christmas or Easter (both Pagan holidays), be around mentrual women, get a tattoo, work on Sunday, play Football (pigskin) or shave your temples! ...and follow those instructions on how to beat your slaves and wives!  If you don't follow the rules, what are you?



"And in vain they worship Me, Teaching [as] doctrines the commandments of men." Mark 7:7

Sounds like Sally Kern-ism to me.


Nut, I suggest you visit and read these pages:
What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality

The Bible and Homosexuality

Homosexuality and the Bible

[Wingnut]

I appreciate your post and your links for further understanding.
Hoping there would be something new, after reading the first 2 and some of the 3rd, I decided my intelligence had been insulted enough.

Let me explain....
The first guy claims to be a DR. Ok, fine. He doesn't state where he got it from which I find unusual.
He claims to have studied for 50 years. Ok.  He doesn't know if there are 6 or 7 verses talking about homosexuals? From the website:

'•   Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior.
•   The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality.
•   Only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way -- and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today. '

He states there are 1 million verses in the Bible? Ok. There are 31102 verses in the Bible. http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/misc/66books.html


He Claims that Sodom was destroyed because they didn't give to the poor??? Oh, please! They did all kinds of evil things and God destroyed them because they didn't help the needy? He states:
'Listen to what Ezekiel 16:48-49 tell us: "This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes."'

He seems to have missed verse 50 for some reason...
Ezk 16:50 They were haughty and practiced abominable deeds before me. Therefore when I saw it I removed them.

He goes on and on but never really gets to any real substance about anything.
He has no references at all to support anything he says.
I marvel at his ability to earn a Masters degree and to learn Hebrew and Greek, but, sorry, he has not said anything credible here other than his own theories.

Your 2nd link is about as good.
I really like this self-defeating statement from their page:

'Bible translators must be aware of the errors that have been made in previous versions of the Bible; they are widely discussed in theological literature. But it would probably not be economically possible at this time to produce a translation of the Bible that was accurate. People are so used to expecting homophobic references in a half-dozen locations in scripture that they probably would not buy a Bible that was accurate to the original text, or which admitted that the meanings of certain words are unknown. '

Give me a break! Same old song, 2nd verse. People wouldn't buy an accurate Bible?? Too expensive?? Fine, let's all go on being incorrect and keep this silly debate going.

They even go on the claim that the Bible translators are anti-gay and therefore translated in the negative toward gays! Again, no supporting reference, who, where, etc.

It goes on to say there were 3 different possible same-sex relationships in the Bible that are not condemned. 2 of them they admit are not sexual. (why would they even list them?) On the 3rd, David and Jonathan, they try to draw a conclusion that they were without any supporting evidence other that the same "interpreted wrong" stance.
Surprisingly, they do show different versions of the Bible, which all say the same thing, and claim, again, they're all incorrect and its interpreted wrong. No citations as to where to find the correct translation or writings.
They do have some footnote references. They are just more gay publications that will try to support their claims or from where they got their info from. A slanted view? Sure. They also reference different Bible versions.

On the 3rd link, I gave up after I saw they were blatantly twisting Scripture.
You know, twisting it to fit what someone wants to believe or to support their claims.

Again, on the Sodom event, they claim that all the men that wanted to have sex with the Angels, really just wanted to see their papers since they were visitors???
From the article:
'Because Lot was not a 'permanent inhabitant' of Sodom but was a ger or sojourner (that is residing temporarily) he needed permission to entertain foreign guests at night. Lot may have exceeded his rights by receiving and entertaining two foreigners whose intentions might have been hostile and whose credentials it seems, had not been examined. This explanation provides a natural reason for the demand, "Where are the men who came to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them." Hence, when the men of Sodom gathered around to demand that the strangers be brought out to them, "that they might know them" they meant no more than to "know" who they were and the city was consequently destroyed not for sexual immorality but for the sin of inhospitality to strangers. '
Again, read Ezekiel 16:50 above.

From the net.Bible.org website, commentary about genesis 19:5,

10 tn The Hebrew verb éÈãÇò (yada', "to know") is used here in the sense of "to lie with" or "to have sex with" (as in Gen 4:1). That this is indeed the meaning is clear from Lot's warning that they not do so wickedly, and his willingness to give them his daughters instead.
sn The sin of the men of Sodom is debated. The fact that the sin involved a sexual act (see note on the phrase "have sex" in 19:5) precludes an association of the sin with inhospitality as is sometimes asserted (see W. Roth, "What of Sodom and Gomorrah? Homosexual Acts in the Old Testament," Explor 1 [1974]: 7-14). The text at a minimum condemns forced sexual intercourse, i.e., rape. Other considerations, though, point to a condemnation of homosexual acts more generally. The narrator emphasizes the fact that the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with men: They demand that Lot release the angelic messengers (seen as men) to them for sex, and when Lot offers his daughters as a substitute they refuse them and attempt to take the angelic messengers by force. In addition the wider context of the Pentateuch condemns homosexual acts as sin (see, e.g., Lev 18:22). Thus a reading of this text within its narrative context, both immediate and broad, condemns not only the attempted rape but also the attempted homosexual act.

This was a nice try; but overall, all these say the same thing: the Bible is interpreted wrong, and gives nothing as to where it can be found that is right.

You know, I really was joking about someone writing a new version of the Bible so it could fix all the errors and mistakes, but I wish someone would so we can all be on the same page, so to speak.

I have not had a chance to look at the Torah, but I will try when I get time.

I feel that I've seen, heard, and read enough.

[rwarn17588]

I've grown crashingly bored with this subject. Of all this, I think we can all agree on this:

-- It's stupid for anyone to call homosexuality more harmful to American than radical Islam, especially when there's absolutely evidence to support this contention.

That's what got my hackles up initially about Kern. Even if you don't like homosexuality, such a statement makes you question her sanity or judgment.

[cannon_fodder]

Wingnut, I would be a huge fan of a sound translation of the Bible.  It would be very interesting if it were translation from the most original available text as many book are - with notes that stipulate linguistic differences (like Hebrew "Brother" does not also mean "friend" or if the translation is one shall not "kill" or "murder").  With footnotes explaining cultural significance of items in the parables and so on. Oh, and write it in modern English lest though thinketh God doest not speaketh to thou in thine own tongue.

I am also looking for a archaeological history of the Jewish people (probably just a matter looking).  I know the Biblical story - I also know that people tend to tell their stories in a light that makes them look good (remember the Maine! Those damn Germans sunk the Lusitania for no reason. Native Americans were dumb stone age savages that are better off.  The Mexicans had it coming, we in no way picked a fight.  We won the battles in Vietnam, but lost the war because of hippies.  The Civil war was all about slavery).  It would be interesting to read what evidence and historical context suggests about the exodus, the captivity in Babylon, who they killed to settle the promised land and so on.

It would give me an interesting context to the story of Jesus - which certainly has elements of truth.  How many people realize the great revolt after Herod accorded when Jesus was ~ 8 (that is to say he was well aware the people wanted a military revolt), or that crucification was very common for dissidents - the particular cruelty of it was generally up to the soldier who performed it, most were made to carry their own cross (really the top of the Tau "T" cross), and a well performed execution took DAYS of suffering (meaning Jesus was probably flogged too hard).  Note the authors did not really describe the crucification because it was assumed the reader would no all too well what the event was (as a public spectacle).

Though I am not religious, the historical context of the Bible is fascinating to me.
- - -

But back on point... if your religious convictions dictate you must ensure homosexuals do not gain acceptance then just say so.  I can argue individual versus with you, I can form logical arguments, but when it comes down to it I can disagree with but not argue against religious convictions.

[Wingnut]

quote: .... and a well performed execution took DAYS of suffering (meaning Jesus was probably flogged too hard).  

Interesting note about the Crucifixion...
Jesus hung on the cross for 6 hours. The same times (9 a.m.-3 p.m.) that the priests were sacrificing the Passover lambs. After the lambs were sacrificed, they would put a cedar plank crossways in the carcase to hold open the ribs and one lengthways across the other. Looking at it from above, it made the same shape as the cross Jesus hung on.
A study of the Passover and the Seder is facinating!

Thanks!

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by Wingnut

quote: .... and a well performed execution took DAYS of suffering (meaning Jesus was probably flogged too hard).  

Interesting note about the Crucifixion...
Jesus hung on the cross for 6 hours. The same times (9 a.m.-3 p.m.) that the priests were sacrificing the Passover lambs. After the lambs were sacrificed, they would put a cedar plank crossways in the carcase to hold open the ribs and one lengthways across the other. Looking at it from above, it made the same shape as the cross Jesus hung on.
A study of the Passover and the Seder is facinating!

Thanks!

The Latin cross or the Tau cross?  Jesus was probably crucified on a Tau cross; being force to carry the ~100lb cross bar and affixed to a standing post - forming a capital "T" as it was much more efficient and easier to reuse.  In all of it's cruelty, it was status quo for the Roman army so efficiency would be key... at least that's what scholars tell us.

The record they have been able to find for survival on a cross was 10 days.  Most lived 2 or 3 days as the Romans perfected their torturous displays for maximum effectiveness (a quick death was not seen as a deterrent).  The "T" shape with arms out was adopted because arms tethered directly over head on a single post resulted in death in a matter of hours.

The flogging was to make sure a person hanging on a cross did not have the appearance of a peaceful death.  Thus ensuring blood, bruising, and surely a down trodden victim as the ritual progressed.  Again, the gospels are moot on details other than it was horrible, as they assumed the audience understood crucification.  Luckily, we do not - but the details given all seem very accurate.

Sorry to go into details, but the accuracy on such items over 2,000 years later is interesting.  Not to mention in a context beyond Biblical its hard to imagine thousands of people facing such a death.  Unimaginable.

[flintysooner]

quote:Originally posted by Wingnut

The first guy claims to be a DR. Ok, fine. He doesn't state where he got it

Mel White is pretty well known.  He earned his D.Min. at Fuller Theological Seminary and taught there quite a while.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


I never implied she was part of the KKK.  Furthermore, the notion that we were founded as a Christian nation remains a myth advocated by a very vocal minority.  Many of the founders were far from "Christian" in actuality.  Ben Franklin, George Washington, Jefferson, Madison among many were Deists (not intervening god) or Theists (multiple creating deities) if not nearly agnostic (none of which would be compatible with modern Christianity).    Many had a strong belief in creator(s) but all came together to reject a theocracy.

You quoted Adams as in favor of religious sentiment (though he spoke of "morals" which do not necessarily entail religion), Adams disestablished the Congressional church as president.  Effectively terminating a growing relationship between church and state.  He frequently lamented forcing religion or his bleiefs on others:

Okay, I guess I couldn't keep from writing a windy reply at some point.

Sorry to dredge a two-week old quote, I was tracking back to see where Mel White was first mentioned and found this.  Never did find the first reference to him, but some of the replies have gotten pretty wordy.

I'm going to assume your commentary on our political/religious origins stems partially from your study of the law.  

I once knew a fellow who had moved here to attend Rhema.  He claimed that in order to sign the Declaration of Independence, one had to be a tongue-talking Christian.

Not saying true or false on either of you, just interesting how in the study of the law, it would appear we weren't necessarily founded by Christians.  Take some religious classes and you're told that only those with gifts of the spirit were worthy to be an "official" founding father.  No idea which notion is correct, just fascinating where viewpoints are fomented.

The mention of Mel White brought to mind a Sunday school discussion at a church I used to attend.  The discussion was about sin, someone made the comment about how awful Mel White was for hoodwinking top religious leaders while being a closeted gay.

Several other people piped up about it and how there was a cozy corner in hell for people like Mel White.  Crux of the discussion though had been that all sin was equal.  

When it was my turn to speak, I pointed out from the looks of things in the room- there were gluttons, iconoclasts, drunks, and by popular statistics- most likely a few adulterers in the room.  Place got real silent and there was a lot of self-reflection.  As I recall, the room remained quiet for a couple of minutes.

Point is, Jesus' covenant was to wipe away archaic laws and take away human judgement over other humans.  Each and every one of us is a flawed human and sinner.  How can I, with any conscience say who is and isn't worthy of God's grace?  Last time I checked, he's the final authority on it, and last time I checked, I'm definitely not God.  

I can't say I agree 100% with Carlton Pearson, but his Gospel of inclusion is intriguing, and was one hell of a personal epiphany and conviction to cause him to lose a lot of power, prestige, and, money.  I still have a problem with the idea of Hitler eating at the same table as saints, but that's God's deal not mine.  Why should I be worried about who else is worthy of grace when I should only be worried about my own?   That's where the trouble usually starts for Christians anyhow.

One cool thing about when I go to New Dimensions is I see and talk to a lot of people who previously were un-churched.  They either quit going or never went to church before because they were told they weren't worthy and standards were set by man's interpretation of who or what is worthy of grace.  The gay and lesbian community seem to be well-represented along with many other common sinners.

Back to Mel White.  He endured years of what was essentially self-mortification trying to supress something he'd been told was bad and wrong all his life.  But he realized he served a God who was all-forgiving and he realized God didn't intend for his life to be a daily hell.  People can call Mel White a blasphemer or heretic if they wish and cast all kinds of dispersions.  They need to realize though, it's ultimately not their call.  He's bringing spirituality to many people otherwise disenfranchised by religion.

I can't see anywhere that bringing more people to a spiritual foundation is a bad thing.

If people are raising their children to what their own dictated moral code is in their house, then they should have no fear of homosexual messages in schools, on TV or in movie theaters.  Science and andecdotal evidence seem to point that it's not environment, nor "recruiting" which makes someone turn out gay.  The only proven way to not have a gay child is to not have kids.

People need to quit worrying about who's lying, who's not living right, who's leading who astray and focus on their own relationship w/ God before they lose sight of it.