BS: Puffs in the church.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Sorcha
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 10:49 PM

Hmmmm.Interesting. Seemed to have missed thi the first time around. I 'think' I am mostly hetero, but mabe Bi. I 'think' I might enjoy sex with another woman...at least once. BUT, and this is a BIG but, I get to choose which female. It would at least, make an interesting experince. Not yet met a female I'm willing to try this with.

I really do like the female form....this could get interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 11:15 PM

Oh.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 01:42 AM

jOhn, you are very funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 01:51 AM

tjis is serios thing=
there is too many pufters in the church nowadays, and they should kick them out.
if i was church boss i would sack them,
ps=i'm not bothered about pufters [gays etc]
but wehn they start fiddling with little boys etc theuy should sack them, and not let them be vicars any more.


i saw a programme about it, it said that loads of vicars like playing with little boys [touching there willies and stuff like that],
they should sack them, and you never see it in other religons, like buddists or seeks or hindoos or things like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 02:00 AM

just to make it clear=I am not anti puff.
i have worked with a few queers and most of them was ok.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 02:03 AM

I just noticed that half of the current line up of Punch The Horse have replied to this thread, not sure waht this proves, if anything!

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 06:51 AM

I've got a beard and I voted for the paedophiles

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: GUEST,Hugh Jampton
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 06:09 AM

Ever since I can remember our local church has never allowed smoking at Sunday service!

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 08:05 AM

I don't think it's an issue. I haven't noticed where Puff Daddy wants to be a vicar.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: GUEST,Fred
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 12:40 PM

Sir jOhn: All I know is that I really like to follow you down the street - you've got such a sweet ass!!! Can we meet?

Fred

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 12:53 PM

Sir JOhn: please stop annoying politically correct Americans, it's like shooting fish in a barrel: beneath your dignity.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 04:35 PM

when the BNP has simply not enough class, vote child molester!

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: GUEST,Holly Johnson
Date: 02 Sep 04 - 11:56 AM

Everyone please come to my Church if you want to pray and enjoy a smoke. It's in Liverpool, showers are provided and soap is glued to the floor, its nice x

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: el_punkoid_nouveau
Date: 03 Sep 04 - 09:46 AM

Well, I thought it was about fags at the altar - maybe I wasn't wrong, just missed the sense.

Next thing will be complaints about Lady Vicars...

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Dewey
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 02:01 AM

If You Have A Biblical Church, the Answer Would Be A Resounding: No. St Paul Was very clear on this subject, Homosexuality is an abomination (as dictated in the epistles)

Can Anyone Go To Church, Of Course, and that who not a problem in any Biblical teaching!

If you wish to have A Homosexually Lead Church inthis Great Democracy of Ours, You are rightfully free do to so. You'll get no complaints from me. As for the Christian God of the Bible, and how he sees it... Well, You'll just have to deal with him.

I remember a Christian friend of mine had a similar take on gay marriage:

I mentioned to him, Did You Know They're Marrying Gay Couples Out East?

His Response was not hateful but sincere:

"Well I'm Sure the Lord Will Be Happy About That"

Of course by mentioning this, I will probably be seen as hateful myself. I have several homosexual aquaintances (friends) and out of respect to them I never mention the biblical references, you cannot change a person's mind of belief's one way or the other, but the biblical take on homosexuality is clear, It is an abomination to God.

Dewey

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: John P
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 10:02 AM

Dewey,
The bible also says that adulterers should be taken outside the city and stoned to death. It also says that wearing clothes woven out of two kinds of cloth is an abomination -- the same word used for homosexuality. I think we need to make sure that no one wears poly/cotton blends to church! And won't it be fun to help stone all those people who have extramarital affairs? Oh yeah, the bible also tells us to eat a kosher diet. Have you looked in your fridge lately?

I don't know if you are hateful, but you sure sound like a hypocrite, with your picking and choosing which parts of the bible to pay attention to. It sounds to me like you just don't like homosexuality and are looking for an excuse other than your personal tastes to call it bad.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: GUEST,realist
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 10:33 AM

Dewey Says:

" If you wish to have A Homosexually Lead Church inthis Great Democracy of Ours, You are rightfully free do to so. You'll get no complaints from me. As for the Christian God of the Bible, and how he sees it... Well, You'll just have to deal with him."

Right on, Dewey!!! And since there is no God, there is nothing you have to deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: JennyO
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 11:34 AM

It must be time for this little gem, which has been doing the rounds:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend homosexuality, for example, I will simply remind him or her that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other laws in Leviticus and Exodus and how to best follow them. To wit:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as stated in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24). The problem is, how can I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Leviticus 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Canadians, but not Mexicans. Can you clarify?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine says that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Leviticus 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Sincerely,
A devoted listener

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 02:00 PM

I find it rather ironical that the word "gay" was once an ordinary word for happy and then became the word chosen by...gays...to be used as an agreeable word for themselves...in response to the nastier insult words like "queer", "faggot", etc that gay-hating people were using...

but now in every Canadian school the favoured insult word for gay-hating youths to use in order to denigrate gays is..............

(drum roll)

GAY!!!! It has become a "hate" word for teenagers!

Amazing, isn't it? You just can't stop people from being prejudiced, fearful idiots by popularizing a politically correct new word to replace a politically correct older word.

Another similar history: black, negro, darkie, n*gger, shine, afro-American, colored person, black!!! (full circle)

Another similar history: Indian, noble savage, redman, Injun, savage (period), redskin, First Nations person, Native, Native American... (sigh)

You can always find people willing to find one or another of the above words deeply offensive, but the question is...which one??? And when?

That answer varies as the style changes. Note that one of the above words is presently considered SO offensive that I put an asterisk in it so as not to be stigmatized and possibly burned at the stake for daring to put it in print.

Lenny Bruce had the right idea about all this. He dared to demonstrate just how silly it is, until people got the point: we are all one people, and our differences are a blessing, not a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: GUEST,Billy
Date: 04 Sep 04 - 11:42 PM

Here's a church
that actually advertises.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Dewey
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 01:25 AM

John Peekstok,

I don't recall singling out homosexuals in particular, as the only sinners, and I ask anyone now that can find evidence of this to point it out herein.

The post was whether or not there was biblical advocation for Homosexual Leadership in Church, This answer is no. It would also pertain to others sin issues as well, but mentioning them here would not make one un-hypocritical, it would just signify a stray from the topic at hand.

I would, however, agree with your point that hypocritical leadership positions have occured in other manifestations of sins, adultry as you say, acoholism etc, and yes the focus on these is not as great as the homosexual focus.

Still just because there are other sins, doesn't signified advocating more. St Paul was clear on the need for Spotlessness in the LEADERSHIP, In the Epistle's he is quoted as saying, "A Bishop Must Be Blameless"



How you get the nerve, from all of this, to say that I am a hypocrite for not mentioning the other sins is beyond me.

I am NOT a Church Leader, but I do understand the Church Doctrine as it was written, and along with the mulitudes of other sins, Paul confronted this was a prevailant one in the early church that he addres and gave the final say to. (I am sorry if it offends you to hear the truth on his take on the issue)

I have Homosexual acquaintances (and, yes they are just that acquaintances), I also have Alcoholic Friends, and well as friends that are quite loose in the areas of extra-martial affairs.

Sure, I am NOT perfect myself, and probably have similar if not equal sins. I also know that if a person does any of these things (or the above) in a leadership position, he is a stubblingblock to the cause of christ. He would be welcome in the church ANYTIME, just not in a leadership position.

Of Course, you are perfectly right: I am not I'm wild about homosexuality, but that would also go for other issues like alcoholism, adultry etc.

I would taker a guess (and it is only a guess) that since you have called me a hypocrite, you most likely feel that homosexuality should be tolerated in church.

If you wish to start you own church, based on this, go ahead as you please.

Putting words, in my mouth all calling me a Hypocrite for pointing out the Pauline Letters of emphasis is unfortunate.

I am NOT in a ministerial position nor desire one, and yes I have sins too, foul language at times in the past, lusting in my heart etc.

I also know that when I did these things, I was not in a LEADERSHIP POSITION, And, had I been, any one these sins (homosexuality included) would and should be wrong biblically (i.e. not tolerated by the church leadership)

The tragedy in todays churches in NOT homosexual avocacy exculsively but the advocacy of most sin in General, Church leadership is MUCH more sinful than it was say 40 years ago. Nowadays any hypocrite in high ranking can preach despite his moral conduct (in any area) Unfortunately this doesn't make the church any healthier in its sanctity.

But then again, I am TOO old Fashioned for this group,

Dewey (the sinner)

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: John P
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 09:44 AM

Dewey,
You're right, you didn't single out homosexuality in your comments. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. But . . . how can you stand to be a Christian if you really think the church leadership needs to be blameless according to all the precepts that are laid down in the Bible? There is no church leader alive who follows all the "rules". Maybe you aren't, but lots of your compatriots are drawing the line at homosexulaity while ignoring lots of other activities that are considered just as bad by the Bible. Why should homosexuality be any different than any of the other abominations?

John

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Peg
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 10:15 AM

Homsexuality and pedophilia are not related, and stating they are catss homsexuality as a perversion or mental illness, which it is not. The majority of male pedophiles go after little girls.