BS: Puffs in the church.

Subject: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 01:50 AM

Do yoiu think they should let pufters be in the church?
ie be vicars and that?

i don't go to church any more, [i reckon its a bit boring],

i heard on the news loads of times recently that loads of gay vicars have been fiddling with little boys, i heard on the news just now, that one church has got so much compensation claims going from vicars fiddling with little boys, that they have gone bankrupt!


[this is true, i just heard it on bbc radio 4]


why don't they just ban them from been church people?


[if you join the army, they ask you , ie are you a poof? anser=no , = you can join the army then] [that was a few years ago, i think they let them join now, not sure really]


ps=i'm not rasist or anything like that, i don't mind puffs, just as long as they are not ramming it down your throat all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 02:31 AM

hhhahhahah

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Amergin
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 02:57 AM

Are you thinking of becoming a vicar then?

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 03:00 AM

You calling me a puff?

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 03:04 AM

jOhn,

"ramming it down your throat?" Gross but funny!

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: el ted
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 04:06 AM

Lemon puffs?

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 04:14 AM

Well that takes the biscuit!

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: el ted
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 04:28 AM

yo jOhn,
       I think buggery is still illegal in the army.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 04:30 AM

By the number of recent posts you've made Joh9n, I would guess you're going through one of your fruitfull phases.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: el ted
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 04:38 AM

Brenda has left him, and he has nowt else to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: mooman
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 04:51 AM

...and there was me thinking this was a thread about flatus in basilicum!

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: 42
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 07:28 AM

i though this was another anti smoking rant thread. So sorry to have eavesdropped.

j

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 09:12 AM

Fancy a couple of days in Norfolk, John? If so, get in touch (I'm not sure you use the Annexe regularly enough to PM you there). I could be wrong but get the feeling a break may do you the world of good (and I promise no preaching from me on any subject).

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: ThreeSheds
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 09:20 AM

I thought it was a pro smoking thread

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: el ted
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 09:22 AM

jOhn smokes, gawd bless him.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: GUEST,Keith A o Hertford
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 09:49 AM

You are allowed to be gay in the army, but it's not compulsory yet.
No sex acts are allowed except in married quarters.
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: muppett
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 10:32 AM

Wot about (Puff)the magic dragoon, what's your thoughts on him then John?

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 12:38 PM

I knew some guys who puffed in the church, but they were caught and made to go to drug rehab.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Bert
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 12:57 PM

To get back on track, there's one shurch I know of that sacked a couple of priests for having affairs with women of the church.

But they turn a blind eye to the ongoing homosexual relationship of the head priest.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 01:32 PM

seems like they'd be pretty quiet and inoffensive I see no problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: wysiwyg
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 02:28 PM

But Bill, that's Togo's national team-- once they get going, there's no holding back the CROWD.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 02:33 PM

No, Puff's not in the church. He's frolicking in the autumn mist in a land called Honah Lee.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 12:29 AM

Puffs: where is the term from?

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 04:47 AM

Powder puffs, got it ?
eric

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Skipjack K8
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 11:10 AM

jOhn, there might be two questions here.

1. Should homosexuality be tolerated in the clergy, which Keith A's post would aptly answer, and

2. Should paedophilia be tolerated in the clergy, where I suspect you are leaning on an open door.

I'm told the use of the P word by non-adherents is about as popular in the gay community as the N word in race relations, and you are to be congratulated on publicly stating your anti-racist standing.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Once Famous
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 11:19 AM

Are gays a race?

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Skipjack K8
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 12:07 PM

Err, no, Martin.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Backstage Manager(inactive)
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 12:11 PM

No Martin, gays are not a race. Homosexuality cuts across all races, ethnicities and nationalities.

The use of terms like "puff" or "faggot" about gays is hateful and demeaning in much the name way that "nigger" is to black people and that "kike" is to Jews, etc.

You claim to be Jewish, as I am. As a Jew, I understand the consequences of such prejudice and discrimination.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 03:45 PM

Having sexual relations with children is illegal and immoral. That said, it has nothing to do with homo or heterosexuality. It has to do with people who need to have themselves checked in to a seriously good facility to be readjusted.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: darkriver
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 05:42 AM

jOhn arsks: why don't they just ban them from been church people?...

Good question. Unfortunately, the really big lawsuits (in the US of A anyway) stem from the fact that, so far from banning them, the church officials went out of their way to cover up the pedophilia and keep the errant priests on.

So jOhn's got the right idea. Anyone want to campaign for jOhn becoming Archbishop of Canterbury? (A step up from being Sir jOhn of Hull, MBE or no MBE).

Doug

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 04:56 PM

What has all this stuff about poofs got to do with smoking in church?

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 09:12 PM

More than you think. Much, much more. Look at it this way,

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 09:28 PM

There are puffs in my church - it's from the burning incest.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 11:27 PM

Well, gol danged...

I remember going to Billy D's wedding back 'round '69 'er so an' his wife ot be's parents wanted their daughter to be married in the church so, ahhhh, we all went down to the Goodwill Store and got us some $5 siuts to wear....

Well, the day of the wedding was upon us and we all looked, well, okay. Not great, mind you, but okay. Well, maybe okay minus but, hey, they were real suits. Hey, it takes a small mind to think that suit have to fit perfectly....

But there we were sittin' in the back of the church since we weren't too sure which side of the isle we wanted to side with. You'd have to know Billy D. Hey, we didn't even know his bride too well but being on Billy D's side just didn't seem right as we did know him....

So here we were in the back of the church. You know, me and my raggedy friends... Well, this was one of them long Catholic doings with lots of ups and downs and ins and outs and secret handshakes and all that Catholic stuff that we didn't know jack about....

So I look down at the pew we was sitting in and there's my buddy Bo tolling a big ol' fat doobie and about the third 'er forth up and down 'er in and out, he lights that bad boy up....

I mean, here we were in the back of this Catholic church way back 'round Waynesbore, Va., the home of the Statler Brothers and Bo has just fired up a big ol' stinky doobie and passed it down the pew to the rest of us... Well, back 'round 1969 this ol' hillbilly thought it was a sin to pass up a little puff on a stinky doobie and since I was in a church I figgured that, ahhhh, I had to do it. So I takes me a big ol' puff. Maybe too big a puff, come to think of it, 'cause I got to coughing and carrying on and I'm looking down that pew in the back of that Catolic church at them Goodwill suited frined o' mine and they is all laughing an' carryin' on while Iz coughing my danged brains out and all the respectable people were looking back at us like we'd just kilt the Pope 'er somethin'....

Well, to this very day when we all get together it makes fir a good laugh so when it comes down to puffin' in church I say, what the hey, if they can't take a joke.............

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: bengi
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 12:15 AM

Twelve priests were about to be ordained. The final test was for them to line up in a straight row, totally nude, in a garden while a sexy and beautiful, big breasted, nude model danced before them.

Each priest had a small bell attached to his penis and they were told that anyone whose bell rang when she danced in front of them would not be ordained because he had not reached a state of spiritual purity.

The beautiful model danced before the first candidate, with no reaction.
She proceeded down the line with the same response from all the priests until she got to the final priest (Carlos).

As she danced, his bell began to ring so loudly that it flew off and fell clattering to the ground. Embarrassed, Carlos took a few steps forward, and bent over to pick it up.

Then, all the other bells started to ring.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 01:00 AM

psssssttttt Bobert, wrong town for the Statlers. You mean Staunton, I believe. I used to live right down the road.)

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 04:10 AM

If we banned homosexuals from being priests, we wouldn't have enough priests to go round.

What got my goat was a known homosexual (and practicing, he's got it right now) priest openly campaigning that women priests were against the teaching of the Bible. Er... which bits did he miss reading?!

It shows how much attitudes to the church have changed in the last 100 years though - in 1890 you would not have dared question the priest on any subject, let alone accuse him of a crime.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 08:49 AM

I don;t need no priests LTS you can have my share, I'm an atheist.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 09:29 AM

I don't like Puffs 'cos they stole the word "Gay" - a word widely used in English-speaking folk song - and a word designed to soften their perverse way of life.On the national news they should be known collectively as arse-bandits or benders.
As for them existing in Churches - it's quite understandanble with all that dressing-up, how can you take anyone seriously when they dress up so theatrically and far far too much self impotance.
How can an Archbishop possibly be nearer to God than us - it's ridiculous - Organised religion stinks - but it's quite important (for me) to believe in God and the principles of Christ - but you don't need an Organised church for that, especially when it's full of benders.
Puffs in churches and schools is indefensible - especially near children / choir boys and all the rest of it , and as for promoting through their teachings that homosexuality is an acceptable mode of living , is beyond my comprehension and forever may it remains so.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 09:39 AM

Does anyone know of any statistics for the rate of chld abusers amongst gay and straight people? Just like to have numbers for when people start equating homosexuality with paedophilia.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 09:46 AM

Ebbie,

I told you it was a big ol' doobie, din'd I? Heck, I coulda been in Staunton. It's only another few miles west o' Waynesboro. All I remember was driving to Charlottesville from Richmond and tunrnin' left.

You know me when it come to turning left, sometimes I overshooot my destination... Jus' ask T 'er Doug. They'll tell ya...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: GUEST,Honey monster
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 10:24 AM

I think sugar puffs should be allowed in church.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 12:05 PM

You know, when there is a discussion on homosexuality- among just about any mixed group- I have to wonder just how silly we're going to feel when eventually the last word on causality gets known.

I'm not homosexual, as it happens- and believe me, I think it just happened that I'm not; I had nothing to do with it- but it doesn't threaten me.

When someone speaks of being gay or lesbian as a lifestyle or a choice or even a preference, it makes me laugh. Anyone who thinks of it that way is saying the equvalent of 'If you decided to or gave yourself the chance or met the 'right' person, you would not be lesbian or gay.' In actuality we will continue to respond and react to the side we innately favor.

If it were an actual choice, then any close relationship between two people would have the probability of becoming a sexual relationship. And that is not so. If I, for example, spend a great deal of time with a female friend, or learn to love and admire her very much, I may become closer to her than to any other human being in my life- but it will not necessarily involve any sexual feelings at all.

In that sense, sexual acts are just another way to come to feel close to another human being. There are numerous routes to closeness.

Believing this as I do, it makes no sense to me at all that heterosexual people should feel any sense of superiority. The homosexual could be you- and in all likelihood, in another lifetime, will be you.

(It is true that I don't want to dwell on the sexual acts between two men, but it is also true that I don't want to dwell on the acts between two different-sex people!)

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 05:40 AM

Homosexuality is very common among animals, including female animals, so it's not "unnatural". Having sexual relations with children is wrong, because it's very bad for the children. eople in responsible positions should behave responsibly, as no doubt most of them do. It's not a good idea to put someone in the way of temptation if they are not good at resisting; and it's very wrong of anyone to try to put themselves in a position where they can abuse their responsibility.

So there.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 07:53 AM

The laws of nature are quite simple - opposites attract.
We are attracted to the opposite sex - we are not attracted to our own sex, or, for example , not sexually attrracted to members of our own family , it is innate.
Some priests and vicars choose to enjoy anal intercourse with men and boys and I simply cannot understand how such people can stand up an preach the moral values of a family life and a decent Society .
Rememeber,that other Social Vandal - Thatcher saying "There are men, there are women there are children - but no such thing as Society ".
I fear that many of these chameleons ( which is what homosexual priests are ) are extremely good in articulating their position in this matter - but my advice to them - would be, to, go and get a proper job.
Incidentally the church of England assets were published yesterday -
4.5 Billion Pounds Sterling , (for US$ X BY 1.8) it's not only the puffs who are indecent - Organised Religion is decadent.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 08:52 AM

Turd burglars

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 09:57 AM

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, October 3 1987

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: Bert
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 10:34 AM

GUEST, that sounds like a typical government spiel. A government trying to get out of doing the job that they are being paid for.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 02:14 AM

From PFLAG: 95% of the men who are paedophiles are heterosexuals and very often married or in heterosexual relationships.

Subject: RE: BS: Puffs in the church.
From: ossonflags
Date: 15 Jul 04 - 12:01 AM

A few things to ponder on John, if your doing nowt.

Sexual Orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine roles)

Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only). Very rarely refered to as "puffs" or even "poufs"

Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.
So there.

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.