Hello everybody

[Nikolai]

Of course, during those days, not submitting did mean possible death...

[molly bloom]

The papal bull does not say she killed them.

I know. What did Benny say ?

She (Elizabeth I) was excommunicated for executing priests that performed the sacraments

The Papal Bull also goes on to make errors of its own, such as suggesting that English Roman Catholics were not part of the Royal, or Privy Council. As I've shown, they were. Elizabeth did not 'usurp' the throne either- as the last of Henry VIII's offspring she inherited the throne following the death of her sister- who had had some experience killing ecclesiastics herself- Mary Tudor accounted for five bishops executed not for treason (like Roman Catholic seminary priests and Jesuits who entered England after the Papal Bull) but for heresy.

It's worth pointing out that just because something is stated in a Papal Bull doesn't make it true- just like Ben's absurd and unsupported claims.

[Ming]

It is a lot easier when you can demonize your opponents. It allows you to hate them.

Sounds like a christian tactic to me... aren't all gays sinners who are going to hell according to you?
That's sure a lot more harsh then thinking a bunch of people who wish to deny equal rights simply because of sexual preference are bigots.
No one here is saying that you are all going to suffer eternal damnation... So where is the REAL hate here.

[Zevico]

Sounds like a christian tactic to me... aren't all gays sinners who are going to hell according to you?
That's sure a lot more harsh then thinking a bunch of people who wish to deny equal rights simply because of sexual preference are bigots.
No one here is saying that you are all going to suffer eternal damnation... So where is the REAL hate here.

You know, I could care less who thinks I'm going to suffer eternal damnation. Why should you? Why do you assume that those who believe this hate sinners?

[Ming]

Gee.... You are a bigot who wants to deny equal rights vs you are a sinner who is going to hell and burn in eternal damnation... which do you think more demonizes your opponents. It's not how YOU feel about what others think about you... it's about HOW they feel about you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes- well mentally ill people make ludicrous claims all the time- they too lack any proof or evidence for them.

Pretty feeble ad hominem argument. Is this the best you've got, Molly?

No, it's part and parcel of the Commission's remit as far as I understand it, and you hysterically and inaccurately labelling it 'harassment' and 'persecution' don't make it so.

So, hauling him before the commission and charging him with hate speech is different from persecution? How? The man is being charged for expressing the opinion that homosexuality is sinful. That's contrary to his Charter rights to freedom of expression, and freedom of religion.

The key is that the actions or comments are viewed as demeaning and unacceptable to the recipient.

Ah. So, if a gay person attends his service in his parish and he expresses the biblical teaching that homosexuality is sinful, then that means he ought to be charged?

Just because you don't like the fact that the Reverend was asked to appear before the Commission because other people found his rantings objectionable doesn't mean the Commission was harassing him.

It is harrassment, and it is persecution. Plain and simple. Just because people believe they have a right not to be offended, doesn't justify star chambers to weed out unpopoular opinions.

Other people who aren't of the Reverend's particular form of religious persuasion or even necessarily gay or lesbian may have found his screed offensive. That is one of the roles of the Commission, isn't it, to investigate such complaints ?

And hauling him before the commission for exercising his rights is persecution. Just because the state sanctions persecution, doesn't make it not persecution.

You haven't done anything like 'prove' your argument so far- you stated that your 'faith' was persecuted

You've admitted all the salient points.

One, expressing the opinion that homosexuality is sinful is offensive.
Two, human rights commission are charged with investigating complaints of offensive speech.

Ergo, expressing Christian opinions is subject to state sanctioned oppression.

I'm fairly sure that the Act doesn't exempt religious bigots

So you believe that people do not have the right to express the opinion that homosexuality is sinful?

[Ben Kenobi]

It's worth pointing out that just because something is stated in a Papal Bull doesn't make it true- just like Ben's absurd and unsupported claims.

Oddly enough, the papal bull confirms persecution (including execution), of priests for performing the sacraments. Exactly as I said.

Now, if you want to argue contrary, it's up to you to provide some documentation for your position. "Molly said so", isn't authoritative. Documentation, provided by a neutral party here has already substantiated my position. Now, it's your turn to do the same.

[Jon Miller]

We are all sinners.

JM

[Ming]

Are we all going to burn in hell for eternal damnation? or is that just gays and not you?

[Jon Miller]

Sounds like a christian tactic to me... aren't all gays sinners who are going to hell according to you?
That's sure a lot more harsh then thinking a bunch of people who wish to deny equal rights simply because of sexual preference are bigots.
No one here is saying that you are all going to suffer eternal damnation... So where is the REAL hate here.

No. That is not what Christians claim.

For someone who was raised Christian you have a poor understanding of it. Maybe it is because you were raised Catholic?

We are all sinners. We all deserve death (we don't all have the same sins, but we are all sinners). By accepting Christ as our savior, our sins are forgiven.

If homosexual activity is not sinful for homosexuals (which I think is a reasonable interpretation of Paul/etc), then homosexuals are still sinners. And are still doomed to hell (well, if there were a hell), without a savior. Just like me.

JM
(Of course, it isn't at all what I say, I don't even believe in hell.)

[Ben Kenobi]

Elizabeth did not 'usurp' the throne either

Actually, yes she did. The Percys have the senior claim by male preference Primogeniture from Edward III.

Edward III
.Edward the Black Prince
..Richard II of England
.Lionel of Antwerp
..Phillippa of Clarence
...Roger Mortimer 4th Earl of March
...Edmund Mortimer
...Elizabeth Mortimer
....Henry Percy 2nd Earl of Northhumberland
.....Henry Percy 3rd Earl of Northhumberland
......Henry Percy 4th Earl of Northhumberland
.......Henry Percy 5th Earl of Northhumberland
........Henry Percy 6th Earl of Northhumberland
........Thomas Percy Knight (attainted, executed)
.........Thomas Percy 7th Earl of Northhumberland (attainted, executed)
.John of Gaunt 1st Duke of Lancaster
..Henry Bolingbroke IV King of England
...Henry V King of England
....Henry VI King of England
.....Edward Prince of Wales
..John Beaufort 1st Earl of Somerset (illegitimate)
...John Beaufort 1st Duke of Somerset
....Lady Margaret Beaufort
.....Henry VI King of England
.Edmund of Langley 1st Duke of York
..Richard of Conisburgh 3rd Earl of Cambridge
...Richard Plantagenet 3rd Duke of York
....Edward IV King of England
.....Elizabeth of York
......Henry VIII King of England
.......Elizabeth I Queen of England

Odd that Elizabeth would execute those with a higher claim to the throne of England than her. Isn't that called ursurpation?

Elizabeth's claim goes through Elizabeth of York, through Edmund of Langley (4th son of Edward III), and through Henry VII, Margaret Beaufort and John of Gaunt (3rd son of Edward III), and his mistress.

The Percy's claim goes through Lionel of Antwerp (2nd son of Edward III), and his daughter Philippa, and her daughter Elizabeth Mortimer, and then through all the Percy's, who were just conveniently executed by Elizabeth. Prior to the issuance of the Papal bull.

[Jon Miller]

Are we all going to burn in hell for eternal damnation? or is that just gays and not you?

I don't pretend to judge, and I have no clue of the state of you or anyone else.

But if I were to look at the surface (who has accepted Christ visually/etc), MrFun would go to heaven and MikeH would (unfortunately) not.

This despite them both being pretty good guys.

Personally I hope that MikeH will be in heaven.

Engaging in homosexual activity would be just one particular sin (I am pretty sure it isn't a mortal sin even in the Catholic church).

JM

[rah]

Quick question Ben.
If the RCC suddenly proclaimed that they supported Gay Marriages, would you support it?

[dannubis]

So you are pro abortion. Would you say that those who didn't support slavery as an easy way out, but defend the right of slave owners to own slaves were not 'pro slavery?'. "Don't like slavery, don't own a slave!"

I have 3 possibilities:

1. You are being deliberately stupid
2. You are being brainwashed
3. You actually can't understand what people are trying to say to you.

So the fact that higher education teaches people to support abortion, is evidence of 'independent thought', or is it just the contrary?

If the study showed that those who were more religious were less likely to support abortion - would you conclude that religion was brainwashing these people?

1. It is actually a fact that higher education does not teach people to support abortion. It is a logical conclusion that if you want freedom of personal choice (e.g. freedom of religeon), you also accept that gay people can get married (which was the subject of the discussion) and that mothers have the choice to abort their unborn children (within the period established by law).

2. YES. Dogmatic crap tends to do that to the more stupid segment of loyal followers of the flock.

[rah]

Maybe you should take ''STOP QUOTING BEN" out of your signature.