rhino

I see adulterers gets slammed here quite strongly ... I have not seen homosexuals get slammed. I'm guessing most think thieves should be punished ... I don't seen anyone calling for homosexuals to be punished. Are you just making things up here? congrats ... you got the Hitler attack in there along with a TWI thinking accusation ... A threat to the American family? I guess you are referring to the majority that don't want same sex marriage ... yet overall I think a majority do support civil unions. Are you offering any solid evidence? Who said they had to be dealt with as harmful? Should homosexuals be listed as a protected civil rights group? That seems like "special rights". Should schools be required to teach that homosexual behavior is moral? Should business be required to fulfill a quota of homosexuals in their offices. There are many ramifications to listing homosexuals as a civil rights group. They already have the right to equal protection under the law. That is not enough for some that are leading the charge on this. Maybe if you could stop your eyeballs from going in circles you could grasp this more readily. Well you have shown what YOU think ... You made up that whole dramatic spiel from your own imagination ... doesn't that make YOU the drama queen? Clearly you think "uncivility" is good ... but in a request to have a civil discourse, it seemed odd to me to point out that you would "rot in h@ll" if you presented certain beliefs. Nobody has condemned homosexuals .. yet others have been condemned for holding what others have judged to be harmful beliefs. I guess you haven't been paying attention Garth ... I haven't thumped a Bible in over 20 years (I don't recall ever "thumping"). My concern is more that political correctness is trumping the good morals of many. Why should homosexuals get a special legal classification as a protected group? This would give them more legal clout than the "normal" citizen in court regarding jobs, housing, whatever.

If you read my posts .. you could see where most of the price increase is from the price of crude ... the other portions actually decreased. These guys don't make all their money at the pump ... the are all pumping it out of the ground ... so that is not a COST ... it is income. The oil they pumped out a few years ago got them $10/barrel ... now it gets them $135. So why do you say that should NOT increase their profits? NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil made history on Friday by reporting the highest quarterly and annual profits ever for a U.S. company, boosted in large part by soaring crude prices. Oh wait, that must be wrong, our guru p-mosh said crude prices should not help Exxon profits ... :blink: WOW ... that's quite a list of conspiracy theories ... you think government regulations have nothing to do with the refinery problem? You think FOX news is driving up the price of oil? If their viewers are as stupid as you usually claim, do they really have any money to throw into commodities? You think that one guy manipulated the market? He just overpaid ... in the short term he lost money. I could offer $200/barrel and they would gladly take my money. There may be manipulation ... but as with the stock bubble, people go with the flow ... they started up a bunch of commodity funds and everyone has piled in which has driven up prices, since they are trading on futures. And now with a wet spring and flooding, prices are driven up based on supply. Also huge is that the two plus billion people in China and India are eating higher on the hog and consuming more. Commodity markets are open to speculators? God forbid ... when has the futures market not been about speculating? WOW ... you know they are pulling an Enron? They get ten times what they used to for the oil they pull out of the ground ... they should be making a profit or I would say they are doing something wrong. When OPEC drove prices down to $10 and these guys were losing money, did the government offer to help? Just take over their company and jail them ... because gas prices are higher? What has been controlled by government is any drilling around many areas in the US. We need less government control ... Exxon and companies would gladly pull a lot of oil from around the US ... Democrats say no. Obama says higher prices are fine.

I like your first line ... Those are the kind of questions I figured this thread was about ... probably each should be its own thread maybe. I don't see why there needs to be any action specifically to benefit homosexuals. That seems to be part of the problem ... "gay rights". Do gays/lesbians get special privileges for some reason? other than that, the decision is whether it is equal rights, or special privileges. At times it seems the gay lesbian crowd would prefer to put Christians and their "strange beliefs" out of sight, and make them worship in the closet .. so to speak. And there is some movement to make gay/lesbians a protected class, or a special minority ... I'll speak for myself and assume others are capable of the same ... it is when there is an apparent need to remind those knuckle draggers that they better behave ... that things are off on the wrong foot. We can just ignore bad comments I guess ... do we really need hall monitors?

It is amazing how many behavioral qualities seem genetic ... I'm no expert ... but even little tendencies seem to follow family members ... perhaps some is learned ... in any case ... repeating the way corpse with the same principles seems to set a pathway for the same course of action ... most people try to hide their crazy uncles and their grandparents that committed heinous acts ... but I guess some worship them ... the poor we have with us always .. but it seems Jesus has left the building ... :o

I play nice ... but you seem to be starting off with a lot of yelling ... and some threats about being judged ... The folks that seem to say that homosexual acts are "doctrinally fine" ... seem to assume that those folks that believe the Bible says otherwise are going out and beating up gays, or screaming at lesbians ... I would think that is rather insulting. They seem rational and charitable to me. Is there no room for people that believe the Bible clearly says homosexual acts are "wrong" ... but that certainly don't think that means to go out and beat them up? It seems the assumption by those that disagree is that some that believe the bible, are haters and out to harm homosexuals. I just shake my head when I see this sort of attack ... as what seems to be the start of this thread. The thread starts with yelling and accusations and threats ... which to me, seems a rather large problem ... a lot like condemnation .... Who are you yelling at Jeff? Who are these FOLKS that ARE mocking, backstabbing, and gossiping? This seems like an angry and aggressive way to start a "civil" discussion.

Well I don't know excie .. are you saying my "Jeffrey Dahmer Eatery" is a bad idea? But really, how insane are these folks? It does seem they all should be arrested for DUI ... "Doctrinally Under the Influence" ... OK, that was the best I could do .. maybe there is a better "D word". I used to agree with you excie, that we did at least learn jet style packing, but really ... who rolls up there clothes? I think anyone that does that is possessed ... homosexuas are OK, but jet style packers are born of the wrong seed. As for the Corps being at all similar to other ordination training ... despite some perhaps honest attempts by a few, most went out there and became incompetent to counsel, yet they did it anyway. There was almost no legit training ... it was training to sell ... if anyone got training, it was mostly because they read a few books maybe. I "married" one couple ... I told them some books to read ... I wasn't going to pretend to be able to counsel them. I sent a bulimic woman to a real counselor and she was healed. I can pat myself on the back for knowing we had no training for that. Alcoholics I sent to AA ... maybe if i was ordained I could have taught them to drink Drambuie ... I'm thinking many way ministers may have been guilty of malpractice ... the ego SOME had to try to run people's lives was devastating to many ... and then some were just predators ... or victims that became predators ... good gawd ... now we have splinters that want to make their father in da wuhrd proud ... yikes ...

I don't know how much of their profits are from what they charge at the pump ...but I would bet most of their profits are from the oil coming out of the ground, and they don't control that price. Exxon is not out of line with other companies ... prices have been going up steadily ... it is mostly due to the price of crude. Sure they control their own station price, but they have to compete. Bumpy says it is more than double in Europe. You say prices at the pump are not going up with prices of crude ... BUT. at the pump ... prices have gone from $1 to $4 out of the ground ... oil has gone from $10 to $135. So at the pump has only gone up 400%, while crude has gone up 1300%. If you want price at the pump to go up with crude, we would have $13/gallon at the pump. Is that better? :o I just found this for the last couple years, but for 2007 oil averaged $68/brl ... now it is $135. So for 2007, the crude portion was $1.62, now it would be $3.24. This means the non-crude price has gone down from $1.18/gallon to $0.80/gallon. Thank goodness Exxon is working to save us so much money. It would seem the price at the pump is actually lagging the current price of crude, maybe because of what is already in the pipeline, so to speak. Mexico produces a surplus ... and they charge something like half what we pay ... but that is "subsidized" I suppose. Still, we could produce a lot more of our own, while also developing alternatives.

oops .. see below ... but Sudo .. it costs you socially ... or so I hear ...

$4.07 we are always a higher than a town 2 hours away. ... all 100 (or whatever) stations in town change their prices at the same time to the exact same price. One lady on the news said they found it worked better that way. An investigation found nothing ... <_< You mean Exxon? They don't control the price ... we need more domestic drilling ... to lessen the stranglehold OPEC has over US. As other countries that ARE producing keep more of their own, and export less, it will only get worse for US unless we increase our own production. Prices have been going up for some time, what do you mean "then they raised prices"? $11.66 billion sounds like a lot, but considering the extreme rise in oil, is it surprising. And Yahoo was just offered $47.5 billion for their silly little search engine business ... Some feel "we" need to pay more to force these other windy solutions ... to some, all fossil fuels are evil and must be stopped. The green movement that has cleaned our air and water from the 70's has had to come up with something to keep the movement alive. Anyway ... those "evil" oil companies would increase US production if they could. I haven't checked these numbers exactly, but I have no reason to doubt they are correct. Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy: ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed Coal-to-Liquid House Republicans: 97% Supported House Democrats: 78% Opposed Oil Shale Exploration House Republicans: 90% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration House Republicans: 81% Supported House Democrats: 83% Opposed Refinery Increased Capacity House Republicans: 97% Supported House Democrats: 96% Opposed

Dog walks into an old west saloon, one foot all bandaged up He says to the bartender I'm looking for the man that shot my PAW ... :o

I don't see anyone treating homosexuals badly .. I see know it alls telling people that believe the bible, that they are wrong, yet offering lame and ignorant arguments "from the Bible". This started with the God blesses gay marriage thread ... no space was given for those that opposed ... judges did their job, so that was that. There has been no progress. ... people that think homosexual acts are all fine are "right", and all others are "hateful" or need help understanding ... I do see closed minds, but they do not belong to the very tolerant bible "thumpers" Thanks lindyhopper ... I agree on that .. and I don't accept all that the "Bible" says ... but I think those that do should be allowed their space ... sort of ... so it seems acknowledging what the Bible says is a starting point to how Christians or others should treat professed homosexuals. I see mostly acceptance. peace ...

we can all read and discuss ... if doctrinal is not limited to the Bible .. what doctrine is referred to? where has bigger context been discussed ... or you mean the context of modern political correctness? what history? you seem to have quit speaking as if it is only your opinion, and have not discussed anything doctrinal ... but are in "the teacher" mode. No thanks ... nothing has impressed me to want to attend your class.

OK thanks Abi ... this makes more sense, you are speaking more directly for yourself ... thanks. I'm not a "literalist" ... it is more about not telling other people they are hateful for their belief. It seems clear enough the homosexual act is not "normal" ... I think bramble or someone alluded to something happening early to cause some psychic thing or whatever ... so it is like dealing with an injury maybe ... some people limp ... but that is not absolute ... it seems to me the life style is "promoted" ... and there is a political aspect ... are people naturally attracted to animals? yet that becomes acceptable in certain realms ... of all the wild sexual stuff that happens with teenagers now, is it beyond possible that the homosexual acts is "promoted" by a PC teaching? Is it really just how you are born? I think there is more to it than that. Some cities seem more given to these things, even in the Bible. Was it really genetic there? Or is it taught and accepted, along with adultery and other "vile" things? This sexual "openness" does not seem good ... free love, no rules ... do we want Woodstock to rule? Maybe the Bible offers more wisdom than most are willing to accept. wht we see here, I believe, is political correctness ... all who hold any belief that does not praise homoexuality ... must be condemned ... and it is the fact that we see that here in spades that troubles me.

No one has shown a layer of the Bible that accepts the homosexual act ... and cman can speak for himself ... and who is this "we"? Your version is that the Bible means nothing .. it is all nuance, layers, nothingness ... which seems total BS .. right back to where we started. We are in doctrinal .. if you want to expound on your doctrinal layer, go right ahead ... not some children's story about onions. Despite the accusation of close mindedness ... I was looking for something real .. instead I get bad interpretation and something that should be written in the onion. Still waiting for that "doctrinal" discussion. Ha ... but thanks for talking down to me .. that's the ticket.

I think this is still the doctrinal section, where doctrine is still not being discussed. i don't know what "hateful doctrine" was referred to .. it sure seemed like the Bible, and I asked. I have already conveyed this ... if only what we have is hateful .. but there are no other "documents" that show otherwise ... is this really a doctrinal question ... or is there some whole new revelation we are just now hearing of, that MUST be right because ... well ... just because? cman .. I appreciate that you give much thought to something .. but I don't understand what ... and I mean that in a nice way, really. may even really agree with you .. but in this case, I disagree with what seems to be an attempt to change a belief by dishonestly using the doctrine, while at the same time denouncing the doctrine we have as not the REAL doctrine. None of it sounds sincere even .. let alone "right". I'll write a book to explain it all one day ... :o

Sure ... I think jen-o aptly replied in another thread. Along with the homosexual stuff were other things that are not acceptable. Then there is Romans that is clear ... and WW offered something else, since the clear verses are not allowed for some reason. (I know that sounds like piffle, but clear verses really do help) I'd prefer jen-o or WW or others handle this if it is really doctrinal ... but it really is not as I see it. I don't see what other hateful documents you are referring to. You said the victors write the history. What history are you referring to? It sure seemed like you meant the Bible. I hope you sell a million books eyes ... but I don't think you have a leg to stand on if you want to really stand up in this doctrinal forum. If that can be settled, the next step would be to decide if homosexals should be rounded up and put in prison ... well, really, the question gets down to something more like .. how to deal with marriage ... accepting that the Bible does NOT bless it. But I'll let you guys calmly discuss the doctrinal issue ... that would be refreshing.

Who is hiding behind any verse bumpy? I don't see any homosexuals here ... and don't see why they would be obligated to "come out" if they were here. I don't think they would be "attacked" for being homosexual if they did ... certainly not by me. In this doctrinal forum thread ... no one is really offering verses. That issue is fairly well established. I figured a joke about the animal farm or toenails would change the focus and end it ... oh well ... sorry

geee... I just said It is finished .. and now you come along ... we did solve something, we've established the Bible is a hateful document ... and people that disagree with that are hateful people ... did you notice that? there .. now It. Is. Finished.

That was the odd part ... even if he confused his leg for another dog or whatever ... what part of the brain was controlling the sneaky leg? He was just bored and perfected the art of inventing drama. Drama queen.

She said not nice things about jen-o ... as jen-o has pointed out and eyes has ignored ... but I am the only one that came close to "attacking" her ... but it was because her book was brought up, and she was claiming some authority ... her professors or whatever .. and not wanting to parade around her credentials ... so since that is what her argument consisted of, I dealt with that. It was a response to her claim of having credentials, but not wanting to deal with the likes of us, in essence. If an unbiased observer were to watch as bumpy took his socks off, you would find red or hot pink toe pollish ... not that there's anything wrong with that ... and don't ask me how I know ... what do you really think he wants all those animals for? there ... it is finished ...

Was she reviled or questioned? Her "stuff" was questioned (which is never a bad thing), and she responded by saying the Bible is a hateful document ... I would assume that she then finds those that believe the Bible as hateful ... which is reviling their belief. Are you sure you don't have this backwards. There is a constant disparaging of people that question those that say the God blesses these things ... is that necessary?

Very interesting waysider .... It does seem that SIT made us more submissive. Shoot, we don't even know what to pray for ... even that is out of our control. So instead of thinking or saving for retirement or paying for the kids to go to college ... we could go WOW and God would take care of us. We lived on a "higher plane" (of delusion) In reality we knew many things we needed to do, but would allow that rationalization (that God would supply if we SITed and ABSed) to overcome our drive to achieve some needed things for ourselves. To not give 10-20% to God vpw was deemed as selfish and unspiritual ... but then vp was provided for but not the individual or the family. There may be some value to "meditation" ... but I'm not sure how that relates to a perhaps comperable state of SIT. Gaining inner peace or calm may be different than expecting real world things to be handled by God in these states.

I respond when the lies and accusations are repeated. I generally have not responded when someone else chimes in with their support against those hateful close minded people, unless I am addressed by them directly. Perhaps a different thread with the starting point being that the Bible does say homosexual acts are wrong ... then ask the questions Bramble asked. How does that get applied in our society. The same sex marriage thread was more of a double thread on Christians need to accept this, because it is right and God blesses it. So it did not really allow for Christians that do not believe it is "right". I don't see hateful Christians, I see people calling Christians hateful and their beliefs hateful.

It is YOUR judgment that I have harassed and need to justify anything. And the fact that other people are involved is why I want to get be sure the record is set straight. To be more straight forward ... Eyes lied about me, though she did not name me. Then others talk about "those people will never be convinced no matter hard hard you try" or whatever. Eyes didn't try at all, she did a hit and run on the other thread, then trash talked and lied about it on her thread. So I keep setting the record straight. If I am slandered or libeled (and hear doctrine I never heard in the Bible) then I have a right to respond. That is not harassment. Eyes has never corrected her lie ... that she was attacked before she had a chance to give her view. And she was not attacked personally, her position on the thread was "attacked". Then she responded with her verses that seem thoroughly rebutted by jen-o. Then she left .. and claimed she was attacked ... not given a chance. But we have made "progress" ... we've gone from eyes' book being about showing the Bible accepts homosexual acts as fine ... to her position that the Bible is flawed and hateful on this subject. And that double minded position is the root of this problem ... she could have said that at the start. Instead we got that she was attacked without having a chance ... then that she refuses to reveal what is in her book ... and then others joined in supporting her against these hateful people. I'm not sure that is the purpose of a support group. Maybe someone could pm her if they are her friend, and point out that she did make a false accusation, and has been dishonest about the content of her book. She respects God's Word, but the Bible is a hateful document? Good grief .... and now you think I have a thing for eyes? Are you regressing to junior high now?

No, you didn't forget ... those are questions that could be asked and answered somewhere else, it is not a question of whether they matter, but they are a separate issue. That is a matter of application or practice ... ... but why are people even in the doctrinal forum that have decided the Bible doctrine is flawed or hateful or just plain wrong? Of all the accusations flying around ... isn't this a forum for people that DO believe ... and yet some come in here to call them hateful or wrong or whatever ...