You got my point. I was not being critical of Mr. Obama; only pointing out that people often use the wrong terms or inappropriate words. It just seems that some posters will not see that Mr. Obama is not all that with a cherry on top. Sure, President Bush often spoke as though he learned English as a second language, but go back and watch his videos where he misspoke, he recognized his errors and often laughed at himself. Even President Regan made errors, he recognized them and moved on. My point is, regardless of how great people are, how well spoken, or challenged; people make mistakes. So, if we are forgiving of Obama for misuse of words, then should we not afford past presidents the same? Yes, the American Indians were treated badly. Then the same goes for every other race, g****r or combinations thereof. My point about 911, it seems that the aggressors are now embraced while the fallen are no longer a consideration. If I read your comment rightly, then you seem to think that those people who died on 911 are somehow responsible or deserve being slaughtered for what happened to the native Americans.... Perhaps I am wrong and missed your point.

LOL. You can not answer, or even make an intelligent comment, so you attack? Easy to criticize, but when posed with a "then what would you do?" you are dumbfounded and can only snarl and bark....

Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. What would you have done differently? Using the same intel, the same circumstances, and the same heightened emotions? Show your brilliance, and shed some of your deep thoughts and conclusions. And while you are at it, do tell; what exactly were you thinking the day the Twins fell? And if everyone is held responsible for their se******n of words, how exactly do you rate? Have you ever used a word and then later thought that you should have used another? When speaking of malapropos, and you are not exempt, can anyone remember any of the following. And if so, which president was speaking?

1) "Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s."

2) "I've now been in 57 states I think one left to go."

3) "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes and I see many of them in the audience here today."

4) "What they'll say is, 'Well it costs too much money,' but you know what? It would cost, about. It it it would cost about the same as what we would spend. It. Over the course of 10 years it would cost what it would costs us. (nervous laugh) All right. Okay. We're going to it. It. would cost us about the same as it would cost for about hold on one second. I can't hear myself. But I'm glad you're fired up, though. I'm glad."

5) "The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system."

6) "I bowled a 129. It's like - it was like the Special Olympics, or something."

7) "Of the many responsibilities granted to a president by our Constitution, few are more serious or more consequential than selecting a Supreme Court justice. The members of our highest court are granted life tenure, often serving long after the presidents who appointed them. And they are charged with the vital task of applying principles put to paper more than 20 centuries ago to some of the most difficult questions of our time."

8) "Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma, they end up taking up a hospital bed, it costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave them treatment early and they got some treatment, and a, a breathalyzer, or inhalator, not a breathalyzer. I haven't had much sleep in the last 48 hours."

9) "It was interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of I don’t know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing."

10) "I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."

Yes, words matter. A wise man once said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. Abraham Lincoln
16th president of US (1809 - 1865). " And while quoting presidents, remember this? "Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.
George W. Bush" In a few, those that have never had the steel resolve of many Americans, they remember with respect Islam and their rights and have quickly forgot the rights of those who were murdered in the name of Allah.

Sorry to butt in, the word you are looking for is Miseo. "Miseo" is the Greek word which is t***slated “h**e” in St. Luke 14:25-26. It has, seated within its roots in Attic Greek, the fundamental sense of "separation" or "exclusion" of one from another -- usually out of a fear of physical or spiritual harm. It doesn't, therefore, include the "psychological sense" of anger or emotional "againstness" that modern English generally situates in the word "h**e," but rather describes one's relational orientation towards another. With whom does one associate as opposed to whom one avoids? Put simply, if one is impure -- if one is spiritually sick -- that one is to be avoided.

Any issue of blood, any contact with unclean food or with food prepared in an unclean way, can make one ritually unclean. God "h**es" (miseo) those who are unclean or who have come into contact with unclean people or practices because they tend to spread their ritual uncleanliness among God’s people. As a result, God's people are required to distance themselves from such. There is no anger, dislike, or any other kind of negative emotional antipathy towards these people -- only a concern over ritual impurity. ANYTHING that comes between a disciple and the master, between God and God's child, is considered a fit object of "miseo."

Your post was on the dot! Thank you. Again, forgive the butting in.




:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Very true. Agreed, not a great article. I like numbers and statistics, so to me it was mildly interesting.

Good points. I wish I had time to discuss this, but my car is warm and I am hot for the road. I am off to Virginia to visit a previous poster who graciously invited me to meet family and friends. I have to shoot through. I will read your comments in more detail when I stop for a tucker bag tonight. Thank you for the info. Promise to get back to you.

Thank you for the additional references, I confess that I have not read them. It will help in future discussion. I thank you for the kind remark on my very personally opinionated comment.

I am impressed with much of your comments, not just this thread but others as well. You take the time to consider the question and the "what if" and "what more" considerations. Your complement was very generous.

As to not offend anyone, I am not attaching this to any other person's comment. It is only my thoughts, although it relates directly to the topic.

Many homosexuals’ claim that…
1. They are made that way.
2. Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else.
3. If it feels right to those involved, it is nobody else’s business.
4. Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid. (Some even claim that the Bible condones homosexual relationships.)


Let us consider these points one at a time. Yes, I do realize that there are perhaps a dozen people on this site that will berate me and claim that Jesus would never consider homosexuals as sinful, he would never judge anyone, and so on and so on and they will support the activity and the people. Now this brings to mind a section from the Christian Bible, a parable of Jesus. It goes something like this, I paraphrase rather than quoting the thee and thou and shants. Matthew 3:12; Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ” I would say that the supporters of evil is portrayed as the enemy who sow the bad seed. For they do not teach God’s law, but turn a blind eye and embrace and therefore encourage their brothers and sisters into unrepentant sin. Also see Mark and Luke for scripture on stumbling blocks, or encouraging others in pursuit of sinful actions.


Groups have fought for equal rights, discrimination against women, b****s, the disabled and they have gained equal opportunity. Therefore, homosexual claim they too should be liberated. One Christian expert said…..”G****r, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”


They are made that way.


In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality. Three main studies are cited by “gay rights” activists in support of their argument: Hamer’s X-c********e research,3 LeVay’s study of the hypothalamus, and Bailey and Pillard’s study of identical twins who were homosexuals.


In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, “the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results.” There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person’s genes. To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person’s bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior and the law rightly holds them accountable.


The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality states “that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity… This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as g****r and ethnicity.” The report affirms that “the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin.” Relax, I will not give you a list of bible verses.


No harm


Andrew Lansdown points out that “homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the t***smission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi’s Sarcoma and AIDS.” Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.


Effect on others


Secular psychologists assure us that “children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and g****r identity.” The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient.
“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6). You cannot faithfully teach God’s Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God’s Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God’s grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin.


Nobody else’s business?


Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody’s business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior.
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an a*********n” (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13). Disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God’s authority. Some people argue that the Old Testament law (including Leviticus 18 and 20) was superseded with the coming of Christ. However, we should at least consider as binding those aspects of the law that are renewed in the New Testament. The teaching of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was certainly reaffirmed in the New Testament. Again, I will not give you Chapter and verse. You know your bible, look them up.


Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid.


Some people claim that homosexual behavior was only condemned in the Bible because it was associated with idolatry (e.g., 1 Kings 14:24). However, it is clearly condemned apart from idolatry as well (e.g,. Leviticus 18:22). It is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion. “For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another…” (Romans 1:26-27). The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means “men who sleep with men.” It is the same Greek word used for “homosexual offender” in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously t***slated as “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV). Some people claim that the sin involved in Sodom was rejecting hospitality customs or selfishness rather than homosexual behavior. Certainly, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their reported sin was grievous to God (Genesis 18:20). God sent angels to Sodom and…“Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them” (Genesis 19:4-5).


“While it is true that the Hebrew word yadha does not necessarily mean ‘to have sex with,’ nonetheless in the context of Sodom and Gommorah, it clearly had this meaning. …It means ‘to know sexually’ in this very chapter when Lot refers to his two daughters not having “known” a man (19:8).”9 You would not offer virgins to appease a mob if their sin was lack of hospitality, but only if their desire was sexual. Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty, etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. “The very next verse of Ezekiel (verse 50) calls their sin an ‘a*********n.’ This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22.” It is also used in Scripture to describe such things like the practice of offering children to Moloch, but never such things as mere selfishness or lack of hospitality. Even in legal parlance, the word used to refer to one aspect of homosexual practice is ‘sodomy.’
Another argument is that Jonathon and David were homosexuals as “Jonathan loved David” (1 Sam. 18:3), that Jonathan stripped in David’s presence (18:4), [and] that they kissed each other (20:41). However, “David’s love for Jonathan was not sexual (erotic) but a friendship (philic) love. And Jonathan did not strip himself of all his clothes, but only of his armor and royal robe (1 Sam. 18:4).” Also, a kiss was a normal greeting in that day, such as when Judas kissed Jesus. In several cultures today, men normally greet each other with a kiss, too. Further, David’s love for his wives, especially Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation. Isaiah 56:3 states that eunuchs will not be excluded from God’s presence (“my temple”), but practicing homosexuals are not eunuchs. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all. Other Scriptural arguments for homosexuality can similarly be easily refuted. It is clear that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage sanctioned in the Bible and that homosexual practice is always condemned.


I have finished my epic writing on homosexuals, with just one last thought. As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis.


References:

1.Lansdown, A., The ‘Rights’ of Homosexuals, Life News, p. 1, February 1995.
2.Randall, D.A., Bill Loader on Homosexuality, Life News, p. 4, September 1996.
3.Hamer, D.H. et.al., A linkage between DNA markers on the X c********e and male sexual orientation, Science 261(5119):321327, 1993.
4.Levay, S., The Sexual Brain, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1993 (as quoted in ref. 6, pp. 367, 665).
5.Bailey, J.M. and Pillard, R.C., A genetic study of male sexual orientation, General Psychiatry 48(12):10891096, 1991.
6.Matlin, M.W., Psychology, 3rd ed., Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth, Texas, USA, p. 366, 1999.
7.Excerpts from the Baptist Union of WA document on human sexuality, Life News, October 1997. (Final Report of the Task Force on Human Sexuality, Baptist Union of Western Australia, July 1997).
8.Hogg, RS, et al., Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay men. International Journal of Epidemiology 26(3):65761, 1997.
9.Geisler, N.L., Christian Ethics, Michigan, USA, Baker Books, p. 261, 1989.

I am not trying to say anything about the article, other than it seems to be a sad situation. Then I did a small search to find out which states spend the most on welfare, and the list came up as follows: (the numbers reflect how much is spent in millions of dollars)

Michigan 5.9
Washington 6.1
Ohio 6.7
Illinois 7
Massachusetts 8.1
New Jersey 8.6
Pennsylvania 8.7
Texas 9.1
New York 12.6
California 25.2

I always thought that the Appalachian region was 205,000-square-mile region that follows the spine of the Appalachian Mountains from southern New York to northern Mississippi. It includes all of West Virginia and parts of 12 other states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Forty-two percent of the Region's population is rural, compared with 20 percent of the national population. I do not see these states as big spenders in welfare. Am I missing something? I took the data from: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_2014p40cn Should be a reputable site, it is the Government site that tracks all sorts of spending for the USA.

Contrasted to America, Australia has strong popular support for government health care, and government welfare. Furthermore, Australians have a strong propensity to volunteer to guard beeches, fight fires or clean up after a disaster. With a greater sense of the social supporting the individual, some people believe that Australia appears less of an individualistic nation than America.

Americans, and the outside world, generally see America as a highly individualistic nation. Such a perception is inconsistent with a line by former president John F Kennedy, who said:

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

Kennedy’s line is one of the most famous in American popular culture. Each time an American has volunteered to fight, to spread the bible, or to garner support for a political cause, they believe they are doing something for others.

In the 19th century, the propensity of the grassroots to form groups was noted by French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville, who said,

"Wherever, at the end of some new understanding, you see the Government of France or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association…If it be proposed to advance some t***h or foster some feeling of encouragement of a great example, Americans form a society."

Ironically, it is perhaps the expectation that individuals contribute to the greater good that results in America as a whole having a relatively weak sense of obligation to the individual, and this in turn results in a perception that Americans are selfish. For example, the lack of state-funded health care often gave non-Americans the perception that individual Americans only care for themselves.

A strong voice of reason! Your comments are too right!

Okay, your topic, your rules, your thread. Do have a good day.

There are times when we hit bottom; not a good place to be. I can see that you are with a purpose and I think that everything is part of God's plan. God does pay attention to the least to affect the majority. I am so glad that you worked your way to Virginia. It has been my experience that the people that are born there are some of the nicest people in the country. You are blessed, you have been guided, and if you are to start a ministry then what you need will be given to you. I pray that you will find happiness, a means of living in the unique grace that God has provided. Keep your faith because at the end of the day, it is not what you own but what you do that matters. I am sure you know this as I am sure that when the time comes, all will be revealed and things will come into their own place.

I received the link in part of my emails and when I read it, I was surprised that in the USA Muslim are more liked and respected than Jewish people. The last part of the article was the kicker for me. Most of the people that gave an opinion had not even met a Jew. That I found as sick, how can you mistrust a race of people that a person has not even known a single one. Just seemed so un-American.

In my line of work, I am surrounded by all different races and religions. Jews among them. I go about with these people, to include the Jews and find that they are thinkers and doers; they live what they preach. It could be that they are indeed still God's own chosen people. It is with this that I thank you for your thoughts and input.