Who's God? Mine? No, not necessarily.
The founding fathers had a “generic” dieist God in mind. Christian God, Jewish God, Muslim God, Greek God, Hindu God, etc. Their point was that, no matter what you call Him, keep Him in the mix, because the Constitution will only work or succeed with that condition. This is not theocracy which says, worship this way or else. This is simply the inclusion of God, in any form. I would assume they made those statements, since the absence of God (present company exluded of course) typically means evil.

I am on travel and it is difficult to access the internet and post regularly. But out of respect for your opinions, let me reply and summarize mine.

First, I am totally perplexed by your conflicting statements and claims.

You say you have no problems with gays serving their nation, then you turn around and state that you will oppose any legislation (i.e. repeal of DADT) that would allow them to serve (By the way, legislation is not intended to define morality nor to legislate that a homosexual is “abnormal.”)

Second, you have claimed in the past that you love your fellow human beings and then you turn around and call your fellow homosexuals' behavior “UnGodly behavior.”

Whose God, by the way. Yours?

Finally, we should not use God, the Bible, or our Founding Fathers to, today AD 2009, deny our fellow human beings equal rights because of sexual orientation.

You have every right to oppose such, but so do now a large part of the American people have the right to oppose your views and support equal rights for gays and lesbiams.

Anyway, good discussion, but we'll have to agree to disagree.

By the way, My God is my conscience, my heart, my soul, my mind. As long as a human being does OK by those, I think he will do well by anyone's God.

If you remember correctly, I had no problem with gays serving their nation. I propose no discrimination against gays, nor do I support any person that condones that gay sailors aren't productive and useful servicemen. Not once have I done that. I have stated that I refuse to say that homosexual behavior is condoned by God, nor will I support any legislation or executive order that presents homosexuality as acceptable “normal” behavior.

But when Kathy backs up her claims with Jewish/Christian references, she is wrong. As Christians, we are to love ALL of our fellow man. We are not, however, to condone, support, or turn a blind eye to ungodly behavior implemented with our money (tax dollars). And that is ONLY Christians. I know that their are many non-Christians/Jews in America. They can support it if they chose. I merely stated that Christians should obey the God in which the claim to have faith. I refuse to accept that they just rewrite the Bible or claim that it “isn't for today's world” in order to justify their agenda. I think that is a very fair statement.

So many comments just to try to justify discrimination against a segment of our population?

Unvelievable.

And most of it in the name of God? Your God, my God, our God?

Even more unbelievable

Dorian

And I KNEW you'd turn this into a “Jeff is calling homosexuality a sin and it's disgusting” situation. I did not call it sin, Kathy. My God did. I refuse to hate and dispise homosexuals. I refuse to mistreat homosexuals. I refuse to condone their behavior. And I refuse to accept their campaign to accept their behavior as normal – no matter how many media outlets they take hostage.

You're right. It's about time for this thread to end. I'll never convince you to actually be consistent with the Bible/Torah/Cat in the Hat or whatever book it is you follow. Judging by the comments you've made, I think you make up your faith as you go along. I could be wrong on that. But I will remain consistent, because I do not try to take away from the bible or add to it.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”
2 Timothy – 3:16

“Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth. Trouble and anguish have taken hold on me: yet thy commandments are my delights. The righteousness of thy testimonies is everlasting: give me understanding, and I shall live. I cried with my whole heart; hear me, O LORD: I will keep thy statutes. I cried unto thee; save me, and I shall keep thy testimonies.
-Psalm 119

1. “Bible Barely mentions homosexuality.” – That's right. We should ignore that only mentioned a couple of times.
2. “homosexuality not the main teaching” – Neither was the Ten Commandments in the book of Exodus. point?
3. “Homosexual texts are from 'troubled texts' requiring deeper interpretation” – okay. Go ahead and give me your interpretation then. Oh you forgot to because there is no other interpetation for “homosexuality is abomination”.
4. “our modern view of homosexuality isn't shared with those who lived in biblical times” – Please! Our modern view of being dressed modestly isn't either. This point makes itself.
5. “Jesus embraces 2 sexual minorities of his day” – He also embraced prostitutes. Once again, point? He embraced all. He told the prostitute “you are forgiven. Depart and sin no more”. SIN NO MORE.
6. “It is difficult to take a moral issue from the Bible and apply it today” – Only if you are dishonest with yourself and don't mind dismantling God's Word. God sees now as yesterday simultaneously.
7. “Jesus and Paul condemn judgmentalism” – How then did Jesus say, depart from me sinner, I never knew you. Isn't that a judgement? We are not to judge the heart of others. We must judge in our everyday lives. “Is this guy getting ready to stab me?” is a judgment.
8. “No single sexual ethic or morality in the Bible” – Once again old versus new convenant stuff. Polygamy was done away with. Endogamy was required to keep the lineage pure until the coming of the Messiah. After that, it was not needed. Interacial relations are throughout the Bible.

Wow. You a pastor at this congregation, Kat?

And now I do believe this will be my last comment in this thread. One thousand, one hundred forty-one comments — probably only about a third of which added anything new to the discussion — are enough.

You keep claiming “literal literal” and don't even acknowlege God's wishes in most (yes MOST) Christian bodies that homosexuality is condemned.

I don't acknowledge that “God's wishes” have any relevance for secular law. For the millionth, billionth, zillionth time, I might add. I also make what I feel is a rational assumption that if one instruction is repeated 100 times, and another is repeated two or three times, that probably means the one that's repeated 100 times is more important. if God says “Men, don't have sex with other men,” two or three times in the Bible; but says “Men, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick, welcome in the stranger, comfort the afflicted, stand up for the persecuted and oppressed, don't exploit your workers,” and so on, constantly, all the time, on almost every page. If there is one biblical message that is most blatant and obvious, it is the importance of social justice. So your endless, endless hammering on about the importance of the second least mentioned topic in the Bible (the first least mentioned is abortion, which isn't mentioned at all) has very little, if any, merit.

By the way, here is a link that *you* may find of interest.
http://www.seattlefirstbaptist.org/Default.asp?…

Monty Python addressed both gays in the military AND the difference between religion and God over thirty years ago. Let me suggest that we “Always Look On The Bright Side of Life” when discussing Military Fairies.

Everything will work out in the end. Hell's fire even non-believers know that!

Isn't that the very same thing I said about certain Christians – and you chastised me for it?
Let's change the words and see how that logic sounds to you:

“You are making an error in logic. Christians who condone homosexuality have one, particular, specific understanding of Christianity that is distorted, perverted, and not at all in accordance with what Christianity is truly about.”

How's that logic now. Wait. That's YOUR logic.

Here's a tidbit of information for you. Do you remember Jeffrey Dahlmer? He's remembered for some pretty disgusting activity, is he not? Did you realize that shortly before he was killed in prison, that he accepted the Gospel of Christ, was baptised, confessed and repented? If his heart was pure (only God knows this) that means he'll be in heaven. Some denominational “men of God” refused to hear his confession and baptise the man because they could not see beyond his earthly actions. One preacher, from a Church of Christ (I believe) was the only one that would go. Your pastor friend, I assume he's gay or you wouldn't have mentioned it; is living in a sinful state. He, too, could turn away from that. If he chose to. If he's merely a pastor that shows love and compassion to gays, then that is awesome. He is supposed to do that, as do I. But he, nor I, should do anything to propitiate or condone the behavior.

Kathy I DID NOT SAY TO FUND OVERT RELIGIOUS PRACTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why do you keep saying that???? I keep saying what John Adams said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”. Apparently, you think John Adams is full of crap. Let me guess. He and Jefferson didn't intend the Constitution for “today's world” either. I do not think they were full of crap, Kathy. They were wise beyond there years, and created a beautiful document. Why do you refuse to accept THEIR maintaining that God is woven into the Constitution?

“The problem with this statement is that it assumes only one way to be Christian: your way, which is to hold that the Bible was literally written by God, that every word in it is literally, straightforwardly true, and that it is meant to be “obeyed,” “

Kathy, there are figurative portions of the Bible. Otherwise, when Christ said that Peter was his “rock”, then Peter literally turned to stone prior to building His Church. I know that not every single word is literal. That's silly. But you dismiss even the blatantly explicit commands from God in both Testaments. You keep claiming “literal literal” and don't even acknowlege God's wishes in most (yes MOST) Christian bodies that homosexuality is condemned. That is LITERAL because it is specifically addressed – no trick words – no false translations. Every translation of the Bible that I have seen prohibits homosexuality.

Buth this is beside the point. Those particular examples (Creation of soul and science) is my particular take on things in the Bible that have nothing to do with God's commands. Where the Bible is silent I should be silent. In this case I was not silent. Those were just thoughts that float around in my head. I'll find the answer to that and more when I'm face to face with God. It's just like the people who fight over the meanings in Revelation (the most devisive book in Christianity). It just doesn't matter what WILL happen, only that you better be prepared when it does.

“Neither should be used to form public policy”.
Well, we've already legalized murder, or as you call it, abortion.
We now wish to normalize homosexuality.
You are forming public policy based upon atheistic principles. What gives atheists more of a right to call policy than Christians?

You are making an error in logic. Muslim extremists have one, particular, specific “understanding” of Islam that is distorted, perverted, and not at all in accordance with what Islam is truly about. That does not mean that the larger concept of human beings having varying understandings of religious precepts is distorted or perverted.

Likewise, there are true Christians and untrue Christians. They cannot all be right. There is right and wrong. Many liberals seem to think just about any moral code is acceptable. A successful nation MUST have a common moral code that is agreed upon, or it will erupt into anarchy.

This kind of absolutist, black-and-white thinking is the very essence of extremism, JD. I'm sorry, but it is. Even the Christian religious right doesn't really believe that all human behavior is either right or wrong. If they did, they would condemn torture when the C.I.A. does it as unequivocally as they do when Syria, or Egypt, or Libya does it. Instead, they call it a “false moral equivalency.”

“They cannot all be right” misses the point. In some areas of life — actually, in most areas of life — there are shades of gray. Black and white are not the only possible legitimate choices. The entire world lives in the gray zone, JD. No one lives in an all-black or an all-white world (these terms are figurative, of course) except extremists and fanatics. Again, with respect, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

My understanding is that many of them were; I don't know about all.

We may or may not agree about their intent on the Constitution; although their writings state that God is intregal part of the Constitution's success and future.

A general statement like that does not necessarily point to an intent to fund overt religious practice with public dollars, or to have explicitly religious practice in government settings.

The service to God being not what YOU want is not in relation to the Constition. I was simply stating that the only religion I know of the stresses the opposite is Wicca and many other pagan faiths (note: pagan faith is an accepted term to refer to earthly faith, not a smear – before you go off on that).

I have no idea what you're on to here. I don't know what you mean by “the opposite.”

You seem to think that if a Jew changes the rules, it's ok with Jehovah. You also seem to think that if a Christian changes the rules, that's ok too.

It's not about “changing the rules.” It's about finding ways to build a consistent religious practice that honors the rules while recognizing that it may not be possible to observe them in the exact same way that the ancient Israelites did. In fact, Jewish observance has never looked the same from one historical period to another. It has evolved and changed, as religious civilizations do evolve and change. Jewish religious life and practice had *not* changed over the centuries, the Jewish people would not have survived. We owe our survival as a people to the fact that we *were* able to change in order to live and survive in the many different historical times and places and conditions we have had to live and survive in.

I don't expect you to understand any of this. We've been arguing far too long by now for me to expect you to understand what I'm saying. I simply am responding to your statement, is all.

Just don't imply that Christians are misguided Bible believers.

The problem with this statement is that it assumes only one way to be Christian: your way, which is to hold that the Bible was literally written by God, that every word in it is literally, straightforwardly true, and that it is meant to be “obeyed,” in a very literal way. Because you start out with this assumption, which is totally impervious to any shift or modification, it follows, naturally and logically, that you also believe any Christian who does not make these assumptions is not Christian, is not doing what God wants, is not honoring the Bible, and so on. This, of course, means that the pastor of an Episcopalian church in a town near mine, whom I know from when I used to live in that town, is not a Christian. It also means that my ex-husband's second wife, who has no religious practice at all, is not a Christian, either. And *that* means that there is absolutely no difference between my ex-husband's second wife, who is not religious at all and never goes to church, and this pastor I know at that local Episcopalian church. Neither of them are Christians. And that way of defining “Christian” or any specific religion is extreme, and if you want to know the truth, frightening to me. With all due respect.

Your interpretation of the Cain thing is…well, let's just say that's a pretty wild interpretation that I think would be totally rejected by most people who take the Bible literally, and well, pretty much anyone else too. So there's something — anything — in the Bible to indicate that man was already on Earth at the time of Adam and Eve's creation? And I am the one who is “reaching beyond comprehension”? At the time when Cain was banished, the supposed human population of the world was Adam, Eve, Cain, any other kids Adam and Eve had, and any kids/grandkids their kids had. I know the idea is that people lived a lot longer then than now, but sheesh.

I pick out 3 inconsistencies, you pick out roughly the same number of references to homosexuality. The point is: we each see what we want, but neither should be used to form public policy.

“That is a specific religious understanding of God, most commonly found amoung fundamentalist…”

And that's the same crutch that extremist Muslims use when blowing themselves up and killing innocents. It's just a specific religious understanding of God. Either some “understandings” are wrong or they are not, Kathy. Go ahead and tell me these Muslims are correct in relation to the Q'uran. They are not. There are either true Muslims or untrue Muslims. They cannot both be right. Likewise, there are true Christians and untrue Christians. They cannot all be right. There is right and wrong. Many liberals seem to think just about any moral code is acceptable. A successful nation MUST have a common moral code that is agreed upon, or it will erupt into anarchy. What was our common moral code in this nation, Kat? Was it Hammurabi's Code? No. Let's see….. Was it pagan rituals that defined our moral code? No, that's not it. Oh yes….. It was Judeo-Christian ethics that outlined our common moral code.

The service to God being not what YOU want is not in relation to the Constition. I was simply stating that the only religion I know of the stresses the opposite is Wicca and many other pagan faiths (note: pagan faith is an accepted term to refer to earthly faith, not a smear – before you go off on that).

You seem to think that if a Jew changes the rules, it's ok with Jehovah. You also seem to think that if a Christian changes the rules, that's ok too. The “I don't believe that the Bible was from the finger of God”, and “just because it's in the Bible doesn't make it true” statements make that perfectly clear. Instead of picking and chosing only the portions of the Bible/Torah you like and mixing them with the elements of humanism you like; why not stop the lack of commitment and chose one, or invent your own. Just don't imply that Christians are misguided Bible believers. Yes, I know you didn't say that implicitly – I was trying to make a point.

“The sun goes around the Earth”
Please tell me you're not referring to Psalm 19:
“In them he has set a tent for(D) the sun,
5(E) which comes out like(F) a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
6Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them,
and there is nothing hidden from its heat.”

If you are, then you are saying that every time someone says “the sun is rising” or “the sun is setting”, they believe that the sun revolves around the earth. Come on! That is reaching beyond comprehension.

And the dimensions in 1 Kings 7 that you refer to? Wow.

Now we have to revisit the other writings we hold dear. It states that all MEN are created equal. Ok, roro, that means you and kathy are no longer equal because you are not men. Yeah, we used to think it meant humankind, but I guess we were wrong. Give me a break.

As for Cain. What are you talking about. There were other people on earth at the time of Cain's banishment. God made man in his own image. God does not have fingers and toes. The soul of man was created in His image. That is not to say that the human animals were not already on earth at the time. As I've said in the past…. God and science gel quite well. The first of God's people was Adam.

That is a specific religious understanding of God, most commonly found among fundamentalist Christian groups. It is not a generic feature of all religious belief.