I’m ignoring the “concern” that speaking up is bad for the children, although it’s… I’ll be kind and say “amazing” how many people are trying to use that as a silencing tool.

Instead, I’m just focusing on the idea that homosexuality is no longer punishable by death in the NT. No. Paul says gay people are worthy of death; he just doesn’t say who’s supposed to carry it out.

Also, you don’t understand homosexuality at all. To be gay is to be geared to emotionally and physically love someone of the same sex, not the opposite. An actual relationship is, Biblically speaking, moot, given Jesus’ talk about looking at a woman lustfully being the same as having sex with her.

Tabby

I’m ignoring the “concern” that speaking up is bad for the children, although it’s… I’ll be kind and say “amazing” how many people are trying to use that as a silencing tool.

Instead, I’m just focusing on the idea that homosexuality is no longer punishable by death in the NT. No. Paul says gay people are worthy of death; he just doesn’t say who’s supposed to carry it out.

Also, you don’t understand homosexuality at all. To be gay is to be geared to emotionally and physically love someone of the same sex, not the opposite. An actual relationship is, Biblically speaking, moot, given Jesus’ talk about looking at a woman lustfully being the same as having sex with her.

Tabby

Actually, Coleslaw, if you looked at the link I gave, to the full article, it was that case that Mr.Gibbs was quoting as the example of what took place, legally.

I know that was the case to which Mr. Gibbs was referring, although I wouldn’t say that he quoted it, seeing that he never quoted any of the language directly, nor did his article state that the case was Yoder vs. Wisconsin. I linked to the case itself because I don’t think Mr Gibbs’ interpretation of what the court meant by “conviction” vs. “preference” is to be relied on, and that it would be better for people to see the actual language for themselves. As I said before, I think it’s clear to anyone reading the decision that Vyckie’s beliefs during her QF days would have met the court’s standard of religious conviction,.

Actually, Coleslaw, if you looked at the link I gave, to the full article, it was that case that Mr.Gibbs was quoting as the example of what took place, legally.

I know that was the case to which Mr. Gibbs was referring, although I wouldn’t say that he quoted it, seeing that he never quoted any of the language directly, nor did his article state that the case was Yoder vs. Wisconsin. I linked to the case itself because I don’t think Mr Gibbs’ interpretation of what the court meant by “conviction” vs. “preference” is to be relied on, and that it would be better for people to see the actual language for themselves. As I said before, I think it’s clear to anyone reading the decision that Vyckie’s beliefs during her QF days would have met the court’s standard of religious conviction,.

This just goes to show you how you completely misinterpreted my reasons for stating what I did. I was showing how ‘foolish’ I was for not doing a better job at my research, and in the process came to learn more about the legal aspect of the words. I should have spent even more time researching, which I failed to do.

Like Vyckie, I question many things, and I don’t go by what a particular man, group or church states to drive my faith. In going through this posting, Vyckie shared information that I hope she is now re-thinking, because logically, they no longer make sense, as I read them and she defines them. Since Vyckie is in questioning mode, perhaps she may see that too. Biblically and logically what she is stating, regarding convictions and the Holy Spirit, do not make sense. Perhaps if you took a moment to really wade through it all, you may see that as well….or maybe you do and you don’t care, and that’s OK, too.

Kelly

This just goes to show you how you completely misinterpreted my reasons for stating what I did. I was showing how ‘foolish’ I was for not doing a better job at my research, and in the process came to learn more about the legal aspect of the words. I should have spent even more time researching, which I failed to do.

Like Vyckie, I question many things, and I don’t go by what a particular man, group or church states to drive my faith. In going through this posting, Vyckie shared information that I hope she is now re-thinking, because logically, they no longer make sense, as I read them and she defines them. Since Vyckie is in questioning mode, perhaps she may see that too. Biblically and logically what she is stating, regarding convictions and the Holy Spirit, do not make sense. Perhaps if you took a moment to really wade through it all, you may see that as well….or maybe you do and you don’t care, and that’s OK, too.

Kelly