![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 53. Go back in thread:
Posted by snoozin on March 1, 2005, at 15:19:26
In reply to Re: and in case it is in doubt » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 13:43:01
Shows you what I know. I thought you were a male. "ray", you know. Sorry. :-)
> Disclosure: I am straight, female, and have been happily in a monogomous marriage for more than thirty five years. I am a self-educated Canadian, so what do I know about American politics? My US History teacher (I attended high school in U.S. for a couple of years) openly admitted he was in teaching just for the money.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 15:23:34
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 13:34:15
It is indeed hard to predict outcomes. But I also think it's crazymaking to try to think of all the scenarios. So I try to concentrate on figuring out what the most likely outcomes will be.
And, not knowing what you call all the facts, and what I would call the future, we do have to rely on our gut.
My gut tells me that if gay marriage is not prohibited then the marriages are likely to be much as most heterosexual ones are now. Many would work and be stable. Some would contain abuse and cheating, and there would be some divorces. What the numbers would be compared to current hetosexual ones are I don't know. Probably worse at first, then as society adjusts they would be about the same.
My gut also tells me that if things started going towards your worse-case scenarios there would be a point where huge numbers of people in both the gay and straight worlds would object and a line would be drawn.
The other question: "Should society feel an obligation to present belief in God as an option to the children?" I personally believe that no, society has no right teaching that to children, just as it has no right teaching that there is no god.
If god were brought into schools then the naturally curious kiddos would ask questions about the nature of god. At that point, they are likely to be taught that nature accordint to the particular teacher's beliefs. And as we all know there are as many different views on that as there are teachers. Even among Christians the views aren't the same.
So - best for all to let the schools stick to math, science, history, liturature and so on.
Teaching religion is the parents' job. (In my opinion of course.)
Posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 16:07:46
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 15:23:34
Then bright ones, let us solve the problem.
My gut tells me there is only one way to solve it. As you said, let parents teach their children.
Posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 16:13:43
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 15:23:34
We will soon see this day, in fact it is here already, and it will only get worse. That is my own political prophecy.
Posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 16:26:05
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 16:13:43
http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/10/35-36#36
Another scriptural twist to the idea. There are definately two scenarios here.
1. Gay marriage could certainly set parents and their children against one another
2. Belief in God could put families against each other too if one believes and another doesn't.Have you ever read the Bible, or parts of it? Why would or wouldn't you choose to read the world's most famous book?
Posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 17:10:06
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 16:26:05
Why would it set parents and children apart, or families against each other? I guess it's possible it *could* but no reason that it *should* or *would*.
We (the two of us) can reasonably discuss things here and would probably get along quite well in person. I don't see any reason other people couldn't do the same thing.
And, yes I've read a fair amount of the bible. In varying translations. I've always found it interesting that different translations can have quite different meanings.
I've also found it interesting that there are such a large number of people that only follow the parts that agree with their own morality.
Do you eat shrimp?
Sorry. Bad question - that could be taken as baiting and that's not what I intend.
Posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 19:07:46
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage, posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 17:10:06
You are detail oriented and quite analytical while I can barely remember the topic. If you're baiting me, I'm hooked. Now, why would you ask if I eat shrimp?
You are right about the meaning changing in the different translations of the Bible. Would you say the Bible is the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly? What about the Book of Mormon? After 175 years it is finally being published. http://www.press.uillinois.edu/s03/hardy.html
Now, what was the topic? Is there a connection between the two books? When read together, even the shrimp issue is easier to understand.
Posted by gromit on March 2, 2005, at 0:15:26
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 19:07:46
The people who sue to remove the word "God" and stop kids from praying in school if they want are no less wrong that the people who want to ban gay marriage IMO.
Posted by ed_uk on March 2, 2005, at 7:30:06
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 19:07:46
You make me sick. I have nothing more to say.
Ed.
Posted by ed_uk on March 2, 2005, at 7:41:40
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 19:07:46
The world would be a better place without idiotic bigots like you.
Ed.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 11:34:01
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » rayww, posted by ed_uk on March 2, 2005, at 7:41:40
Ray and I are having a reasonable discussion, I think. I haven't seen the bigoted rantings I've seen from other people.
I think it's actually a good thing to discuss it in a reasonable matter - but from different perspectives.
It's rare, I know, which is why I think it should be encouraged.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 11:40:15
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 19:07:46
Well, now we're getting back to the basic fact that I'm a non-believer.
Though for a believer I would think that a correct translation would *have* to be better than an incorrect one.
As for the Book of Mormon I have to claim complete and total ignorance, so it wouldn't be right for me to give any opinion.
Shrimp? The same book of Leviticus that is cited by those that say homosexuality is wrong also bans eating shellfish.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 11:43:12
In reply to Re: books, shrimp and translations » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 11:40:15
under the picture of the church sign there is a small link to the 'church sign generator' it's a lark.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 12:05:40
In reply to Re: books, shrimp and translations » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 11:40:15
The Supreme Court is hearing a case about having the ten commandments on display on public property. The case originated down here in Texas, so I've been following it.
One thing I've learned is that different denominations even within Christianity have their own version of the ten commandments.
The wording on the monument in Austin is the wording used by Lutherans, but rejected by Catholics and others.
I knew there were different wordings, to a degree, but never knew different denominations had "official" wordings.
Interesting.
Posted by ed_uk on March 2, 2005, at 12:09:04
In reply to Re: diff translations - church and state » AuntieMel, posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 12:05:40
Hi,
I just wanted to apologise for my posts, I was really upset when I posted and was also quite angry.
Ed.
Posted by rayww on March 2, 2005, at 12:30:55
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » rayww, posted by ed_uk on March 2, 2005, at 7:41:40
> The world would be a better place without idiotic bigots like you.
>
> Ed.
Hey, I agree, the world would be a better place without idiotic bigots.
One of the wisest people I know is Dr. Suess. I don't actually know him, but know his work. Another person I admire is/was Walt Disney. Another C.S. Lewis.
These people all wore labels. Some labels we give ourselves, some others give us. We all seem to own our fair share of them.The problem I have with labels is that I can grow up under the umbrella of truth and wisdom in the home of a loving family. I can then go on into the next generation, and mirror what I learned in my home and so on to the 12th generation. We can live lives of community service, minding our own business, doing all that we can to help others, and someone will still label us idiotic bigots, homophobics, GDMormons, or whatever. Are you asking me to stop minding my own business and venture into yours?
I have not taken offense to the label you gave me because I know who I am.
The political issue over gay marriage is one deserving of clear and careful examination. What are your opinions and ideas for resolution? At best we can only hope for some kind of compromise, meaning both sides of the debate will have to give up something.
There are likely bigots and idiots on both sides of the debate, but there are also many who have tollerance and an open mind. Dr. Suess still said it best.
http://www.uulongview.com/sermons/bellies_with_stars.html
Posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 15:26:19
In reply to Designer Labels, posted by rayww on March 2, 2005, at 12:30:55
"The problem I have with labels is that I can grow up under the umbrella of truth and wisdom in the home of a loving family. I can then go on into the next generation, and mirror what I learned in my home and so on to the 12th generation. We can live lives of community service, minding our own business, doing all that we can to help others, and someone will still label us idiotic bigots, homophobics, GDMormons, or whatever. Are you asking me to stop minding my own business and venture into yours?"
That depends, doesn't it?
I think the desire Ed has is for *all* people to have the opportunity to grow up with a loving family, live quiet happy lives trying to help others.
Pardon me if I'm speaking out of turn Ed.
As for the political problem, wouldn't the first issue be to define what "marriage" means. Right now it is used interchangeably as a religious ceremony and as a civil contract, recognized by the government.
And I doubt if anyone truly wants religious entities to be forced to perform gay weddings.
But to be treated equally under the civil law is quite another matter.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 15:33:52
In reply to Re: Hi, posted by ed_uk on March 2, 2005, at 12:09:04
I figured that was the case. I just was trying to keep the conversation philosophical, not personal.
Care to join in?
Did you enjoy the link?
Posted by TofuEmmy on March 3, 2005, at 14:38:35
In reply to Re: Designer Labels » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 15:26:19
If I marry again, the next time will surely be to a woman. The wedding will probably be held in a court house, as was my first. And, I'm going to make sure those commandments are no where to be seen!
emmy -- voicing 2 political opinions with one stone
Posted by ed_uk on March 4, 2005, at 7:11:00
In reply to Designer Labels, posted by rayww on March 2, 2005, at 12:30:55
Hello,
I'm sorry for what I said.
>The political issue over gay marriage is one deserving of clear and careful examination. What are your opinions and ideas for resolution?
I don't think I can join in with this discussion because I know I will get upset. It is a very personal issue for me.
Regards,
Ed.
Posted by rayww on March 4, 2005, at 8:07:20
In reply to Re: Designer Labels » rayww, posted by ed_uk on March 4, 2005, at 7:11:00
I'm sorry. thank-you for your apology and for being so honest.
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 5, 2005, at 13:21:31
In reply to Re: Designer Labels » ed_uk, posted by rayww on March 4, 2005, at 8:07:20
In my opinion..
I had an entirely civil (ie, non-religious) wedding.. By law in England, if you have a non-church wedding, no mention of anything even slightly religious is allowed.. You can't have religious music (eg, walking down the aisle to Ava Maria), no prayers, no mention of God etc etc.
I am married, legally, to my husband, and that gives me certain legal rights. If he were to die intestate, I would be his next of kin to inherit. If he were in a serious accident, I am next of kin to make medical decisions..
Why shouldn't a gay person have these same rights?
And rayww's comment "A marriage is a contract that carries within it the power to create".. No, sexual intercourse is what carries the power to create.. Marriage isn't needed, or required, to have children. I haven't married to have children.. I married as I love my husband and we wanted to recognise that legally and in front of friends and family.
I fail to understand WHY a gay person should not have the same rights in a relationship as my husband and I do.
I'm lucky that I'm in the UK, and gay marriage is shortly to be made legal.
I hear alot about the seperation of Church and State from the US, so surely this should be viewed in a purely political way?
And rayww - as for living life according the bible.. I don't really fancy animal sacrifice after giving birth, or having to hide myself away while menstruating thanks.
Nikki
Posted by rayww on March 5, 2005, at 19:24:11
In reply to marriage isn't religious.., posted by NikkiT2 on March 5, 2005, at 13:21:31
Thank-you NikkiT2 for entering this discussion. I would like to reply to several of your ideas/opinions, in the five minutes I have here. I hundred percent support civil union and believe in freedom of choice and its positive or negative consequenses within and without the framework of law.
When you speak of separating religion and politics what do you mean? Do you mean that any civil law that is the same as a commandment should be excluded? What came first religion or politics? By the fact that the ten commandments have been altered in their many translations is evidence that politics has interfered with religion over the ages. I don't see how law can be separated between religion and politics concerning right and wrong because both are based on belief. If you can explain this to me I may be able to understand.
To some people marriage isn't religious, but to many cultures it is. Marriage is central to my religion, not just the till death do we separate eternally type, but the real McCoy, eternal marriage. There is no marrying in heaven, it has to be performed on earth by the proper authority. Then if you add the commandments, one of which is not to commit adultry - - meaning sex outside the bond of legal marriage - - and if you change the law to include gay marriage, then adultry has changed. It is now permissable to have sex between members of the same sex, or man and woman, and as long as you are in either bond then you are in good standing with God. In my opinion you cannot separate religion from politics on this issue. It must be named something other than marriage. Rights and privileges can be offered, but they must be different, not entirely the same. It must be a different type of contract. Either way, as I opinionize this, there must be a compromise from both sides to make it work.
And, of your last comment, the points you referred to were of the law of Moses, which was fulfilled in Christ. All of those rituals were actually to symbolize the coming of Christ, and a reminder of His sacrifice, which they didn't understand at that time, in our behalf. There is so much more to all of this that most just cannot comprehend or understand. I am trying to understand both sides. Please enlighten me more.
> In my opinion..
>
> I had an entirely civil (ie, non-religious) wedding.. By law in England, if you have a non-church wedding, no mention of anything even slightly religious is allowed.. You can't have religious music (eg, walking down the aisle to Ava Maria), no prayers, no mention of God etc etc.
>
> I am married, legally, to my husband, and that gives me certain legal rights. If he were to die intestate, I would be his next of kin to inherit. If he were in a serious accident, I am next of kin to make medical decisions..
>
> Why shouldn't a gay person have these same rights?
>
> And rayww's comment "A marriage is a contract that carries within it the power to create".. No, sexual intercourse is what carries the power to create.. Marriage isn't needed, or required, to have children. I haven't married to have children.. I married as I love my husband and we wanted to recognise that legally and in front of friends and family.
>
> I fail to understand WHY a gay person should not have the same rights in a relationship as my husband and I do.
>
> I'm lucky that I'm in the UK, and gay marriage is shortly to be made legal.
>
> I hear alot about the seperation of Church and State from the US, so surely this should be viewed in a purely political way?
>
> And rayww - as for living life according the bible.. I don't really fancy animal sacrifice after giving birth, or having to hide myself away while menstruating thanks.
>
> Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 6, 2005, at 3:33:30
In reply to Re: marriage isn't religious.., posted by rayww on March 5, 2005, at 19:24:11
Which came first, politics or religion..
Well, um, It would have to be politics. Civilised man was around alot earlier than religion.. Laws were around in England LONG before Christianity reached these shores..
By religion, do you mean Christianity? Because Buddhism was around thousands of years before Christianity.
You said "Marriage is central to my religion,".. I think the word that needs to stand out in that sentence is *my*. Its only central to YOUR religion, not everyones..
And ofcourse I don't think that all laws that match with, say a commandment, should be removed. I just believe that the bible was an early form of political statement.. A way to live 2000 or what ever years ago. But its now the 21st Century, and we have perfectly good systems of government in the UK, the US, Australia and other western countries, so, in my opinion, laws should be made, regardless of religion.
Civil marriage is a perfectly acceptable way for hetorosexual people to marry. Its a legal contract with NO religious involvement (Though I believe in the US, you can have a civil marriage that involves some religius aspect).. Why should that legal contract, in a legal context, be removed from a large section of the population, simply because they are homosexual.
Why should a homosexual man not be able to make medical decisions, as next of kin, for his partner of, say, 20 years? Why should he not be able to take on his partners pension after his death as a hetorosexual person would be able to?
I'm speaking about it in a purely legal sense. I know that a religious marriage is about pro-creation, and I can completely understand why the Church and its members would be against religious homosexual marriage.
You say "Rights and privileges can be offered, but they must be different, not entirely the same.". Why must rights and privileges be different? What rights must be different?
And why not call it marriage? My husband and I call ourselves married, and we called what we went through a marriage. No God involved, no religion. Just our love, and sharing that with friends and family, and making our future more secure within the legal frame work that constitues marriage.
I, I admit, completely fail to understand what it is about homosexuality that it should be sectioned off from such a large part of what makes our society. But then, I was bought up believing EVERYONE is equal, and that everyone should be afforded equal rights, and that someones sexuality isn't something to fear. But I guess, even though I was bought up in a small town, my mum had a number of gay friends, that had been her friends since high school in the 1950's, so it was nothing out of the ordinary for me at all (and meant I was also the best dressed 5 year old in town *L*).
At the end of the day, love is love. And in this day and age, (the era of aids) I believe monogomany between any two people should be encouraged.
Nikki x
Posted by rayww on March 7, 2005, at 3:12:24
In reply to Re: marriage isn't religious.. » rayww, posted by NikkiT2 on March 6, 2005, at 3:33:30
> Which came first, politics or religion..
>
> Well, um, It would have to be politics. Civilised man was around alot earlier than religion.. Laws were around in England LONG before Christianity reached these shores..
>
> By religion, do you mean Christianity? Because Buddhism was around thousands of years before Christianity.<<<Actually, Christianity was here in the beginning. Remember the story of Adam and Eve? They lived in a beautiful garden and walked and talked with God the Father and Jehova. Eve disobeyed and chose to eat something that caused a physical change in her body, making her mortal like we are. Because of this they were separated from the presence of God, as we are, but they were able to now have children. Even though they could remember God's perfect teaching and were very intelligent, they were required to live out their days by faith. They never walked or talked with the Gods again. This is called the "fall". Jesus knew this was going to happen because it was part of God's plan, so before we were born he offered to be our Redeemer. To start with, after the fall, he communicated with prophets like Enoch, Noah, Moses, Abraham, etc, and had them write about it. In an experience he gave Moses the ten commandments, but first of all he gave him a greater law. Moses was gone a little too long (40 days) and by the time he came down from the mountain his people were partying and had created a golden calf to pray to instead of God, so god got mad and took away the higher law, replacing it with a lesser one, namely the law of Moses, which was basically an eye for an eye, etc. and the ten commandments found in http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm.
We pray to God the Father in the Name of Jesus Christ because it is through him we are saved, as he is willing to plead our case and make up the difference if we're not quite prepared to enter the presence of God when we die. No one is capable of perfection.
Adam and Eve had pure religion, call it Christianity if you want, I think it was called the Church of the Firstborn, but I'm not certain. They had many sons and daughters, and at least one of their sons left the church and became a murderer. Can you imagine how many millions would have been affected by this one decision, through no fault of their own? Many others left the true religion also. In fact the people became so wicked in the time of Noah, that God caused a flood and basically started over. From there things just kept getting worse. In a few short years some built a tower called the tower of babel, thinking they could climb to heaven, or avoid the next flood. Poor thinking. God confounded all the languages, and then everyone went on their merry way, by then, divided into the 12 tribes of Israel. Judah settled in Israel. Japeth went to Japan, they flocked all through Europe, and even America. Jared and his family in 1200 BC brought the pure religion, and animals and seeds, to America. Their life history is found in http://scriptures.lds.org/ether/1/1#1.
So, you see, pure religion was here before politics and also before all the variations of religion.
>
> You said "Marriage is central to my religion,".. I think the word that needs to stand out in that sentence is *my*. Its only central to YOUR religion, not everyones..<<<<May I be so bold as to say marriage is central to pure religion? Pure religion is caring for the poor and the needy. http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=%22pure+religion%22&search.x=28&search.y=4
Pure religion is loving your neighbor as yourself. http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=%22Matt+22%3A36-39%22&search.x=31&search.y=10One by one, one person at a time, as they are touched by pure religion, gain a proper understanding of what it all means. If as you say, mine is the only religion that centers on marriage, a lot of you are coming over, one by one. It is god's way. Jesus taught and healed one at a time, always caring deeply for the individual. The same is happening today. If you don't know what i mean, let me remind you that at any given time there are at least 60,000 missionaries teaching about marriage. My son for one, has convinced couples who are living together to get married. I think that's big.
>
> And ofcourse I don't think that all laws that match with, say a commandment, should be removed. I just believe that the bible was an early form of political statement.. A way to live 2000 or what ever years ago. But its now the 21st Century, and we have perfectly good systems of government in the UK, the US, Australia and other western countries, so, in my opinion, laws should be made, regardless of religion.
<<<<Hey, I agree. We do have good systems of government. And, as you say, the Bible was an early form of political statement, complete with an organized business plan for happiness and eternal life. You can find mission statements, vision statements, procedures, measures, and outcomes, or strategic planning and tasks however you choose to view it. If you want links I'll be more than happy to find them for you.<<<<<<First of all, before I comment on the following, thank-you for trying to help me understand some of the issues.
>
> Civil marriage is a perfectly acceptable way for hetorosexual people to marry. Its a legal contract with NO religious involvement (Though I believe in the US, you can have a civil marriage that involves some religius aspect).. Why should that legal contract, in a legal context, be removed from a large section of the population, simply because they are homosexual.
<<<<It has never been removed if it was not given in the first place.>
> Why should a homosexual man not be able to make medical decisions, as next of kin, for his partner of, say, 20 years? Why should he not be able to take on his partners pension after his death as a hetorosexual person would be able to?
<<<<<Perhaps he should have that right. What about the person on his 5th companionship, that is only into its first year? I'm sorry I don't know, but do couples (2 people in one household) often stay together for life?
>
> I'm speaking about it in a purely legal sense. I know that a religious marriage is about pro-creation, and I can completely understand why the Church and its members would be against religious homosexual marriage.
<<<<<thank-you. Religious homosexual marriage is a religious mockery of the term "marriage". It lessens its value. It absolves the couple from the responsibility of children and treats it as something sexually centered. When you mock God's laws, you mock God. If you want to be turned over to the buffetings of Satan for your whole life, mock God and see if you can get away with it. I personally don't think you (I) can.
>
> You say "Rights and privileges can be offered, but they must be different, not entirely the same.". Why must rights and privileges be different? What rights must be different?
<<<<<If we knew those answers we could solve the problem. A gay couple has the right to be gay and live together. They have the right to be my next door neighbor, but they do not have the right to abuse my kids. I'm trying to remember back to when we had a gay couple living in our neighborhood. It was a long time ago, but as I recal we tried to include them in things, and help them get involved in the school system, but they revolted and tried to destroy it, and got funding for another school's bus to come into our town and pick up their kids. It was kind of ugly, but the community honestly tried to be fair and treat them as equals. They were two women and each had daughters the same age as my daughters. They played together at school, but i have to admit I was uncomfortable sending my girls over to their place at night for sleepovers. I don't think I ever let them do that. Do you blame me?
>
> And why not call it marriage? My husband and I call ourselves married, and we called what we went through a marriage. No God involved, no religion. Just our love, and sharing that with friends and family, and making our future more secure within the legal frame work that constitues marriage.<<<<<<I am genuinely proud of you!
>
> I, I admit, completely fail to understand what it is about homosexuality that it should be sectioned off from such a large part of what makes our society. But then, I was bought up believing EVERYONE is equal, and that everyone should be afforded equal rights, and that someones sexuality isn't something to fear. But I guess, even though I was bought up in a small town, my mum had a number of gay friends, that had been her friends since high school in the 1950's, so it was nothing out of the ordinary for me at all (and meant I was also the best dressed 5 year old in town *L*).
<<<<<When did being equal ever mean equal rights? There is always going to be poor and homeless, as well as rich and famous. Each person has their station in life. Some are here to be helped and others are here to help. http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=%22D%26C+46%3A11-26%22&search.x=24&search.y=8
>
> At the end of the day, love is love. And in this day and age, (the era of aids) I believe monogomany between any two people should be encouraged.<<<<<I certainly agree. So why not call it monogimony? (like matrimony) and make the law specific to gay "couples". give them a list of rights, if it can be agreed upon, which I doubt it ever could, and then enforce them. While doing this, lets also allow common law heterosexual couples these same rights and let them enter the contract of monogimony if they don't want to get married. Common law couples should also be entitled to certain rights, but not equal rights because they have chosen monogimony rather than matrimony. We can be equal without having to be given equal rights. As in Moses day, perhaps we can come up with a lesser law, but keep our higher law too.
Regardless of law, in my religion, any married person who violates their covenant of marriage is going to be excommunicated. Excommunication is an act of love because it opens the door wide for repentance and forgiveness, which is a wonderful gift from God. There is a God who lives and loves each one regardless of race or religion, and who is bound to live his part of the business agreement when we live our part.
I hope you feel my willingness and desire to understand and discuss this sensitive topic.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.