published Wednesday, February 26th, 2014

History, set straight — and more letters to the editors

History, set straight

I noticed a letter in the Times Free Press op-ed page that was critical of the U.S. Navy operations off the coast of Lebanon. The writer's claim of "highly inaccurate guns afloat" that killed civilians is itself inaccurate.

I served as a gunner's mate aboard USS Julius A. Furer during the time referenced by the writer. Our ship was part of a battery of ships that included the battleship New Jersey. We provided naval gunfire support for the Marines who were engaged with the Syrian-backed militias in the Bekaa Valley. Even in 1982, the 16-inch guns of the Jersey and the 5-inch guns of our ship were highly accurate.

The naval operations were a result of Israel's invasion into Lebanon necessitated by the PLO acts of aggression into northern Israel. Our Marines were on the ground to prevent Syrian intrusion.

The 1982-83 mission was not one of terror as implied by the letter author. Rather, it was a just mission to stop terror. I know. I was there.

ROBIN FLORES, Chattanooga


Christianity and guns

While I honor a recent letter writer's desire to emulate Jesus in all things, it seems to me that she is the one who must deal with a conundrum regarding guns. Specifically, in Luke 22:36, Jesus directs any follower who does not own a sword to "sell his garment and buy one."

I am a Christian, own several guns (swords), and never once have felt that owning the means to protect my home and family constituted a conundrum. I certainly respect your decision to remain unarmed, but this Christian will be keeping his guns.

G. PATRICK BRYANT, Chattanooga


Public safety is at risk

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is still expanding the list of retailers carrying meat unfit for human consumption to Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington and 970 locations in California alone. About 8.7 million pounds were shipped all through 2013 by Rancho Feeding Corp. of Petaluma, Calif.

The recall comes in the wake of USDA's new "inspection" program that allows the meat industry to increase speed of processing lines and replace federal inspectors with plant employees. According to the USDA inspector general, this has resulted in partial failure to remove fecal matter, undigested food and other contaminants that may contain deadly E. coli and listeria bacteria.

Traditionally, the USDA has catered more to the interests and profitability of the meat industry than health and safety of American consumers. Consumer interests come into play only when large numbers of us get sick. Having the USDA protect consumers is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

The Obama administration should reallocate responsibility for all food safety to the Food and Drug Administration. In the meantime, each of us can assume responsibility for our own safety by switching to the rich variety of soy-based meat products offered by our favorite supermarket.

TRISTAN BELL, Chattanooga


U.S government and education

I was never in favor of the federal government being involved in public school education. We don't need or want the Department of Education; that job should be left to each individual state.

The idea that the federal government can be trusted to shape the young minds of our children is frightening. They have proven they are unable to run our country. What makes them think they are capable of running our public school system?

Those of you who are old enough remember that the school systems in prewar Germany, Japan, China, North Korea and the Soviet Union were tightly controlled, and some still are, on what they are taught, and how to think. No free thinking was allowed, or off you went to re-education camps or worse!

Sorry, I don't want my grandchildren being told how and what to think or what to eat. I want them to learn the correct things they will need to succeed, not what the government thinks they will need. I hope this great state will take back control of our education system and save her children from the bungling bureaucrats.

R. DE MARS Crossville, Tenn.


Go home, Mr. King

Lo and behold, I opened up the business section in the Times Free Press to find that Bob King and his union goons are still in town, whining about their loss in the VW election. They're still "outraged" about comments made by Tennessee politicians Bob Corker and Bill Haslam, who denounced the UAW.

Funny, I didn't see any mention about their buddy, politician-in-chief Obama, and his commentary coming out in favor of their cause. I guess it's OK for Obama to comment but not the folks who actually represent the people of Tennessee.

My advice to Mr. King is to pack your bags and go back to Detroit. Nobody in the South is interested in your "help."

STEVE BERNTHAL, Blairsville, Ga.


The consequences of homosexuality

One recent letter writer said Jesus never addressed homosexuality. It is so offensive to God that even the angels speak it not. But it was addressed many times in other books. I do know a lot of people who have overcome it.

Jesus said God made one man and one woman for each other. There is no such thing as a marriage between two of the same sex.

I'm 81 years old and in all the books I've read, including the Bible which I have read many times and studied, I've never read of a nation that [accepted] this lifestyle and survived. Everyone was destroyed and carried into another country.

The people of Chattanooga know the truth. Why our pastors are not speaking out, I don't know. The Book says: In the last days these things will happen. For those who keep the faith, and we have many in Chattanooga, hang on to what you have and pray for those who are being led astray.

Be careful, the deceivers are out there.

ROBERT C. LONG, Hixson

42
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
LibDem said...

Mr. G. PATRICK BRYANT, When you're in my neighborhood, please leave your gun in your car and let me loan you a garment.

Mr. or Ms. R. DE MARS, You do understand that you're advocating one government (state) over another (federal)? They be both "governments" telling the grandkids how and what to think.

February 26, 2014 at 7:10 a.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Many very ignorant (very, 'very' ignorant) people slather out silly notions that Jesus Christ spoke contradictions. If these individuals will take a few seconds to think about one extremely simple example of 'seeming' 'contradictions' in nature, then I will be so appreciative:

Exothermic and endothermic. Exothermic means energy is radiated outward. Which usually generates heat or heating. Endothermic means energy is radiated inward which usually generates cold or cooling. …When the voltage is high enough, frost can form on each end of an electrical spark gap. This is only one of myriads of examples.

To the those who want to live a DeGenerate lifestyle of the anti-Christ..."Go try to sell Your pathetic 'contradictions' balderdash to others (like Yourself).

Did You Get That? ...Don't claim my Saviour spoke in contradictions...unless You know more about the laws of Physics than Your very own Creator, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Ken ORR

February 26, 2014 at 9:44 a.m.
moon4kat said...

Mr. Orr, all we know of Jesus is folklore, written decades after his death by a variety of storytellers. You know that, right?

February 26, 2014 at 9:53 a.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Not true moon4kat. Take a look at Flavius Josephus [Book 20 of his Antiquities of the Jews],Tacitus, Apostle Paul, and Jerome for starters. The Apostles of Jesus Christ also knew of a 'few' details about Our Saviour. There are far, far too many proofs. I don't have the time now to honor Your questioning, but, please, if You do go to my Times Free Press comments. There You will discover a preponderance of 'overwhelming', cogent, weighty proofs of the life of Our Wonder Saviour, Jesus Christ of Nazareth!

Ken ORR

February 26, 2014 at 9:58 a.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

More: Pliny the Younger (on Jesus): The Babylonian Talmud: Lucian of Samosata (sp?): Going deeper, use the Arabic Text of Flavius Josephus {above}: Julius Africanus [Extant Writings]: Mara Bar-Serapion : Anyway, I've definitely got to leave the home now. I complied this out of love for You and all who may want to begin a serious study of the proofs of Our Lord, God, and Saviour, Jesus Christ of Nazareth for whom thousands have given their very lives. They died, not for a lie, but, for The Truth.

Ken ORR

February 26, 2014 at 10:30 a.m.
moon4kat said...

Mr. Orr, my post is NOT in error. Flavius Josephus was born in 37 A.D. (aka common era), which is a few years after Jesus' death. So, the two never met; FJ only heard, or read, of Jesus from other storytellers. Also, please note: Josephus wrote "Antiquities" around 94 A.D., six decades after the death of Jesus. It is acknowledged that a person named Jesus existed; what he said and did is the subject of much conjecture and quite a lot of fabrication by a variety of different storytellers, like those you have mentioned.

February 26, 2014 at 10:59 a.m.
ToHoldNothing said...

Homosexual as we understand it now is vastly different than any idea of it hundreds of years ago, so it's no wonder any culture that accepted it collapsed. Then again, to suggest that it was acceptance of homosexuality that doomed them is too myopic in scale.

February 26, 2014 at 12:55 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Ken Orr, the "proofs" of Jesus' existence of which you speak are highly speculative and inconsequential. They are all pitifully brief and vague, only mentioning someone named Jesus in the most generic of terms. Of all of them the "Testimonium Flavianum" of Flavius Josephus has become the most famous, and it has been thoroughly debunked by not only secular scholars but most Christian Bible scholars as well. Only a few deluded and desperate hangers-on like you still try to cite it as a relevant history or "proof" of Christ's existence.

Josephus was known to have written in great detail about men of even minor importance. Yet he penned only one brief paragraph about someone whose controversial words and deeds surely deserved more than a few mere sentences. Furthermore, that paragraph does not adhere to Josephus' style of writing and it is entirely incongruent with the writing that immediately precedes and follows it. To go even further, he was a devout Pharasaic Jew and he surely would not have admitted to Jesus as being "the Christ" as he does in the TF.

The Testimonium Flavianum has been traced, in all likelihood, to Eusebius, a Catholic Church scholar of the 4th century who was an admitted "holy liar." He professed to believing that it was perfectly acceptable to lie if it furthered God's divine plan. He is known to have concocted many forgeries and interpolations, and the style of writing in the TF has been shown to be very similar to his while not in any way resembling that of Josephus.

The Testimonium Flavianum, like all other so-called secular, historical accounts of JC, is nothing but a blatant forgery, and a very poor one at that. The fact that you still cling to it, Mr. Orr, as factual evidence of a purely mythological character only shows how desperately you are clinging to straws to support your blind faith. There most likely was indeed someone named Jesus (a very common name at that time) who was preaching and prophesying because there were many so-called prophets and itinerant preachers then. But to think that this Jesus was a divine being (son of God) who walked on water, turned water into wine, raised the dead, arose from the dead himself, and bodily ascended into heaven...well, he certainly does round out the Holy Trinity (of fairly tale characters) - Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and Jesus Christ.

February 26, 2014 at 2:43 p.m.

ToHoldNothing, what is the understanding now of homosexuality as opposed to a hundred years ago? Just because you put lipstick on a pig, doesn't mean it's not a pig anymore. Just because it's called "GAY" now, doesn't make it any less abnormal. It's still a man inserting his penis in another man's anus. That's what is difficult to accept. They can do what they want, at least in this country, but to punish people for not accepting it, is very much a sign that this country is in trouble. A man in California yanked his son out of school because the public school was teaching that an anus is a genital.

February 26, 2014 at 3:14 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

An afterthought about blind faith and logic: I find it interesting that otherwise intelligent, adult people like you, Mr. Orr, readily acknowledge how preposterous it is to think that a fat man - or even a skinny man, for that matter - could come down not only one chimney and deliver a bag full of toys but every chimney in the entire world on one night, delivering a bag full of toys to every good little boy and girl. You see how ludicrous and impossible that is, right? And why is that ludicrous and impossible? Because it denies the laws of physics and common sense! Yet you hold fast to the belief that some man of 2000 years ago went around performing miracles that defied even the most basic laws of physics.

And speaking of physics... It did exist as a science in its most rudimentary terms during the time that JC supposedly lived, but nobody called it physics, and none of the laws of physics (or the names or the formulae of those laws, rather) that we know today existed at that time. In fact during the spread of the mental plague of Christianity, for over a thousand years, science in general was shunned and intelligent inquiry and curiosity were supplanted with superstition and blind faith in the Christian propaganda that was being disseminated by the Church fathers. For you to claim or even insinuate that Christ was expert in the laws of physics is downright laughable.

February 26, 2014 at 3:42 p.m.
ToHoldNothing said...

Zablee are you so willfully ignorant that you think lesbians don't exist? Just because you think it is weird doesn't mean it really affects you beyond the same sort of oddity like someone enjoying a different sport than you or being left handed or having heterochromia.

Homosexuality is much more understood scientifically and psychologically today than when those disciplines were in their infancy or didn't exist

February 26, 2014 at 5:24 p.m.
Plato said...

R. DE MARS - the federal government does not tell communities what to teach in the schools that's left up to local school boards.

February 26, 2014 at 6:28 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"They can do what they want, at least in this country, but to punish people for not accepting it, is very much a sign that this country is in trouble." - zableed

Who is being punished for not accepting it? It is the homosexual people who have been and continue to be punished by treating them as second-class citizens and for continuing to refer to them as "abnormal" and "sinners."

It doesn't take a PhD in psychology or extensive scientific or psychological research to know that gay people do not "decide" to be gay. Sure, there are no doubt some few who decide to experiment or to engage in bisexual activity, but most truly homosexual people are born with a natural (natural for them anyway) desire for the same sex. We might not understand why, and it might seem abnormal to us straight folks, but they are only acting in accordance with their natural instincts. For them to deny it and "try" to go straight is like expecting an orange to be an apple or for black to "try" to be white or vice versa. You and the other gay bashers really need to just talk to more gay people and you would quickly see that they didn't "choose" at puberty which gender to be attracted to. Their gay-ness was as genetically preordained as a straight person's straightness. Religious zealots don't want to accept that because it makes it harder for them to justify their bigotry and their self-righteousness.

February 26, 2014 at 6:31 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

You are wrong moon4kat because You did not give appropriate consideration to The Apostles of Jesus Christ.

You are wrong Rickaroo because You did not do Your homework regarding the consensus of scholars on Josephus: To whit, this quote:

"According to Feldman's discernible statistics [Feld.JosMod, 684-91] , 4 scholars regard the larger passage as completely genuine, 6 more as mostly genuine; 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations; 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation as Wells does.) Twleftree [Twel.GosP5, 300] , offering an unusual view, rejects the smaller passage on rather thin terminological grounds, but strangely, accepts most of the larger passage as genuine. Cite: James Patrick Holding

Ken ORR says, 'Get it right, or, be wrong.'

February 27, 2014 at 12:19 a.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Hey Rickaroo

What about that 'Bestiality' Gene? And that 'Child Molester'Gene? And That 'Rape Women' (or Men) Gene? Or that 'Grand Theft Auto' Gene? And That Murder, Adultery, and Traffic Violation Gene?

Yeah, right! Give it up! Say it with me, it won't hurt You, say Willful SIN!

February 27, 2014 at 12:41 a.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Just one of the proofs against the 'Balderdash' that homosexuals have a 'gene' thingy that predisposes them to beastiality, or, child molestation, or, something.

Please Research 'Identical Twin Siblings and Homosexuality'. The Overwhelming and Conclusive Scientific Evidence Is As Follows: Identical Twin Siblings Come From The Very Same Ovum (egg) Of Their Biological Mother. 100% Of The Genetic Material, From The DNA, On Down, Is Identical. This Would Mean That All 'Genetic' Predispositions Would Be Identical. Yet, One Identical Twin Will Choose (Prefer) The Homosexual Behavior, But, His Sibling Will Choose The Preference Of Heterosexuality. The Overwhelming Rule Is For Each Identical Twin To Choose (Prefer) Different Sexual Lifestyles. If Homosexual Behavior Was Genetically Determined, Then, Both Identical Twins Would "ALWAYS" Be Homosexual. But, This Is Not The Case. We Could Then Begin To Develop Tests To Identify Genetic Tags (Markers) To Help Nations Decrease The Catastrophic Cost Of Treating, Housing, Counseling, and, Otherwise Paying For The HIV/AIDS Infected Individuals Who Choose (Prefers) The Homosexual Behavioral Lifestyle.

For the prevaricating and misinformed, I shall expose copy number variations in another comment. Then, please admit that You are a 'Pleasure Sexual' and not a born-homosexual [duplicity}!

Ken ORR

February 27, 2014 at 12:44 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

No one said there was a "gene" for sexual orientation, Ken. Stop lying. A Liar for Jesus is still a liar.

February 27, 2014 at 8:12 a.m.
Stewwie said...

lkeithlu,

Rickaroo said "genetically preordained". Sound to me like he believes in a gay gene despite evidence to the contrary. You libs can't have it both ways. Which is it?

February 27, 2014 at 10:21 a.m.
dao1980 said...

Stewwie and Kenny sitting in a tree..

February 27, 2014 at 11:10 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Ken Orr, don't tell me that I "have not done my homework." I dare say that I have studied the Testimonium Flavianum at least as much as you have, probably more. I am puzzled by the so-called logic of the quote that you cite (but then, I am puzzled by your "logic" in general!): the very thing you reference in your attempt to make your point only serves to discredit you. According to Mr. Holding only 4 scholars out of more than 50 believe the TF to be wholly genuine. Let me repeat that - ONLY 4 out of more than 50!. THIRTEEN regard it as being a total interpolation, and the remainder believe that it was interpolated at least a little. That is 13 who believe it to be a TOTAL INTERPOLATION vs. 4 who do not! And the fact that it was interpolated even a little means that it could just as easily be, and probably was, interpolated entirely. So how exactly does the quote you cite support your argument? Do you not have the good sense to realize that you have just shot yourself in the foot?

Even if the brief passage were totally the writing of Josephus it does nothing to prove the existence of your Christ. He was still writing merely from hearsay, several generations removed from the time that JC supposedly walked the earth.

Mr. Orr, I am not going to continue to butt heads with you on this issue. If there's one thing I have learned it is that fundamentalists such as yourself inhabit an other-worldly sphere where logic does not exist and to try to make a point with you utilizing logic and reasoned debate is utterly useless. You live in a vacuum in which your Bible is the be-all and end-all of truth. But if you want to get at truth you have to be willing to step outside of your bubble and question everything, even the very source of your belief. You and every other fundamentalist are incapable of doing that. I might just as well butt my head against a stone wall. Enjoy your childish delusions.

On another note, here's a little something from Betty Bowers, America's best Christian. I know you like to think of yourself as the best Christian, but trust me, Mrs. Betty here does it with panache! Pay close attention to item #3. It has to do with your most salient characteristic - judging others.

February 27, 2014 at 11:15 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Stewwie... I am not a scientist and I must admit that I don't know about the whole gene thing or the nature/nurture thing other than what I have read about it. But I don't care whether it's genetic predisposition or something else, homosexuals are no more capable of "choosing" to be gay any more than straight people are capable of "choosing" to be straight. Whatever it is that makes gays be gay, it is natural for them, in that they are "wired" that way in the same way I am "wired" to be straight. And it is wrong and unjust to criticize or demean or judge them for it, or to think that only traditional straight marriage is the only right way to define marriage as a sacred bond of love between two people.

February 27, 2014 at 11:30 a.m.
Stewwie said...

Rick,

You are contradicting yourself. First, you note that you "don't know about the whole gene thing or nature/nuture...". But then you confidently assert that gays and straights have no choice in their sexual preferences. But if nuture does have a role in some way (which you admit that you do not know), then you cannot make the statement that you did about genetic predispositions.

The reality is that people are not inherently born "gay" or "straight." Some guys may act a little feminine or dress a little metro, but that doesn't mean they're gay. Even folks who struggle with SSA aren't necessarily "gay" unless they act on those temptations. Ultimately, the pursuance of a sexual encounter/relationship with someone of the same gender is a choice, not something you are compelled to do. And there are numerous accounts of folks who have lived the homosexual lifestyle and now have chosen to live otherwise.

February 27, 2014 at 12:08 p.m.
conservative said...

Stewwie:

Of course Homosexuality/sodomy is a choice and one doesn't have to be a Christian to know that.

Defending and excusing and promoting Homosexuality/sodomy is a mark of Liberalism just like abortion, Socialism, taxation, drug addiction, lying, hypocrisy, soft on crime, anti America....

February 27, 2014 at 12:29 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Stewwie, I am not contradicting myself in the least. I admit only to the fact that I am not a scientist and therefore I cannot offer MY OWN scientific knowledge regarding the issue. But there is a lot of literature based on scientific and psychological studies that support the notion of a genetic predisposition, or at least the nature OVER nurture aspect, regarding homosexuality, and I happen to believe that their findings make perfect sense. There might not be a specific gene that determines homo- or heterosexuality but there is something innate involved that determines it, not just the overly simplistic, and frankly idiotic, notion of someone "choosing" to be gay because that person believes it to be a more kinky or decadent lifestyle. That is preposterous.

As a young man in my mid-twenties and totally ignorant of how gay people thought and acted, I moved to Boston in the mid-70s. Unbeknownst to me at the time I moved to the fringe of one of the largest gay communities. At first I was taken aback to see myself surrounded by so many gays, but in time I got to know more and more of them and I had some pretty heady conversations with a lot of them. I am rather analytical and I like to understand what makes people tick so I tend to ask probing questions of people, at least once I get to know them. Not one gay person that I talked to ever spoke of their homosexuality as a "choice." It was clear to me that they lusted after men the same way and with the same sort of intense desire that I as a young man lusted after women, and they instinctively felt that way with the onset of puberty - and sometimes even as a child they just felt "different." It does not take a PhD in psychology to see where they are coming from. I admit that there are some few who engage in swinging both ways out of confusion or youthful daring and experimentation, but true homosexuals do not "choose." Their gayness is as real, natural, and valid for them as my or your straightness is for us.

Con-man, as for you, you are a damn fool who can't pull your head out of your stupid Bible long enough to know your ass from a hole in the ground, so I don't pay any attention to what you say or think.

February 27, 2014 at 1:13 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

BTW...regarding what stewwie said about there being "numerous accounts of folks who have lived the homosexual lifestyle and now have chosen to live otherwise": there have been a FEW cases of this but that proves nothing. The ones who have done so, or tried to do so, have in all cases been made to feel sinful or maladjusted by friends or "well-intentioned" Christian nuts who have been influential in their lives.

Trying to de-program a homosexual amounts to nothing more than suppression of one's true self. A gay person still lusts after his/her own gender, they are simply repressing their true desires and feelings. And if they are still desiring and preferring to be with their own sex while merely pretending to be straight by marrying or coupling with the opposite sex, or even being celibate, they are still gay at heart. And isn't it still a sin, according to you Christians, to even lust after anyone in your heart? Just going through the motions of being straight or in any way opposite to who you really are is NOT what I would call true transformation.

February 27, 2014 at 1:32 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

"The reality is that people are not inherently born "gay" or "straight.""

So Stewwie, if this is true, when did you decide/choose that you were "straight"?

"Some guys may act a little feminine or dress a little metro, but that doesn't mean they're gay."

Do you know many gay people? Many of them dress like a normal guy and act masculine.

February 27, 2014 at 1:40 p.m.
Stewwie said...

Rick,

[there have been a FEW cases of this but that proves nothing.]

Except that it proves that sexual preference is not caused by genetic predisposition.

[The ones who have done so, or tried to do so, have in all cases been made to feel sinful or maladjusted by friends or "well-intentioned" Christian nuts who have been influential in their lives.]

Let me apologize on behalf of all well-intentioned Christians for trying to encourage folks to live the most natural and healthy lifestyle there is.

Gassy,

[So Stewwie, if this is true, when did you decide/choose that you were "straight"?]

Everyday. It's easier for me since I don't struggle with SSA, but I do make a choice each day to pursue my wife and no others (women or men). We all struggle with different temptations, but ultimately the choices that you make determine who you are.

[Many of them dress like a normal guy and act masculine.]

Of course the women do. (Kidding.)

February 27, 2014 at 2:17 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

So you had to make a conscious choice that you are straight? I found myself naturally attracted to women; I never had to make a choice that I was attracted to women and not men. And "pursuing your wife each day" has nothing to do with sexuality, it's about being loyal. But let's be honest, even though you're married, if an attractive woman walks by you in a bikini, do you not think to yourself that she is hot?

February 27, 2014 at 2:42 p.m.
wallyworld said...

Idiots - talk to real people - oh, Michael Sam comes to mind here - feminine - yeah, RIGHT!!!

February 27, 2014 at 3:24 p.m.
Stewwie said...

Gassy,

If an attractive woman walks by me in a bikini, it's hard not to notice of course. But it's my choice on whether or not I begin to think lustfully after that woman. The Christian view of sex is that it's for one man and one woman together in marriage. Any sex outside of that is wrong and should be and can be opposed. I have every intent to only pursue sexually the one woman who is my wife.

February 27, 2014 at 3:37 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

The only "choice" involved in determining who excites a man sexually can easily be indicated by his penis. If the sight of a naked man gives him a boner, he's gay. If a naked woman gives him a boner, he's straight. It's that simple. And if your penis decides for you it is not a conscious decision but an instinctual one. And if it is an instinctual decision that means that it is in your "nature" to be that way. The only reason anyone would have for trying to deny an instinctual urging and force it in an opposite direction is by giving too much credence to the Christian idiots who try to make him/her feel guilty for living in accordance with their natural urgings.

There's no such thing as a literal hell, but if there were, you self-righteous full-of-sh!t Christians would account for most of the people who end up there.

February 27, 2014 at 4:52 p.m.
LibDem said...

I haven't read all Stewwie's posts because Christians tend to be one note; however, I assume if he's excited only by his wife he's gay. Boys are taught from an early age that gay is evil and tend to suppress. Conservative, who posts here, will tell you effeminate boys are going to hell because he has filled his heart with hate. This tends to encourage men to hide their true feelings. It's unfortunate.

February 27, 2014 at 7:17 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

There is no "gay gene", but sexual orientation is biological; best explanation to date is hormonal exposure in utero. It is not a choice. This information is available to anyone. It is also not a "one or the other" phenomenon. Sexual orientation and behavior is quite complex. Whatever happens between two consenting adults in private is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

February 27, 2014 at 8:25 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

I haven't used this label in months...but...here goes:

CONCLUSION

Nurture predosposes individuals to certain behaviors. Predisposition requires a willful choice to 'express' a certain behavior (learned). I choose to either go outside of marriage for sex, or not. I choose to shoot heroin, or not. Choice is a decision. I make my decision regarding to do it, or not. I create from a disorder (no decision) to 'order' (I make a choice/decision). There are many phases between these two, which phases/stages equals 'indecision'. In this case one may behave as a labeled 'bi-sexual'. The operational defining 'buzz word' is expression. As an autonomous being, I choose to behave in such a way that I create an ordered state which expresses the learned predisposition. Our mortal wills are sacred to Jesus Christ. He will not withhold from us this privilege. If one chooses that which Christ Jesus declares to be an abomination [homosexual behavior], then Our Saviour declares them to be 'dogs' and judged to eternal hell, fire, and brimstone [Damned]. Any questions?

Ken ORR

February 27, 2014 at 8:45 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

lkeithlu

"NONE OF OUR BUSINESS".......WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

II Timothy 4:1-3 {Authorized King James Version)

1 "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season;reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they..."

Jude: KJV

4 "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities."

February 27, 2014 at 9:09 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

you are wasting your time quoting to me from your holy book, Ken. To me it is just as valid as Dr. Suess. I'd prefer Harry Potter, if you don't mind. At least it doesn't pretend to be nonfiction.

February 27, 2014 at 10:16 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Then,lkeithlu...You must NOT be a Christian! Therefore, You are correct in Your statement, "Whatever happens between two consenting adults in private is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS." Yet, yet, yet!...I AM a Christian and it indeed, IS my business. BECAUSE...I am commanded by my Lord, God, and Saviour to " 1 "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season;reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they..."

So, You are correct. Until You are converted, it is none of Your business.

Ken ORR

February 28, 2014 at 6:28 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I am not a Christian as far as your definition, no. And your religious freedom and influence stop with you. What other people do with their lives is none of your business. If you want to live in a theocracy so you can make it your business, there are a few to choose from. Bon voyage.

February 28, 2014 at 7:41 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

So KenOrr, why not a holy crusade against divorce? ~50% of marriages in the US end in divorce and I'm pretty sure that the Bible is against that. If you wacko's weren't simply picking and choosing parts of the Bible, you'd be rallying to end divorce and you would be protesting outside of divorce attorney's offices. But no, with that number of marriages ending in divorce, if the church attempted to banish divorcees, the tithing plate would take too big of a hit. We can't have that can we?

February 28, 2014 at 11:29 a.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

lkeithlu,

Wrong again! Jesus Christ and His Followers did not live in a theocracy. They have given me the example/blue(red)print to follow. Jesus Christ said the earth will vomit out the abominations folks...so...'Bon voyage' to them and their supporters.

Ken ORR

February 28, 2014 at 11:56 a.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Rickaroo,

Let me interpret/translate Your below quote: Ah, uh, duh?>>> They DO NOT know!! Meaning also...They are saying, "We want to live DeGenerate lives and support anti-Christ issues, and, spew tautologies such as, "There may be a bear in those woods, or, there may not be a bear in those woods". Yeah, right!

Rickaroo's quote>>"According to Mr. Holding only 4 scholars out of more than 50 believe the TF to be wholly genuine..."

And Rickaroo, that word in the quote, 'wholly', is very powerful.

Ken ORR

February 28, 2014 at 1:47 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Ken Orr, back in the early 70s I took a job at Moccasin Bend as a psychiatric aide. I was thinking of majoring in psychology and I thought it would be interesting and educational to work first-hand with mentally disturbed or mentally "challenged" patients. I still have some vivid memories of some of the patients that I worked with. You know, some of the ones who were the most out-there, bizarre schizophrenics of them all actually made more sense than you. I honestly believe that you are an unstable, completely out-of-your-gourd human being. Your God delusion and obsession with your Bible and homosexuality are as severe as any drug addict's addiction to whatever drug. You seriously need to get your head out of that Bible and breathe some of the air of reason and common sense. It really is uplifting and divine in its own right. I hope you get the help that you desperately need. Though I suspect that you are hopelessly and forever lost in your delusion.

February 28, 2014 at 3:10 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.