Christianity and Homosexuality

OK, that's not enough to identify the Pew survey in question - at least I don't readily find it. If you know what it was called or have a linke, I'd really like to see it. Egypt is an interesting case, as it has had a tourist industry that is significant in their economy and has been a pretty friendly place to go - at least before their revolution. We worked against the revolution and were considered a part of the problem requiring revolution. So, I haven't kept up with opinion of the population.


ISIS got it's start before Obama. You just have Obama on the brain.

ISIS came about when Bush conquered Iraq and then started his "debaathification" program - enlisting Shiites to attack Sunnis and removing Sunnis from their jobs throughout Iraq.

When AQ started morphing into ISIS, Sunnis couldn't attack both ISIS and the USA and the Maliki militias. With Bush selecting Maliki to lead Iraq, the civil war was on, with ISIS spreading.

That had NOTHING to do with Obama.

 

What is this "Fall" you refer to?

 

As a Catholic I am embarrassed by what Francis states but encourage him into the 21st century.

"Pope Francis says homosexual tendencies are ‘not a sin’ https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/04/01/pope-francis-says-homosexual-tendencies-are-not-a-sin/

"Pope Francis has said that homosexual tendencies “are not a sin,” while encouraging parents who begin “seeing rare things” in their children to “please, consult, and go to a professional,” because “it could be that he [or she] is not homosexual . . . But I’m talking about a person who is developing, and parents start to see strange things … Please consult, and go to a professional, and there you will see what it is and may not be homosexual, that is due to something else,” he said . . . the pope said he was “explaining that you never throw a homosexual person out of the house, but I made a distinction that when the person is very young and begins to show strange symptoms, it’s useful to go … I said to a psychiatrist, at that moment you say the word that comes out and, on top of that, in a language that is not yours.”

 

What does which century it is have to do with truth? Better an old truth than a new lie. Why are you part of a church whose doctrine you disagree with?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_man

 

I don't know about the sin hierarchy, but both are sins. When you say 'being gay' is a sin, the act is, not the same-sex feelings, just as the temptation to drunkeness isn't a sin, acting on that is.

 

I would hope we would be against an Islamist revolution.

Maybe this will explain it to you, written two years ago: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomas...-democrats-helping-isis-recruit/#1859283d26ff

When Bush left office he warned against leaving Iraq too soon, as did the military. Obama ignored that advice, as it didn't fit the false narrative that Muslims were only mad at us because of Bush, and now that Obama was POTUS they would lay down their arms. I recall one incident where a huge ISIS convoy was marching somewhere in Iraq, unmolested when Obama was POTUS. A single A10 plane could have taken them out. I didn't say Obama started ISIS, but he enabled them, and their end is due to Trump.

 

Ahhhh….the Dogma BS.

 

I prefer to call it historical fact.

 

Call it whatever you wish....but it contains no fact. Humans did the same stuff (good and bad) before and after they made up this new God and then made up the story you posted. ….there's your fact for 'ya.

 

I'm sure you believe that.

 

I don't care if you agree or not, that's the Biblical answer.

 

I don't know what Bible you are looking at, but mine does.

 

So then why did Bush sign a SOFA with Iraq mandating the withdrawal of all US troops by 2011?

 

From an NPR article:

"Still, many had real concerns al Qaeda wasn't done for. And there were some, including U.S. senators, saying the troops should stay just in case things went downhill. They say Obama should have sold the idea, hard, to Maliki.

Iraq analyst Kirk Sowell said Obama never really tried.

"This is one of the criticisms of Obama — that he sort of wanted the negotiations to fail," Sowell said, "and, so, he didn't even talk to Maliki until it was basically all over."

The State Department's lawyers said troops couldn't stay in Iraq unless the Iraqi parliament authorized them to do so, including granting them immunity from Iraqi law. The Iraqi parliamentarians would never OK such a decision, with Iraqi popular opinion staunchly against U.S. troops staying.

Sowell saw State's decision as a deliberately insurmountable obstacle.

"It was a barrier that was very high," he said, "and there was no way it was going to be jumped over."


Why is ISIS defeated now, but not when Obama was in office?

 

Highlighted above in case you couldn't read your own article.

Because the Iraqis dropped the ball in 2012 and 2013 by pursuing Shia-only policies and alienating the Sunnis, driving them towards ISIS.

But you should recognize that ISIS lost 90% of its territory while Obama was in office. Since Trump came in, all it has been is mopping up.

 

The government before the revolution was a disaster that we were propping up.

The revolution was not carried out by "Islamists". It was carried out by a people who had no jobs and no opportunity.

No, Bush signed us out of Iraq.

He negotiated our departure and signed his SOFA specifying what we would take with us, what we would leave, what we would pay for and what they would pay for. That SOFA included a detailed schedule of our departure - when specific troops and material would leave and from where. AND, it included the revocation of our ability to carry out independent combat operations - leaving us with too few troops and permissions for doing no more than training and support.

That was BUSH. And, his SOFA was signed in December before his departure in January.

The right wing has always said that Obama should have torn up the Bush SOFA and negotiated. But, Maliki had his agreement from us and he was not interested in renegotiating. He didn't want us there in more than a support and training role. His objectives were not in line with ours.

So, what are YOU now proposing? Do you think Obama should have overthrown the government of Iraq?

WHY do you accuse Obama of what BUSH is TOTALLY responsible for doing?

 

Sure - you can have your religion. I always agree with that.

However, we don't make law based on the Bible. Look at all the sins in the Bible. Almost none of them have any analog in our law today.

And, I'd point out that Christianity is not of one mind on this issue.

 

Why should Maliki have renegotiated the Bush SOFA after it had been in place for about 1 month?

Bush gave Maliki exactly what he and his parliament wanted - the US out of Iraq, except as in a training and support role.

Remember that Maliki was carrying out a civil war against Sunnis, clearing civilians from cities using his militias as well as Iraq's military. We weren't interested in that.

Also, ISIS is certainly reduced, mostly during Obama, but how much land a terrorist group owns isn't a good measure. Our military doesn't say that ISIS is defeated.

 

Exactly so, you have people on both sides of the gay issue, for instance, which makes me wonder what all the fuss is about.

 

Obama did nothing to sell what was really needed, leaders do that.

Not really, note from the following link the ISIS losses from March to Dec. 2017, they have been completely wiped out now. It describes the much more rapid progress when Trump took office. Amazing what he's been able to accomplish while being hounded by the Russia collusion fairy tale.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/heres-how-much-ground-isis-has-lost-since-trump-took-over

 

I think when conditions changed from when SOFA was signed, he should have lobbied hard for a different plan. He did not, but this is the same one who wrongly predicted Bush's successful surge policy would fail. From Foreign Policy, The Mess Obama Left Behind in Iraq.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/07/the-mess-obama-left-behind-in-iraq-surge-debate/

 

That piece ignores the fact that Bush selected Maliki - who came in 3rd or 4th in an election that was close. And, he chose Maliki BECAUSE Maliki had worked well with the US in the "deBaathification" program back when Bush still thought THAT was a good idea, and not an absolute total disaster.

What did Bush THINK Maliki would do? I mean, attacking Sunnis is what he was FAMOUS for. That was where his power came from. And again, it's what we LIKED him doing. The idea that a Maliki government would start to reduce the level of civil war couldn't have made sense to anyone.

And, how did Bush think the US could hold off Maliki after signing a SOFA that reduced US forces to a training and support level - FAR below what our military considers necessary for independent combat operations.

This columnist likes to claim we still had power in Iraq. But, when Obama arrived, Maliki was president of a sovereign nation - something the US and the world saw as important. As a highly partisan Shiite, what did we have that would stop him from building ties with Iran? And, Maliki held a carefully negotiated plan of withdrawal - the SOFA.

Besides, what would US forces do in Iraq? Would we try to stop the Maliki militias and state military from slaughtering Sunnis? Would we go back to trying to sort AQ/ISIS out of the Sunni population that was under attack?

I think there were very real reasons that Bush signed us out of Iraq. And, the idea that the US could save the day by muscling our military back into Iraq hits me as ridiculous on all levels.

 

They come under the sexual immorality clause.

 

According to the biblical fairy tale guys are supposed to marry their brothers' widows. How will that work for you?