>I know this is unlikely to make sense to you, but I'll go there anyway.

Wo there.... I never said anything about the treatment of homosexuals. You have made a really large and unfair leap of judgement.

I simply used this show as an example of our so called progress of individual morality. There are those that claim that this is progress of morality and I just do not see how that can be so.

>I don't believe that secular morality is an indicator of the level of >spirituality among the religious folk in this country.

Hummmm.... probably best we leave that thought alone. :)

>Jesus showed mercy toward the tax collectors, prostitutes, and adulterers in >his day.

As I try and do also but fail because I'm no Jesus! :) And I'm grateful that he shows me that same mercy to me on a daily basis and believe that we should do the same to others. Nothing in my previous post should be taken as otherwise.

>I believe we should show tolerance and understanding to others as a matter of >faith.

To try and understand a person is vital so we agree but the tolerance part is problematic. There is no indication where Jesus ever "tolerated" sinful behavior. Pity,yes. Mercy, yes. Understanding, yes. Forgiveness, yes.

When a lady caught in adultry was brought before Christ he told the people that brought her... those that are without sin cast the first stone. When they did not... because they could not he looked at her and said that he did not condem her. But he also encouraged her to go and sin no more! I think it is a real leap to say that Jesus "tolerated" sin of any kind.

>The Romans of that time had laws you and I would shudder at. Were you aware >that the "slaves, seek not to be free" comment in the bible was made at a time >when roman masters had the legal right to have sex with their slaves? Were you >aware this law applied not just to heterosexual sex? I am not willing to throw >out homosexuals as being some kind of sub-human species. The section in the >old testament that called homosexual activity an "abomination" also used the >same words about eating the meat of pigs or making a sandwich with both meat >and cheese.

Well we could get into a long and lengthy discussion of the hebraic laws of morality and the other laws of sanitation and food but it probably would not benefit anyone. I would just respond that yes I'm aware of more than you might imagine having a Masters in Theology and having made study of these issues a major endevor in my life. < s >

>I don't see God as having a preference for one government leader over another, >or for one country over another. God doesn't take sides in war, and he isn't a >Republican. So no, I don't see the election as any symbol of moral decay. I >see it as an election. What we'll get at the end is a president, and God will >be available for assistance whether it is Gore or Bush.

Well again, I'm sorry I did not communicate my intention very well, or perhaps you felt like you had a funDAMentalist getting onto you (which you did not!)
< s >

At no point did I indicate that I felt that God was for one side or the other. My comments about the election were meant to suggest that it (the election) is an indicator of a deeply divided, angry, and litigious country with an ethic of its potential leaders that says... win no matter what. In my view not progress.

Sorry if I failed to do that properly. :)

>I'm a registered Democrat, if you can't tell.

I really do not care at all... I mean that in this way.... what ever your political affiliation you are a person with the right to just as much respect and honor as anyone else.

>I'm also a christian, just not >the Pat Robertson variety.

Me too... on both acconts. :)

>Put that in your pipe and smoke it! *G*

I put down the pipe years ago.... now what type of pipe is up to you to decide. < vbg >