Homosexuality Or Legalism--Which Is Worse?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I think the Crusades are a great example of the kind of excess men will go to in order to bring power to themselves. It is much more closely realated to what one might call "legalism" than homosexual gang rape.

Originally Posted by Ferd

good grief. but if you dont like that one Linin and Trotski clearly fit your wacky man on man type incounter.... much better than the macho gay fest.

once again, where did you do this Anthropological study? UC Berkley? or some other Marxist/feminist/post moderern liberal arts school? You really need to un-learn some stuff.

I presume you are operating on a level of irony here and not repeatedly confusing Lenin with bath towels. As I said, the Crusades certainly involved a lot of up close and personal types of violence, but the whole enterprise was too vast to really fit into the previous types of analogies.

For example Simon De Montfort's men plundered and raped their way through Carcassonne - each individual human encounter being a horrible example of what you appear to be citing. However, the decree of the papacy to authorize the Crusade and the "Albigensian Crusade" itself (to use just one example of "Crusade") was an expansionist war to bring Languedoc regions under the power of the King of France. It was a revenue and land grab, and not "personal."

To equate this to local church dysfunctions is unneccessarily complex, IMHO. My own use of primate behavior is simpler and goes more to the heart of the problem- the need for individual status being played out in an abusive manner.

Let's review: within the context of a discussion comparing "legalists" with "gays" I mentioned that I was in a board meeting once where the manipulative behavior and domineering presence of others made me feel, well... uncomfortable. At least 2 other posters took my statement and repeated it in a rather contrived way as saying (words to the effect), that I compared Apostolic preachers to homosexual rapists. I said nothing of the kind. I said that "I was in a board meeting once..." I didn't even specifically identify anyone as being an "Apostolic Preacher."

You appear to be continuing to attempt to respond to that distortion of my statement and wish to defend these "Apostolic preachers" who you imagine that I have maligned by saying that there were worse things in history than Apostolic preachers, like the Crusades for example. This really does very little to defend Apostolic preachers, but it's the approach you have chosen.

As far as, "where did you do this Anthropological study?" as I stated before, my impressions of my "incounters" (sic) with Apostolics comes from a life long association with Apostolics. The statement that I made that appears to have offended you comes from my experience as an elected official and full time minister within one particular Apostolic fellowship. My secular education came years after my Apostolic training and experience.

My own education has been from a UPC Bible College (many years ago) and (more recently) the same Accredited University that produced Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and numerous other conservative luminaries. From some of my other posts you may have noticed that I have criticized "Marxist/feminist/post moderern liberal arts school" (sic) and their way of thinking. This is a particular field of interest for me.

Perhaps if you did not inflate what I said you wouldn't be so upset and hard pressed to understand where I'm coming from. There's really no need to try and fathom the worst cruelties of the human race when the discussion is merely about individuals mistreating one another locally.