Concentration camps for gays advocated from the pulpit

[Cathy]

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... _defn.html

This snippet of an academic writing pertains to the lack of clinical definition of homophobia and discusses more appropriate terms that can be used.

[Cathy]

My high grade non-homophobic test score probably has a lot to do with my MD experience. I have been up close and personal with a lot of folk. I am generally somewhat desensitized to differences in people. And I once owned a condominium in a building that was about half gay owners or renters.

I chose neutral positions in the test fairly often. I am actually fairly conflicted about homosexuality. I would not say that the homosexual lifestyle is without sin, married or unmarried. On the other hand I have seen a lot worse (sin) in myself and others.

I certainly don't think homosexuals should be forced back into the closet so that they marry the opposite sex and then are miserable in the marriage and break the heart of a heterosexual spouse. I know a number of women that married men who then later came out as gay or were discovered to be gay in the course of a divorce or leading to divorce.

I don't know why church people should get all upset about the secular institution of marriage. From a medical perspective I do see marriage as a relationship with a biological basis. Given that I wish that we had domestic partner legislation that served the purpose of marriage from a legal perspective. I was married in a church by a minister and paperwork was done to make that a legal contract. I know at least one couple who got married in a church and the paperwork was not done to protect a study visa status. I consider that couple married. I suspect that they will get the legal matter established when their residencies and fellowships are completed and she can go back home and wait on a permanent residency visa.

I think all arguments about what is inborn and what is not inborn (born with homosexual tendency in this case) makes something right or wrong are questionable at best. You can't give examples of inborn tendencies without inflaming the argument. So I won't do that here. Is one happier because they follow their inborn tendencies or are they better because they do? I don't think I would say yes to that. You can see that I am fairly conflicted.

The NC minister is about as irrational as the one in Florida that likes to burn Korans.

[Ed Pettibone]

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_defn.html

ED: Thanks Cathy. I appreciate the finding regarding the meaning and use of Homophobia. However I still find their resolution to be problematic, in that I can not agree that "Conceptualizing heterosexuals' negative attitudes toward homosexuality and bisexuality as sexual prejudice – rather than homophobia – has several advantages."

I am sorry I do not have a lot of time for this response as I have three meetings in the next week that I need to do additional preparation for.

I find the three points of the conclusion to send a mixes message.

When they say;

"First, sexual prejudice is a descriptive term. Unlike homophobia, it conveys no a priori assumptions about the origins, dynamics, and underlying motivations of antigay attitudes." I do not agree that "sexual prejudice conveys no priori assumptions".

And when they say;
"Second, the term explicitly links the study of antigay hostility with the rich tradition of social psychological research on prejudice."
I agree that it does but I am not sure that it should.

And I wish the third where true.
"Third, using the construct of sexual prejudice does not require value judgments that antigay attitudes are inherently irrational or evil." See the first.

And i will admit that I have spent less than twenty min with this study and I may revise my reply when I have more time. And I may not .

But again thanks.

I have now read your narrative and i will say that I also am some what conflicted but being on our Regional Missions Board and the Associational advisory council I do not have the luxury of being noncommittal. I rely on 7 plus decades of life experiences ( Family, school, military and secular work and active roles in church leadership) to offer my input. And I think we may come out pretty close to the same place.

[Gene Scarborough]

I think we are being too esoteric about this whole thing. You can use .25-cent words until the cows come home and it diminishes in no way the hate and derision expressed in 2 pulpits in NC. Were it WWII days, the congregants would be cheering as the queers were led to death camps along with Jews and Gypsies. This is a deplorable state of affairs 50+ years after the horrors of the Holocaust.

What starts this stuff?

(1) The inability to admit that sexual preference is more complex than the Bible admits.
(2) God is the Creator of sexuality and He made it more complex than the Bible admits.
(3) Other surrounding cultures than the Hebrews took a different view and blessed same-sex unions.
(4) In their "perfection and difference" Hebrews made things black-and-white which are not the same in nature.
(5) Is there anyone here who will admit that both testosterone and estrogen flow in every human body which makes each of us bi-sexual, like it or not.
(6) The dilemma of being drawn to the same sex is a part of natural growth as we have that "gang mentality" pre-puberty.
(7) H.S. Sullivan's theory of personality development posits a natural move from same-sex identity to opposite-sex identity when our hormones start flowing at puberty.
(8) It could be as simple as people stuck in a stage of development rather than progressing to maturity posited by Sullivan.

It is obvious that procreation can take place only when sperm and egg unite in a heterosexual union. This pastor and his buddy in Fayetteville are raving as if it is the end of the world if heterosexuality does not have an exclusive place in NC. That, in my view, when placed with abject hatred is a terribly false presentation of Christianity. Jesus simply said NOTHING in the area of homosexuality so why are we compelled to make it a life-or-death issue?

The real travesty is that NC already legally recognizes only opposite sex unions. The Marriage Amendment here and in other states is superfulous and only begets more prejudice and hatred.

Give it a rest and mind your own business!!!!!

The Tea Party has accomplished it's evil purposes when politics begets hatred and division among members of a free society based on the ideal of "all men created equal with the right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed> Gene, Politics was begeting hatred and division among members of our free society before the Tea Party was ever heard of.

If you are tired of this discussion I for one would not miss your input.

I think Cathy and I have the key to reasonable discourse.

By the way there has been some significant advance in the study of human development since the death of Harry Stack Sullivan 63 years ago.

[Mrs Haruo]

You don't even have to have a heterosexual union. I leaned that being a farmer's daughter watching General Hospital with my mom when I was 11 years old. Jesse wanted a baby real bad and Dr. Steve wasn't getting her pregnant so she ran off to a doctor to get artificially inseminated, just like our purebred Angus cow Marsha. I saw the man with the white overalls and the big black satchel in the pasture when I was 5. He tied up Marsha and started messing with her tail. I asked Mom what he was doing and she said go into the kitchen, there's a new coloring book on the table. Babies come from turkey basters. All you need is a sperm donor. Shocking aint it? And a hearty AMEN to Brother Scarborough for telling it like it is!

[John Sneed]

80 posts? Really?

[Ed Pettibone]

80 posts? Really?

Ed: Your made it 82. this is 83 does that surprise you ?

[Neil Heath]

This Kansas pastor has gone even further. He wants the government to kill gay people, based on his reading of scripture.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/29/kansas-pastor/

I should also point out that the article identifies his church as Southern Baptist.

[Haruo]

The church is listed at founders.org as a Founders-friendly church. Which I think supports the notion that it is SBC. Right? Not sure about the reliability of the quotations and so on; but if they're not way out of context then I think the SBC needs to worry.

[Haruo]

He's got a bunch of sermons online; check out his 9-part sermon series on Catholicism. I don't see one that is obviously the one cited in the blog Neil linked to, though.

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed---

H.S. Sullivan may have died years ago, but his typology of personality development remains along with Freud and Rogers + others as a standard theory of personality development. Whether you like it of not, recent studies in anatomy and physiology indicate being gay has its roots in the nature of the brain and hormone system.

Why do you have such a problem with gay affection as if it is not part of God's mysterious approach to sexuality?

Had you be raised on--or exposed to--the farm, you would realize that some bulls like bulls and some cows like cows

[Ed Pettibone]

The church is listed at founders.org as a Founders-friendly church. Which I think supports the notion that it is SBC. Right? Not sure about the reliability of the quotations and so on; but if they're not way out of context then I think the SBC needs to worry.

Ed: Haruo. I think but I am not sure that it is safe to say most folk in the "Founders Ministry are Southern Baptist but that the welcome all who are disposed to Reformed Theology. The Founder movement has been sustained primarily by the Rev. Tom Ascol of Cape Coral, FL, and his Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral is in deed a member of the the Royal Palm Baptist Association, the Florida State Baptist Convention and the SBC. But their participation was limited when we where in that association (1987-95). Tom A. used to be a registered participant on this site but gave up trying to convert Flick and I .

Apparently he has not registered since the 2004 server switch. It seems Tom Nettles a church History professor at SBTS serves as their resident Reformation expert. The founders name does refers back to the original faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and they do have a strong following among Calvinistic leaning Pastors in the SBC. Also they claim the SBTS Abstract of Principles as their foundational statement. Their organizations and publications, are not, however to the best of my knowledge officially a part of the SBC and thus I assume they have churches of other denominations and those that are nondenominational among the Founders friendly groups. But then I am no longer (since about 2005) well versed on what strange things the SBC or the Founders pretenders is/are doing. I really would not be surprised to find a handful of ABC -USA pastors, if not churches using Ascols materials and having study groups reviewing Nettles' books.
----------------------------
And Gene, I think perhaps you need a formal accredited refresher in counselor education. Admittedly my last such course was in 1991, but Freud and Sullivan's theories while still presented in some programs are not held as standard in an any that I am aware of, even at Indiana University where Freud did most of his work. Check it out http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictio ... ychoan.htm And are you aware that many of Sullivan's peers felt that his conclusions where suspect due to a bias steaming from his own same sex orientation. An Carl Rogers is not nearly as well known for any particular theory of human development as he is for his contribution to treatment of psychological problems through his "Client Centered Therapy". Most of my training and experience where related primarily to that methodology. Although we where encouraged to take an eclectic approach so as not to rely to heavily on any one system. After I retired and was toying with the Idea of going back to school I came across Wm. Glasser's Confrontation Therapy which for me makes a delicious adjunct to CCT. The client is forced even more to take responsibility for his or her choices.

[Haruo]

The church is listed at founders.org as a Founders-friendly church. Which I think supports the notion that it is SBC. Right? Not sure about the reliability of the quotations and so on; but if they're not way out of context then I think the SBC needs to worry.

I didn't mean a church had to be SBC to be in Founders, but that it's a common affiliation there, and their listing of the church reads as follows:

New Hope Baptist Church
W. Highway 36
Seneca, KS 66538
Phone: 785-336-6251
Church affiliation: Southern Baptist Convention
Church confession: 2nd London Baptist Confession (1689)
Contact: Curtis Knapp, pastor
Our church is in the process of reformation. Much of the old leaven has been cleaned out and the doctrines of grace are openly being taught and poured into new wineskins.

which supports the notion that it is SBC; in other words, the source for that assertion with regard to New Hope's affiliation is founders.org, not the blogger who wrote them up.

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed---

H.S. Sullivan simply described how children grow to adulthood. We start as "asexual beings," we move to sexual beings, then we develope same sex affiliations, finally we move to heterosexual beings. That was my experience and Sullivan described it well---and in common sense terms.

Your problem is that you can't stand the idea boys can be best friends with boys and the same applies with girls. In a normal transition as hormones flow, boy seek girls and vice versus. If one gets stuck in the homosexual stage of development, it is part of life. It may not be mature, but it is a stage and that's the facts.

Are you trying to tell me you didn't have a "girl haters club" and you didn't have a gang of boys you preferred to girls as you grew up?

If you didn't, I am wondering about you for sure!

[Timothy Bonney]

This just highlights why Churches/Denominations need systems of clergy recognition and discipline. If this guy were in the ABC/USA he could be brought up on ethics charges for preaching that the government should murder people and he could lose his recognition in the ABC. There could be serious consequences for such preaching if he were in any of the mainline churches for preaching something so vile. But an SBCer or Independent Baptist preaching can preach that God is Satan and Satan is God and if some church will keep paying his salary than he is still a "Baptist preacher." Hogwash.

[Ed Pettibone]

[quote="Gene Scarborough"] "Ed---

H.S. Sullivan simply described how children grow to adulthood. We start as 'asexual beings,' we move to sexual beings, then we develope same sex affiliations, finally we move to heterosexual beings. That was my experience and Sullivan described it well---and in common sense terms. "

Ed; Gene which is it a simply a standard progression as you want to attribute to Sullivan of the Deep Complex Mystery you are found of talking about? And do you have a citation of this simple description of child hood development that shows it show it coming from Harry Stack Sullivan?

Gene S. again, mind reading: "Your problem is that you can't stand the idea boys can be best friends with boys and the same applies with girls. In a normal transition as hormones flow, boy seek girls and vice versus. If one gets stuck in the homosexual stage of development, it is part of life. It may not be mature, but it is a stage and that's the facts."

Ed: Where in the world do you get the idea that I have any problem with either boy or girls having same sex best friends. But yes I do have a problem with boy and girls having sex . And Gene you can not make a case for there being "homosexual stage of developmen"t as proven fact. at best it is theory. I have said for years that I believe we all begin as asexual beings and then typically learn a preference appropriate to our physical sex organs. That sort of puts the skids under the Idea that "Homosexuals are born that way".

Gene: "Are you trying to tell me you didn't have a "girl haters club" and you didn't have a gang of boys you preferred to girls as you grew up?

If you didn't, I am wondering about you for sure! "

Ed: You have asked that first question one at least once in some other thread and I told you then that NO! I was never in a "girl hatters club". Nor was i ever in a "gang".

And to the second; Well, I was an only child and I appreciated most any chance to have another kid around (boy or girl), for a while, and then have them go home so I could read what ever book, listen to what ever record and play with what ever toy. Girts did seem to be more into music, reading and pingpong. Boys, cowboys and Indians, comic books and throwing a call around or foot races.

On top of that my mother was a girl or had been, as where her her six sisters two of whom where still in HS when I lived with my grand parents for a few years when I was in third and forth grade, and I had no reason to hate my aunts. And if I ever acted like I hated another child I would have gotten me seat warmed. Hate was in my vocabulary as some thing Jesus didn't like. Not that I was yet a christian but In our house he was the standard. I did not become a Christian till I was 21.

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed---

You are really fighting hard on this one. Do your research into personality development theories and you will find it as I described it.

I am trying to come up with a good web article to share. I am reviewing my old textbook. I have too much tree work to do to spend much time on this today.

I had parents who did not let us hate and throw rocks, but that didn't stop us boys from doing "maneuvers" around the dark church yard with "plans" to make stink bombs and throw at the girls. It was simply our developing minds and hormones. We noted how interesting the girls were as their bodies developed. Out initial reaction was the emotion of hate (under control and fantasy) which developed in about a year to wanting to ask them out.

It's just natural growth and involves a transition from trusting boys to desiring girls

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed---

You are really fighting hard on this one. Do your research into personality development theories and you will find it as I described it.

I am trying to come up with a good web article to share. I am reviewing my old textbook. I have too much tree work to do to spend much time on this today.

I had parents who did not let us hate and throw rocks, but that didn't stop us boys from doing "maneuvers" around the dark church yard with "plans" to make stink bombs and throw at the girls. It was simply our developing minds and hormones. We noted how interesting the girls were as their bodies developed. Out initial reaction was the emotion of hate (under control and fantasy) which developed in about a year to wanting to ask them out.

It's just natural growth and involves a transition from trusting boys to desiring girls

Ed: I am not fighting hard at all. I have done my research. The difference is I have not limited my research to "Old textbooks" although I do have some of those. One at hand is Theories of Personality by Calvin Hall and Gardner Lindzey Published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, London and Sydney, 1957
my copy is from the thirteenth printing 1965

While Sullivan's theory of "Interpersonal relationships" undoubtedly laid the foundation for further studies I see nothing to suggest that he would have seen his developmental theory as the final word. He also made significant contributions to the Psychological interview process. And it should be kept in mind that the bulk of his hands on work was in the treatment of schizophrenia. In other words I am still of the mind, that you interpretation of the work of Harry Stack Sullivan is oversimplified. I would however still entertain a valid citation of his work, from you.

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed---

You have solved my details of theory problem with the same text I used. Check pp.145-147 of the H.S. Sullivan section. You will find there the things I am citing. We used the 1965 edition at Emory.

Years ago, when I read it, I found it to be absolutely true of my development experience and that of people I know. With the rise of homosexuality, it immediately occured to me that gay people could be stuck at the homosexual stage of development or more comfortable with it than the heterosexual stage to naturally follow.

Further, I believe more of this is happening as a result of split families and poor examples of sexual roles so plenteous in society today. All of the homosexuals I know--all males--come from a family with either an absent father or an extremely domineering mother. What I know about psychosomatic illness tells me our very hormones can be effected by the power of the brain to influence the body. Numerous studies on that have shown statistically significant factors common to those even suffering from, say, breast cancer. Few illnesses are without an accompanying attitude contributing to it.

I take your offer to reconsider these things as serious. I hope you can see in them a possible explaination for homosexuality which makes it a part of natural sexual creation from God. The Jewish mind of biblical writing believed the earth to be flat with 4 corners. In the same way, they believed humans were either male or female with no in-betweens. Other surrounding societies did not view it in the same way and allowed for homosexuality in their cultures.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed---

You have solved my details of theory problem with the same text I used. Check pp.145-147 of the H.S. Sullivan section. You will find there the things I am citing. We used the 1965 edition at Emory.

Years ago, when I read it, I found it to be absolutely true of my development experience and that of people I know. With the rise of homosexuality, it immediately occured to me that gay people could be stuck at the homosexual stage of development or more comfortable with it than the heterosexual stage to naturally follow.

Further, I believe more of this is happening as a result of split families and poor examples of sexual roles so plenteous in society today. All of the homosexuals I know--all males--come from a family with either an absent father or an extremely domineering mother. What I know about psychosomatic illness tells me our very hormones can be effected by the power of the brain to influence the body. Numerous studies on that have shown statistically significant factors common to those even suffering from, say, breast cancer. Few illnesses are without an accompanying attitude contributing to it.

I take your offer to reconsider these things as serious. I hope you can see in them a possible explaination for homosexuality which makes it a part of natural sexual creation from God. The Jewish mind of biblical writing believed the earth to be flat with 4 corners. In the same way, they believed humans were either male or female with no in-betweens. Other surrounding societies did not view it in the same way and allowed for homosexuality in their cultures.

Ed: Gene I do see the two full paragraphs on p 146 and perhaps the last on145 extending forward. where you seem to get your.
interpretation of what Sullivan may have said. You must note however nothing in those three paragraphs purports to quote Harry Stack Sullivan they are Hall and Lindzey's interpretations. They may be accurate, but that is not established in this particular text. If so I must ask why jump to a natural progression that includes homosexuality and says nothing about auto eroticism (individual masturbation).

One neat thing about this part of the theory is that it discounts the idea that homosexuals are "born that way". But I doubt that they will go for the stunted maturity theme.

And when you move ahead to find an explanation for this arrested development, you are again depending on personal anecdotes to support it. I am rather surprised to see you say that the all of the homosexuals you know are males. I wonder why you know no females who are homosexual. My first remembered exposure to the concept centered on two elderly women who lived next to my grandparents. The homosexual who's family history I have been privy to have been both broken and intact families. Of the lesbians that I encountered in a clinical setting there was a tendency of reported incest with a male family member in their histories. Out side the clinical setting I have encountered lesbians who reject that proposed "cause". Here i must remind the reader that mi clinical experience was on a crisis unit where clients had been for the most part confined after threatening to harm them self or another.

And Gene where did I make any offer to reconsider these things as serious? Why would I need to "reconsider" such? I have long taken these discussions seriously . What I did say was "I would however still entertain a valid citation of his (Sullivan's) work, from you". And what we are now discussing is a second hand interpretation of his work, mainly found in his personal note books. You may recall he only wrote one book.

Again I do not think you can support your idea that their is a relationship between "The Jewish mind of biblical writing believed the earth to be flat with 4 corners." and that "In the same way" as you say "they believed humans were either male or female with no in-betweens." I have no doubt that they where aware of both males and females in other cultures and even non conformist in their own culture who participated in sexual activity within their own physically ascribed gender. You fist sentence is correct, but the second while true is not a natural follow through. From their limited observation they did have a flat earth theory. And they correctly accepted the idea that God created Males and Females. While they where aware of deviations from this initial intent for sexual expression they saw it other manifestations as abominations. And I am persuaded that they had this right.

Think about you idea of homosexuals being stuck in less than mature stage of development.

[Sandy]

This just highlights why Churches/Denominations need systems of clergy recognition and discipline. If this guy were in the ABC/USA he could be brought up on ethics charges for preaching that the government should murder people and he could lose his recognition in the ABC. There could be serious consequences for such preaching if he were in any of the mainline churches for preaching something so vile. But an SBCer or Independent Baptist preaching can preach that God is Satan and Satan is God and if some church will keep paying his salary than he is still a "Baptist preacher." Hogwash.

Denominational systems of clergy recognition and discipline do nothing more than sanction human reason and worldly wisdom that can be just as far off from the truth as anything this independent Baptist preacher has said. Many of those "systems" elevate their authority over that of the Bible, and place a denominational stamp of approval on some very ungodly, unscriptural teaching, and some very humanistic interpretations of scripture, including denying Biblical truth. So he could be brought up on ethics charges or loose his recognition from some denominational body. That is essentially less than nothing. So what? Big deal? I saw a Methodist pastor in Missouri removed from his congregation and have his credentials revoked after a trial for some sort of deviation from standard church doctrine. He started a new church just down the road a piece with a large group of his supporters who left the church he had formerly pastored, and they continue to grow by drawing members in from other Methodist churches, and other denominational churches in the area.

The simple design of the local church laid out in the New Testament makes its servant leaders accountable to a congregation that is supposed to be spirit filled and spirit led. The key is the presence of the Holy Spirit. Overlaying that with a system of human origin doesn't fix the problems like this that tend to arise from the fact that churches lose their connection with the Spirit. This is an independent Baptist church that is obviously low on spiritual energy and conviction, and that's why their pastor can "get away with this." I look at it this way. They are stuck with him, and he's stuck with them. They could do something about it if they wanted to, but there's not enough spiritual energy there to convince them that they need to do so.

[Timothy Bonney]

Denominational systems of clergy recognition and discipline do nothing more than sanction human reason and worldly wisdom that can be just as far off from the truth as anything this independent Baptist preacher has said.

That is some major hyperbole there Sandy. You are going to tell me that having a system of clergy recognition is just as bad as having a preacher say that a whole class of people should be put in prison camps. Yep, clergy recognition is just as bad as Adolph Hitler. Sure.

Read the New Testament and you'll find that the Apostles had authority over the church. Self styled independent preachers without reference to the authority of the church didn't exist in the Bible. So if anything is "worldly" or sanctioning "human reason" it is giving people a blank check ordination without any responsibility to those who ordained them.

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed---

You are still going to your nit-pick mode to try and keep from ever sayiing, "Homosexuals could just be a part of the human sexual mystery."

You see clearly how recognized Psychologists describe Sullivan's Theory, yet you want to discount it as "secondary writing." All I am saying is that it makes great sense to me to view homosexuality as an immature response to human sexuality.

You are adding the female side with lesbians you have counseled. By showing the incest factor with them, it tells me they are seeking a safe form of sexual intercourse with another human of the same sex. In a way, that is immaturity and a kind of reverse to a pre-heterosexual stage of relationship.

Between my experience of talking with males and yours of females, is it a problem to see truth in the Sullivan way of looking at human personality development?

All theories are trying to make things make human sense and logic. The Bible, as it talks of Creation, is a theory explaining to a Jewish child where we come from.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed---

You are still going to your nit-pick mode to try and keep from ever sayiing, "Homosexuals could just be a part of the human sexual mystery."

You see clearly how recognized Psychologists describe Sullivan's Theory, yet you want to discount it as "secondary writing." All I am saying is that it makes great sense to me to view homosexuality as an immature response to human sexuality.

You are adding the female side with lesbians you have counseled. By showing the incest factor with them, it tells me they are seeking a safe form of sexual intercourse with another human of the same sex. In a way, that is immaturity and a kind of reverse to a pre-heterosexual stage of relationship.

Between my experience of talking with males and yours of females, is it a problem to see truth in the Sullivan way of looking at human personality development?

All theories are trying to make things make human sense and logic. The Bible, as it talks of Creation, is a theory explaining to a Jewish child where we come from.

Ed: What you call nit picking I call dissecting a problem area to it smallest common denominator before you try to explain it's parts.

And Gene it seems to me that any any Vandy scholar would understand the difference In primary and secondary sources. That it makes sense to you proves nothing. But at that you paraphrased the interpreters of H.S. Sullivan you did not quote them of give a very exacting citation of what you claim is there.

Uh yea - Gene, I do not think you can adequately discuss the homosexual phenomenon from only the male or the female side. And reread what I said about lesbians read it again

Of the lesbians that I encountered in a clinical setting there was a tendency of reported incest with a male family member in their histories. Out side the clinical setting I have encountered lesbians who reject that proposed "cause".

Note the contrast of two divergent groups. Then look at those comments in light of our discussion.

And where you you get the idea that "The Bible, as it talks of Creation, is a theory explaining to a Jewish child where we come from. " ? You keep coming up with great material for justifying the takeover at Southeastern.