ChristiansUnite Forums

Yeeeuck!!

 Read this. I would have posted the story but it's not really children friendly, so click the link and be prepared to be sickened! :-X

 As in the days of Noah comes to mind.
Sodom and Gomorrah must have developed in the same manner. Lower the morality bar a wee bit at a time and no one will make a fuss. God have mercy on us!

 It's no longer a matter of fighting for acceptance and tollerance. It's all about "you will accept this" Our polititans cater to this tiny minority. hey, we can't have any public displays of Christianity, but a lifesized bronze statue of a human cupcake is fine!! >:(

 http://toronto.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=sculpture-050528 (http://toronto.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=sculpture-050528)

The article didn't say Alexander Wood was a homosexual nor was any proof given that he had this lifestyle.  

The article refers to him being acused of sodomy where the evidence states that he was investigating a crime.  He wasn't doing anything a custom's officer or prison guard couldn't do today (strip search).  

Wood was also called a "Molly", a derogative term for "gay" after the incident.  Maybe the point that O'Connor had was that bullying and name calling is bad.  

The city wouldn't have given any money to fund the statue if he was not such an important historical figure.  I don't find anything vulgar about the statue itself and unless someone knew the area was "gay village" there wouldn't be any association with "gay" and the statue.  I wonder if there is any plaque on it and what it says.  

 Did you read the article?



 Wood was a cup cake. This statue was put up in a gayville so homosexuals can worship him as a role model.

Well, at least it is of a Historical figure, right? :-\

So is Jesus, but a statue of Him in public would be "offensive!" :-\ what a screwed up world! >:(
I've written letters to the editors of two papers about this stupidity. If I get printed I'll share the editors comments.

I'm just trying to look on the bright side of things. :-\ Ben Franklin was a Womanizer, after all. A lot of the founding fathers had major sins in their lives, too.  :(

I cannot find any evidence that Alexander Wood was a homosexual.   The news article about the statue is quite biased.   A more detailed and reliable source of information about Alexander Wood.     http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=37856  This is a government of Canada site.

Gay s Well they have churches and I came across one on the web
 they are called "community metropolition churches" in Canada , The Gays  are now setting up shop openly , since gays now have equal rights or close to it. Sodom and gormiah  is here !Offically too!
Canada is headed for a confrontation with the Lord !
Im Canadian and there is not much that can be done, prayer and preach !

Things are getting bad in so many ways these days! Wow!

I read about a joke by a popular TV host, He said if God does not judge hollywood blvd , He owes sodom and gormora an appolgy , They even are making jokes ! Wow! We know God is not mocked , That is shocking to hear this!
It should alarm us!



 :-X

Amen LoggedintoJesus,

God does not owe anyone an apology and His judgement will soon be coming.

One of the reasons why I don't watch much television.  There is just too much "gay" based humour.  That seems to be the trend these days.  Gays making fun of themselves.

Twenty years ago, people were making fun of drug addictions like cocaine.  Drug addicts making fun of themselves.

So I haven't been watching much television for the last twenty years.  Why bother?

Alexander Wood didn't have any living descendants as far as I know.  I am sure that if one of my ancestors was degraded in such a way, I would not be amused.  There really is no way to know if Alexander Wood self-identified himself as a homosexual except to ask him but that is impossibe since he has been dead for over 150 years.

The community metropolitan church in Toronto isn't something new.  It has been there for years.  There has been much scandal there over the past years.  It is located in a very affluent area of the city.

 I have to question you again. Did you read the article?

 
 
 

 This is unambiguous my friend. He was gay. The statue is in a gay neighbourhood, and was partially funded by the city.

 My point here is why is it "offensive" to place Christian icons in public, which are not even partially funded by tax money, but this gay statue is perfectly acceptable?

I think the answer is simple...........it is because they (the statues, icons, etc.) ARE religious. Some people want no reminder that there IS a God who IS in control.  They would rather deceive themselves.


 

If the bronze statue is gay I can only imagine the person it represents.  :-X  :-X  :-X

The thing that bothers me about the whole thing is that it appears the statue is honoring someone based wholly on the fact that he was homosexual. It celebrates perversity rather than accomplishment.  

What would the outcry be if a marble statue (gotta use marble - bronze is 'gay'  ;D ) was erected of an individual based only on the fact he or she was a Christian?

If the statue was erected because this guy was a great leader or historically significant figure, his sexual orientation would just be a 3rd-page sideline.  

This simply furthers the observation that for homosexual activists the universe is centered around, and there is nothing more important than sex.  It is all that matters to them.  

Uh-oh... Didn’t I just break a Canadian hate crime law by writing this post?  
(Oh – sorry – to some on the boards that question may be ‘ignorant and foolish’.  I must teach myself not to ask questions that may waste the time of those wise-ones who judge such things.)  ::)

I don't think that sex is all that matters to homosexuals.  I think they HAVE to use same sex attraction to get noticed.  They want the same things as everyone else.  This is the problem............they aren't getting it. They don't understand that they can change.  They think they're born attracted to the same sex.  They don't understand that Jesus Christ came to this earth to save THEM, too.  Of course, I believe that some of them don't want to change, either.  Take another sin issue, change is possible, but the sinner just keeps sinning.  Sin is sin, but some sin causes more consequences than other sins.

JudgeNot quote...

   >:(

 ;)

Yes.  I did read the news article.  It is biased and twists the truth.  
The true story of Alexander Wood:

He was close friend of Bishop John Strachan and signed as witness to the marriages of two of John Strachan's children.  

"WOOD, ALEXANDER, businessman, militia officer, justice of the peace, and office holder; b. 1772 and baptized 25 January in Fetteresso, near Stonehaven, Scotland, son of James Wood and Margaret Barclay; d. unmarried 11 Sept. 1844 at Woodcot in the parish of Fetteresso.

      Alexander Wood came to Upper Canada as a young man, settling in Kingston about 1793 and investing £330 in the Kingston Brewery in partnership with Joseph Forsyth* and Alexander Aitken*. He moved to York (Toronto) in 1797 to establish himself as a merchant. He and William Allan* became partners; “neither advanced any money which brought us on a fair footing,” but they built their shop on Allan’s land. When the partnership was dissolved on 13 April 1801 its assets were divided with difficulty, so that neither partner wanted to renew their intercourse “by the exchange of a single word.”

      Wood immediately opened his own shop. Each autumn he ordered a wide assortment of goods from Glasgow or London, stressing quality and careful packing rather than price. Almost all his stock came from Britain except tea and tobacco, which, before the American Embargo Act was extended to inland waters in 1808, he bought in the United States through Robert Nichol*; small, immediate requirements were ordered from Montreal or New York. Wood was fortunate because his elder brother in Scotland, James, made up any deficit owing in Britain until full payment could be sent from Upper Canada. His customers included Lieutenant Governor Francis Gore*, a fair proportion of York’s carriage trade, army officers, and the commissariat – none of whom paid as promptly as Wood wished. He also dealt with neighbourhood farmers, supplying their needs and exporting their flour. Fluctuations in the quantity and price of flour were frequent, but Wood prospered in this business. He was not so successful with potash or hemp, and made only one ill-fated sortie into the fur trade.

      With William Allan and Laurent Quetton* St George, Wood was one of the leading merchants in York before the War of 1812. When he first arrived, it was little more than a clearing in the bush, far inferior to Kingston and the towns of the Niagara peninsula in commercial development, but it grew rapidly, stimulated by government money and the settlement of its hinterland. Wood belonged to the group of “scotch Pedlars” whose influence judge Robert Thorpe so much deplored. “There is a chain of them linked from Halifax to Quebec, Montreal, Kingston, York, Niagara & so on to Detroit,” he wrote in 1806. Wood carried on a regular correspondence with James Irvine* (Quebec), James Dunlop* and James Leslie* (Montreal), Joseph Forsyth (Kingston), Robert Hamilton* and Thomas Clark* (Niagara peninsula), Robert Nichol (Fort Erie and Dover (Port Dover)), and other Scottish merchants, who gave and received assistance, and exchanged commercial and local news.

      Wood was one of the few merchants accepted among York’s élite. His closest friends were William Dummer Powell* and his family, with whom he was “a constant guest,” and George Crookshank* and his family. A warm friendship was developing by correspondence with the Reverend John Strachan* in Cornwall. “Our sentiments agree almost upon everything,” Strachan wrote in 1807. Wood was gazetted lieutenant in the York militia in 1798, appointed magistrate in 1800, and by 1805 was a commissioner for the Court of Requests, as well as being involved in every movement for community betterment or social enjoyment. His only problem was his health: he suffered, according to Dr Alexander Thom in 1806, from “a fullness of the Vessels of the Brain.” Anne Powell [Murray] wrote that “his complaint . . . tho’ not dangerous to his life is I fear to his intellects,” and the Powells got medical advice for him in both New York and London.

      In June 1810 Wood’s world fell apart. Rumours spread throughout York that as a magistrate he had interviewed several young men individually, telling them that a Miss Bailey had accused them of rape. According to Wood, she had scratched her assailant’s genitals; each of the accused, to prove his innocence, submitted to Wood’s intimate physical examination. John Beverley Robinson* called Wood the “Inspector General of private Accounts . . . by which [name] he was occasionally insulted in the streets.” St George’s clerk reported that although Wood had received his shipment of British goods “no one goes near his shop.” Judge Powell asked his friend about the story, and was horrified when Wood admitted its truth: “I have laid myself open to ridicule & malevolence, which I know not how to meet; that the thing will be made the subject of mirth and a handle to my enemies for a sneer I have every reason to expect.” Powell replied that Wood’s offence was more serious: his abuse of his position as magistrate made him liable to fine and imprisonment. The evidence was submitted to the public prosecutor, “but from its odious nature, investigation was smothered” on the understanding that Wood leave Upper Canada. On 17 Oct. 1810 he departed for Scotland, leaving his clerk in charge of his shop.

      Despite the scandal, Wood returned to York on 25 Aug. 1812, just after the outbreak of war, and resumed all his previous occupations, including that of magistrate. He had lost the Powells’ friendship, but the Crookshanks remained staunch friends and Strachan was now living in York – “Mr Wood commonly spends a couple of evenings and dines once with us during the Week,” he wrote in 1816. As a merchant Wood struggled fairly successfully with the problems of wartime transportation and supply, but his commercial position is shown in the York garrison accounts, in which his sales are a poor third to those of St George and Allan. By 1815 he had virtually retired, although his shop was not formally closed until 1821.

      In 1817 Wood inherited his family’s estates and moved to Scotland, but in 1821 he returned to Upper Canada to settle his affairs. He would remain in York for 21 years, more involved with other people’s concerns than his own. Since his first arrival in York, he had acted as an agent for absentee landowners and others with business in the capital, among them D’Arcy Boulton* Sr, James Macaulay*, Lord Selkirk [Douglas*], George Okill Stuart*, and the widow of Chief Justice John Elmsley*. Wood himself neither invested nor speculated in land, but he spent much time on land transactions and property management for friends and clients. Throughout his life in Upper Canada he was active as a director or executive member in many organizations, among them the Bank of Upper Canada, the Home District Agricultural Society, the St Andrew’s Society, and the Toronto Library, and as the hard-working treasurer or secretary of others, including the Home District Savings Bank, the Loyal and Patriotic Society of Upper Canada, and the Society for the Relief of the Orphan, Widow, and Fatherless.

      Wood’s public service involved membership on several government commissions. In 1808, when he was appointed to the second Heir and Devisee Commission, he was the only commissioner who was neither an executive councillor nor a judge of the Court of King’s Bench. Probably because of his frequent service as foreman of the Home District grand jury, he was appointed to commissions concerning the building of jails (1838) and a lunatic asylum (1839). He was a member of the special commission appointed in 1837 to examine persons arrested for high treason during the rebellion. On Strachan’s recommendation he was appointed to the commission to investigate war claims in 1823, but Chief Justice Powell refused on moral grounds to swear him in. Wood promptly sued Powell for damages, and the whole story of the 1810 scandal was retold. Although Wood won £120 damages with costs, Powell refused to pay, and in 1831 he published a pamphlet about the case. After Powell’s death, Wood visited his widow and forgave the debt. Mrs Powell, who usually reacted vehemently against anyone who had ever opposed her husband, wrote, “This liberal conduct reflects credit on our once zealous and sincere Friend.”

      In 1842 Wood visited Scotland intending to return to Upper Canada, but he died there intestate in 1844. All his brothers and sisters had predeceased him, unmarried, including Thomas, who had come to York from Jamaica before 1810 and died in 1818. Because Canadian and Scottish laws of intestacy differed, it was necessary to establish Wood’s place of residence. The case reached the Court of Session (Scotland’s supreme court) in 1846 and the House of Lords two years later. In 1851 it was finally decided that Wood, despite his more than 45 years in Canada, had been a resident of Scotland, and by Scottish law his large estate passed to a first cousin once removed, “of whose existence he was most likely ignorant.”

      Alexander Wood had come to Upper Canada with a good education, some capital, and the financial backing of his brother in Scotland. He became a close friend of Powell and of Strachan, the two most influential men in the province in his time. As a merchant he generally avoided speculation or excessive risk, probably because of his innate conservatism and his feeling that his stay in Upper Canada was only temporary. By his business ability, the influence of his powerful friends, and the breadth and depth of his public service, he was able to avoid permanent stigma from the 1810 scandal. At his death the British Colonist called him one of Toronto’s “most respected inhabitants.”

M,
As far as the article you read being bias one way or the other - probably.  As for the history lesson you posted, he seems like he was an able business person who was trusted by many, but that is not why the statue erected.

He became "immortalized" in bronze simply because he was a homosexual, not for his business prowess.  

I think the majority opinion of this board is that erecting a statue of a person based only on sexual "orientation" is wrong.  

Actually - I would object just as strongly to a statue of Hugh Hefner.

Statues of sinners abound in the nation's capital, Wahington, D.C. and many other prominent locales in the world. Another one should not dampen a Christian spirit any more than the previous ones over the years.

The devil will have his way in the world. Christians should come out of it and be holy, seperated unto God.

ollie

There is no argument there.

Thanks ollie.

your right Bronzesnake it is a very SICK WORLD we live in today and then they Want God To Bless The U.S.A God Will Not Bless SIN

Amen my friend.

 I think some of us Christians are forgetting that it is our responsibility to speak loudly against such things as this.
Remember Sodom & Gomorrah, there were righteous people in those cities, but they chose to live among the depravity instead of leaving, and God destroyed both cities.

 If the citizens of those two cities had not have allowed such a moral decline, God would not have destroyed them.

 This is exactly what we have allowed to happen. We slowly allowed the moral bar to be lowered, and now we are at the point we find ourselves in. Violence is accepted in all media. Sexual depravity is rampant in media as well as "main stream"

Man has made himself the moral authority instead of God.

God tells us that if we see a brother sin, and we do not tell him of his sin, then we are just as guilty as the sinner.

 We must speak out against this immoral, sinfull, lifestyle.

 As the famous quote goes..."all it takes for evil to prevail, is good men to do nothing."

Hi folks,

This is an interesting one aswell.  All I can say about it, is that I think we need to get over it.  People are going to errect statues of historical figures that were important to them, and I think it is their right to do so, just as it is my right to do the same.

I think if you need to oppose this statue, you had better find a better reason that Wood's alleged homosexuality, because if we opposed the placement of statues by virtue of their being sinners, you would have to oppose all statues, and I'm sure there would be many people here that still kind of like that Jefferson monument.

cheers,

Jimmy

Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.  But owning slaves was not his only accomplishment.  There are many statues honouring Thomas Jefferson but they are not dedicated to promoting slavery.  

I think the idea behind the Alexander Wood's statue was that the city was probably "fooled" somewhat into providing some of the funding.  People who know how to write the applications in a certain manner will get the funding.  While an organization raised money for the statue, is it known that they represented themselves as a gay organization while they were funding raising?  

If some Christian organization in San Francisco wanted to erect a statue to honour Saint Francis (the saint the city was named for),  would it be allowed?  

As for Alexander Wood being a homosexual -  innocent until proven guilty.  He did face some charges but I could not give an opinion because I have not seen any historical court documents.  

 Not a chance.  Just recently, money has been taken away from historical groups because they wanted to preserve 200 year old missions as California historic sites. Huh-uh - no can do - can't use public money - that would be "creating a religion" (choke).  Also - the City of Los Angeles was forced to remove a teeny-weeny-itsy-bitsy cross from the City Seal because it was guilty of "establishing religion" (choke).  No way would the liberal humanists in complete control of San Francisco allow a statue of a Christian - no matter WHAT the reason.

(Although there ARE a few statues of St. Francis in town - they are all on church property.)

Hummmmm, I have the answer..............build more churches. ;D ;D

Hi guys,

In this regard, I simply beleive that too much time and effort can be expended in the fight against the errecting of a statue.  Ignoring the fact that it is the right of people to place such a statue in their neighborhood, I again fall back on my major point that the placement of such a monument in no way compromises my own freedom to beleive whatever i want to about that particular lifestyle.

There are monuments everywhere, that celbrate the lives of people who have commited greater sins that that of Wood, and yet no-one seems to be protesting their existance.  I think as a whole, right-wing and conservative Christians have something of a fascination with homosexuality, and as such pay obscene amounts of attention to one sin in particular, as opposed to other more frightening and twisted ones.

Lest we not forget, that many state capitals still proudly and staunchly fly the symbol of treason and slavery.  I don't think it's a coincidence that many fundamentalist Christians hail from those states.

cheers,

Jimmy

There are many "fundamentalist Christians that have been opposing the flying of the confederate flag. For those that are in those given states it is in the forefront of their thoughts. This is a subject that is of primary concern to those in those given states.

Homosexuality is something that is taking over all states and countries. Therefore it becomes the forefront of all Christians everywhere as it is being flaunted in our faces and being forced into our schools with our children being taught that it is an exceptable lifestyle. I do not believe that it is of more concern (or less) to Christians than other things such as abortion or the freedoms that Christians are losing. Nor is it more of concern than Christians being made to look like the dregs of society by certain elite groups like the ACLU.

PR,

Don't get me wrong, I do take, and understand your point.  I just think that Christians seem to be uniquely transfixed with this one religious doctrinal issue.

cheers,

Jimmy