-
GOP lawmakers in North Carolina introduce bill to restore ban on same-sex marriage
BY Joshua Barajas April 12, 2017 at 8:09 AM EDT
Republican lawmakers in North Carolina introduced a bill Tuesday that looks to ban same-sex marriage in the state.
House Bill 780, or the “Uphold Historical Marriage Act,” says the Supreme Court “overstepped its constitutional bounds” in its 2015 ruling in the Obergefell v. Hodges case. The justices ruled 5-4 in favor of marriage equality nationwide, a landmark decision that overturned same-sex marriage bans in several states in the country, including North Carolina.
Continued: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/gop-lawmakers-north-carolina-introduce-bill-restore-ban-sex-marriage/
State Level - National Implications.
Is this just a futile exercise? It sounds that way a bit from the rest of the article. I can't rule out bias from the article either, it's PBS.
-
Unless Kennedy retires, it seems futile.
-
Roy Williams is calling the NCAA as we speak.
-
Folks just cannot mind their own damn business. No gay marriage ever affected a straight couple's marriage in the slightest.
Let God punish such marriages, not His legions of Godboys.
-
Folks just cannot mind their own damn business. No gay marriage ever affected a straight couple's marriage in the slightest.
No such thing as gay marriage anyway, it's a fiction.
-
Folks just cannot mind their own damn business. No gay marriage ever affected a straight couple's marriage in the slightest.
I agree.......... two consenting adults. 2 old lesbos living together or in marriage what difference is there?
@Jazzhead
-
Folks just cannot mind their own damn business. No gay marriage ever affected a straight couple's marriage in the slightest.
Let God punish such marriages, not His legions of Godboys.
You don't grasp the bigger picture here. Western society is built on Christianity. Undermine the foundation of Christianity, and you undermine Western civilization.
Like it or not, this nation floats in a sea of Christian principles. We are currently operating only on the inertia of what the society has been before. As these Christian principles erode, so too will other moral prohibitions.
We will eventually get to wholesale slaughter because people will realize that there is nothing sacred about life.
My point stated more eloquently:
Political correctness; so-called climate change; wide-ranging policies favoring the "religion of peace," which is actually the religion of perpetual war; the distortions of radical feminism; the celebration of transgenderism; redistributive economics; open borders; no-fault crime; the dilution of educational rigor to promote the canard of "social justice"; the rejection of medical reason; the rampant slaughter of the unborn; the belief in human equality in the realm of talents, merit, and cultivation; the dogged quest for an egalitarian utopia; and many other such perversions – all such convictions and practices fly in the face of reality and will inexorably lead, sooner or later, to civilizational disaster.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/04/the_war_against_reality.html#ixzz4e4leuYVy
-
You don't grasp the bigger picture here. Western society is built on Christianity. Undermine the foundation of Christianity, and you undermine Western civilization.
Like it or not, this nation floats in a sea of Christian principles. We are currently operating only on the inertia of what the society has been before. As these Christian principles erode, so too will other moral prohibitions.
We will eventually get to wholesale slaughter because people will realize that there is nothing sacred about life.
My point stated more eloquently:
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/04/the_war_against_reality.html#ixzz4e4leuYVy
Your understanding of history, and the role of religion in the West is severely lacking. Western society is built on Platonic philosophy/principles and by extension, Enlightenment thought. Much of what you think are "Christian principles" either pre-date Christianity or have developed alongside it.
Christianity has certainly played a role in the development of Western Society, that is an obvious truism, but Christianity itself has evolved and changed over the millenia....so its a moving target. Christianity was not some monolithic entity imposing its imprint on the Western world, rather, it was a melange of widely varied philosophies developed from a core concept centered around the teachings of Jesus. Teachings which in their original form bear striking similarities, for example, to those of Buddha. Since the very early church, concepts of what those teachings mean...and which teaching are valid...have varied dramatically.
Further, life is sacred to many varying faiths...moreso, in some cases (Buddhism for example), than is the case in Christianity...so your concern about wholesale slaughter related to the absence of Christianity is ridiculous. That sort of thing happens with and without Christianity, as has been the case throughout history. There ARE faiths, such as Islam, that encourage barbarism and brutality...but there are many others that have ethics and history far more pacifist and respecting of life.
The question of gay marriage has nothing do with religious belief...if a particular religion disapproves, it need not sanction gay marriage within its own practice. Some faiths, including many Christian groups, do sanction marriage with THEIR practice. The problem is that government should have no role in the marriage business...it should neither recognize, nor offer benefit or detraction, to anyone based on marital status. Marriage is a private religious matter, not a governmental one.
-
Folks just cannot mind their own damn business. No gay marriage ever affected a straight couple's marriage in the slightest.
Until Sad Mirage, people could "mind their own business". Now depravity is forced into everyone's lives.
I was OK with the depraved doing what they wanted in the privacy of their own bedroom. But when the Gaystapo attacked freedom of association..Boy Scouts...thank you Trump and T- Rex ..BTW. You lose me.
-
Folks just cannot mind their own damn business. No gay marriage ever affected a straight couple's marriage in the slightest.
Let God punish such marriages, not His legions of Godboys.
I'm not sure how much God cares either, but I don't. I think we expend valuable resources fighting this gay marriage thing.
There are a few... and I do mean a few ... male couples who have a long-term committed relationship absent of philandering and if they want to marry, I'm okay with it.
It gives them rights which otherwise would have taken several legal documents to accomplish.
Heterosexual couples have a better record but far from perfect.
-
The problem is that government should have no role in the marriage business...it should neither recognize, nor offer benefit or detraction, to anyone based on marital status. Marriage is a private religious matter, not a governmental one.
And leave the bakers and florists and anyone else to do business when and with whom they choose.
-
I'm not sure how much God cares either, but I don't. I think we expend valuable resources fighting this gay marriage thing.
Now it's a hate crime for a girl to refuse to shower with a boy. This fight is definitely worth fighting
-
The Supreme Court has reversed itself before (Plessy v. Feguson).
It could do so again.
But best not to push this issue until at least TWO more conservative justices have been seated.
Even then, success won't be guaranteed.
Frankly, this should have been addressed by the Congress about fifteen years ago, right after the state of Vermont legalized "gay" marriage -- with a Constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman.
The votes were probably there back then to ram it through, and 38 states would have surely voted to ratify it.
But it was the REPUBLICANS who backed away from the idea, proffering the "Defense of Marriage" Act instead because it was an easier way to get free of the issue.
And they're the ones to blame for "where we are" today.
(And yes, I -do- believe that gay marriage should be outlawed)
-
And leave the bakers and florists and anyone else to do business when and with whom they choose.
888high58888
Yes! The right to discriminate is inherent in natural law.... and our Constitution. One is not obliged to labor for another under any reason but that such a labor is necessary to the life of another.
The very foundation of freedom is enunciated in the Declaration......"Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness". In that order.
There is no reason.. in a free society, that someone can make anyone bake a cake. There is no denial of Life or Liberty for the Baker to say "No". Only the "Pursuit of Happiness" in forcing the loss of Liberty.. a greater Freedom, of the Baker.
It is unjust.
Certainly there are areas which ones labor(liberty) is subjugated to a greater Right.. another's life. Those areas are limited. Medical is certainly a major one, which places the life of the patient above the Liberty or "Pursuit" of the practitioner. Other needs to Life's necessities.... food, lodging, fuel. Those bring a reasonable marker of Life over Liberty..... but only a "Reasonable " Marker.
For those we have "Public Accommodation " law.
It seems to me we should apply a scale-able standard. That is, just how much public does the interest interact with? Certainly Wal Mart..for cakes, and Holiday Inn Express should be subject to "Public" accommodation. But for a Bed and Breakfast..or a Baker.. their Liberty is of greater right ...natural right, than someones "Pursuit of Happiness".
-
Now it's a hate crime for a girl to refuse to shower with a boy. This fight is definitely worth fighting
That's an entirely different fight.
-
Geez. What a pointless and incendiary exercise. Why not get the govt' out of marriage all together. They should never have been involved in it in the first place.
-
Folks just cannot mind their own damn business. No gay marriage ever affected a straight couple's marriage in the slightest.
Let God punish such marriages, not His legions of Godboys.
There is no such thing as gay marriage. Made up by people with an agenda. Soon we will be passing laws so that people can marry their animals.
-
There is no such thing as gay marriage. Made up by people with an agenda. Soon we will be passing laws so that people can marry their animals.
What the hell would it matter if they do?
-
What the hell would it matter if they do?
You can't be serious Frank. It would really require a health care overhaul. They would have to include veterinary care. And it just might be me but I think that animals would not be consenting.
Once I read a story about a person in love with a building.
Oh, it has already happened in San Francisco
ENDTIME California Allows First Ever State Recognized Human ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L2Efj5RuNw
Its sick Frank. That's why it matters.
-
You can't be serious Frank. It would really require a health care overhaul. They would have to include veterinary care. And it just might be me but I think that animals would not be consenting.
Once I read a story about a person in love with a building.
How the hell is this different than the free for all we have going on now? Marriage used to be a religious ceremony. Now it is the equivalent of filling out a form for govt' benefits. Used to go to your church or a religious figure and had a ceremony to be wed just for the fact that you wanted to be right with God and nothing more. Now you go to the JP or some bureaucrat, sign a document and you are entitled benefits others don't have like tax and legal advantages. Some couples intentionally do not wed now to get financial goodies for their bastard kids that married couples can't get for theirs.
It's a GD three ring circus all because the govt' started sticking their nose in this matter. Now look what we got. A bucket of shit.
-
How the hell is this different than the free for all we have going on now? Marriage used to be a religious ceremony. Now it is the equivalent of filling out a form for govt' benefits. Used to go to your church or a religious figure and had a ceremony to be wed just for the fact that you wanted to be right with God and nothing more. Now you go to the JP or some bureaucrat, sign a document and you are entitled benefits others don't have like tax and legal advantages. Some couples intentionally do not wed now to get financial goodies for their bastard kids that married couples can't get for theirs.
It's a GD three ring circus all because the govt' started sticking their nose in this matter. Now look what we got. A bucket of shit.
I guess I misunderstood your previous post. I thought you were advocating for human animal marriage. Sorry.
What you say is true.
-
I guess I misunderstood your previous post. I thought you were advocating for human animal marriage. Sorry.
What you say is true.
Don't really care about animal/human marriages. Most places have bestiality laws (except for possibly Cali) so those jackasses can be thrown in jail in short order. If you want to get panicked about something be worried about robot marriage. That is sitting right in front of us and IS something that will be a massive headache for a whole host of legal, religious and procreative reasons.
Just look at what the hell Real Doll has developed.....
(http://www.anotherindian.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/real-doll.jpg)
Those are not real people. Add to that the insane leaps the Japanese are making in robotics and humans are not going to marry humans in the near future.
-
Don't really care about animal/human marriages. Most places have bestiality laws (except for possibly Cali) so those jackasses can be thrown in jail in short order. If you want to get panicked about something be worried about robot marriage. That is sitting right in front of us and IS something that will be a massive headache for a whole host of legal, religious and procreative reasons.
Just look at what the hell Real Doll has developed.....
(http://www.anotherindian.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/real-doll.jpg)
Those are not real people. Add to that the insane leaps the Japanese are making in robotics and humans are not going to marry humans in the near future.
I am very afraid of robots. There are 7 or 8 living on my street. They are currently disguised as children... little blond moppets. They have weapons already.... scooters, skate boards, tricycles, bicycles ... anything to run you down with.
We have reason to know that robots always turn on you eventually.
-
I am very afraid of robots. There are 7 or 8 living on my street. They are currently disguised as children... little blond moppets. They have weapons already.... scooters, skate boards, tricycles, bicycles ... anything to run you down with.
We have reason to know that robots always turn on you eventually.
Laugh all you want, but we currently have a prominent billionaire who has been at the forefront of tech breakthroughs currently building spaceships to get humanity to another planet because robots and computers are going to take over.......Elon Musk. This is going to be the issue of our time.
-
Laugh all you want, but we currently have a prominent billionaire who has been at the forefront of tech breakthroughs currently building spaceships to get humanity to another planet because robots and computers are going to take over.......Elon Musk. This is going to be the issue of our time.
I'm not laughing. I've been warning my family about these robot kids for months now. They always stay the same size... about 3 to 5 years old. They are little blond Norman Rockwell looking tots.
There's a steep driveway on the street and they get on their weapons... tricycle, whatever... and go down that driveway at warp speed. Smitty and I are terrified to walk down our cul de sac.
-
And, by the way, you can forget Asimov's First Law of Robotics. It's the first law to be broken.
-
And, by the way, you can forget Asimov's First Law of Robotics. It's the first law to be broken.
Check the zoning in your neighborhood. If if says "Twilight", Azimov's first law of robotics does not apply.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjAwMTQ1MjE3N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwOTA5OTg4._V1._CR10,9,236,390_UX67_CR0,0,67,98_AL_.jpg)
-
You don't grasp the bigger picture here. Western society is built on Christianity. Undermine the foundation of Christianity, and you undermine Western civilization.
Sorry, DL, but my neighbors aren't undermining Western civilization. Heck, when I'm gone for the weekend they pick up my paper so would-be burglars won't know I'm gone.
-
Now it's a hate crime for a girl to refuse to shower with a boy.
What the hell are you talking about? Hysteria like this is why social conservatives look like clowns to the rest of us.
-
The problem is that government should have no role in the marriage business...it should neither recognize, nor offer benefit or detraction, to anyone based on marital status.
It's a GD three ring circus all because the govt' started sticking their nose in this matter. Now look what we got. A bucket of shit.
I have no problem with the government providing sanction, support and benefits for couples who commit to marriage. There's no greater force for traditional values than the institution of marriage. It is a truly unique and valuable contract - a lifetime commitment of mutual support and caring. An individual provides for his/her partner, in health and in sickness, in prosperity and in poverty - so the government doesn't have to. Marriage is the most serious, consequential commitment two human beings can make to each other. Should the government support and encourage that commitment?
YES!
-
I have no problem with the government providing sanction, support and benefits for couples who commit to marriage. There's no greater way foster traditional values than the encouragement of marriage. It is a lifetime commitment of mutual support and caring. An individual provides for his/her partner, in sickness and his health, in prosperity and in poverty - so the government doesn't have to. Marriage is the most serious, consequential commitment two human beings can make to each other. Should the government support and encourage that commitment?
YES!
lying liberal garbage on display.
-
lying liberal garbage on display.
You, too, have a nice day.
-
Not to point fingers; but again, we seem to see Christianity slighted by one poster, the same one who has called Muslims our friends and neighbors. Yet, one doesn't see standing up for gays when there are news reports such as the latest, of Muslims being persecuted in Chechnya or the general treatment of gays in Islamic countries and under Shariah Law.
There may have even been another recent story.
-
Don't really care about animal/human marriages. Most places have bestiality laws (except for possibly Cali) so those jackasses can be thrown in jail in short order. If you want to get panicked about something be worried about robot marriage. That is sitting right in front of us and IS something that will be a massive headache for a whole host of legal, religious and procreative reasons.
Just look at what the hell Real Doll has developed.....
(http://www.anotherindian.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/real-doll.jpg)
Those are not real people. Add to that the insane leaps the Japanese are making in robotics and humans are not going to marry humans in the near future.
An article on The Daily mail about this earlier this year Japanese are already working on accurate smelling robots, hair that grows..yes hair that grows, correct body temperature (sorta like your heated car seats I presume)and um lubrication.. I can't imagine what another 10-15 years they will be like.
Real Human females are going to be hit hard except maybe the most beautiful
@Frank Cannon
-
Not to point fingers; but again, we seem to see Christianity slighted by one poster, the same one who has called Muslims our friends and neighbors. Yet, one doesn't see standing up for gays when there are news reports such as the latest, of Muslims being persecuted in Chechnya or the general treatment of gays in Islamic countries and under Shariah Law.
There may have even been another recent story.
I have some gay friends who think we need to bring in more Muslims. I just SMH
@TomSea
-
I have no problem with the government providing sanction, support and benefits for couples who commit to marriage. There's no greater force for traditional values than the institution of marriage. It is a truly unique and valuable contract - a lifetime commitment of mutual support and caring. An individual provides for his/her partner, in health and in sickness, in prosperity and in poverty - so the government doesn't have to. Marriage is the most serious, consequential commitment two human beings can make to each other. Should the government support and encourage that commitment?
YES!
Really? Since the govt' has gotten involved with marriages the family has never been weaker. Your sophistry has been proven 100% bullshit because we have tangible results to prove it.
-
Really? Since the govt' has gotten involved with marriages the family has never been weaker. Your sophistry has been proven 100% bullshit because we have tangible results to prove it.
Divorce rate is the lowest it's been since the 60's and marriage rates are coming back.
Gays did not destroy marriage straight people have done it all on their own.
I have no problem with gov't promoting marriage via tax cuts or credits and allowing people to pass on their estate to their spouse straight or gay with no taxes.
Gov't promotes business growth via free land or low taxes
@Frank Cannon
-
Really? Since the govt' has gotten involved with marriages the family has never been weaker.
WTF? How has the family been weakened by, for example, federal laws that exempt from estate tax amounts left to one's spouse, or federal laws that allow an employer to provide health insurance to an employee's spouse without the value of that insurance being taxed?
What's wrong with the government supporting families by favoring couples that marry and stay married?
-
Don't really care about animal/human marriages. Most places have bestiality laws (except for possibly Cali) so those jackasses can be thrown in jail in short order. If you want to get panicked about something be worried about robot marriage. That is sitting right in front of us and IS something that will be a massive headache for a whole host of legal, religious and procreative reasons.
Just look at what the hell Real Doll has developed.....
(http://www.anotherindian.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/real-doll.jpg)
Those are not real people. Add to that the insane leaps the Japanese are making in robotics and humans are not going to marry humans in the near future.
I think I've met the one on the left. She wasn't much on conversation.... :smokin:
-
I have no problem with the government providing sanction, support and benefits for couples who commit to marriage.
@Jazzhead
You have no problem with crumbling up the Constitution into a big ball and tossing it into the garbage can.
There is zero Consititutional basis for the Obergefell ruling, and you know it. Yet you embrace tyranny at the expense of our Constitution. So stop hiding behind some moral argument.
-
@Jazzhead
There is zero Consititutional basis for the Obergefell ruling, and you know it. Yet you embrace tyranny at the expense of our Constitution. So stop hiding behind some moral argument.
Of course there is - the Equal Protection clause. How is it "tyranny" for my neighbors to have the same right to marry as you? How are you harmed?
Like I said, let God punish such marriages if He wants. He doesn't need His legions of Godboys making Christ and Christians look petty, sanctimonious and spiteful.
Mind your own damn business.
-
Of course there is - the Equal Protection clause. How is it "tyranny" for my neighbors to have the same right to marry as you?
Nonsense. My neighbors, in fact everyone had the same right to marry. One man and one woman. How are you harmed?
Like I said, let God punish such marriages if He wants. He doesn't need His legions of Godboys making Christ and Christians look petty, sanctimonious and spiteful.
I thought He had made Himself clear on the topic with Sodom and Gomorrah. Just one more reason to prefer the neighbors (whoever they are) live a good distance away.
Mind your own damn business.
Quit parading that perversion on my television, in the schools, demanding businesses cater to it, and calling it 'normal', and I will. Until then the intrusion of that "lifestyle" into my daily world makes it my business. If people just quietly did what they did and didn't demand everyone else approve, maybe it would not be.
-
Personally, I think people are moving in a conservative direction in politics and in relationships.
A lot of people got bad advice from Hollywood and pop psychology.
We were told that we were weak if we didn't consider ourselves number one, and, by golly, we didn't have to take that.
It is not being weak to consider the needs and desires of your mate and to stay faithful in your marriage. It is infinitely rewarding.
-
Nonsense. My neighbors, in fact everyone had the same right to marry. One man and one woman. I thought He had made Himself clear on the topic with Sodom and Gomorrah. Just one more reason to prefer the neighbors (whoever they are) live a good distance away.Quit parading that perversion on my television, in the schools, demanding businesses cater to it, and calling it 'normal', and I will. Until then the intrusion of that "lifestyle" into my daily world makes it my business. If people just quietly did what they did and didn't demand everyone else approve, maybe it would not be.
SJ, no one is demanding that you approve your neighbors' lifestyle. I don't approve of sexual promiscuity, whether practiced by gays or straights. But that's exactly why I support marriage equality - gays who seek to marry aren't the bathhouse denizens, they're folks just like you and me. I support an official imprimatur of respect and recognition for the lifetime commitment of faithfulness they have made.
I'll wait for you. And if I should fall behind, wait for me
Those are Bruce Springsteen's lyrics, but they portray perfectly the struggle we all have to not only find the one we will marry, but to stay married. The decades fall fast, but a little slower if you're with the one you love.
-
Personally, I think people are moving in a conservative direction in politics and in relationships.
A lot of people got bad advice from Hollywood and pop psychology.
We were told that we were weak if we didn't consider ourselves number one, and, by golly, we didn't have to take that.
It is not being weak to consider the needs and desires of your mate and to stay faithful in your marriage. It is infinitely rewarding.
I agree, Emjay.
-
Personally, I think people are moving in a conservative direction in politics and in relationships.
A lot of people got bad advice from Hollywood and pop psychology.
We were told that we were weak if we didn't consider ourselves number one, and, by golly, we didn't have to take that.
It is not being weak to consider the needs and desires of your mate and to stay faithful in your marriage. It is infinitely rewarding.
Yes, major backlash against the left and culture like HBO's "Girls". The pendulum always swings back. We'll see what the millenials do. They could make or break it. Most I run across want smaller, less intrusive gov't but not sure on their morals some i see very conservative and some very liberal and as pointed out marriage rates are actually up.
-
Of course there is - the Equal Protection clause.
Equal protection was already being applied. The same rights to marry existed equally for everyone regardless of preference. But then you knew that already.
How is it "tyranny" for my neighbors to have the same right to marry as you?
They already have the same right to marry as do I. But then you knew that already.
Like I said, let God punish such marriages if He wants. He doesn't need His legions of Godboys making Christ and Christians look petty, sanctimonious and spiteful.
But we're not talking about God here. We're talking about the Constitution of the United States of America. Can you for one moment stop hiding behind moral arguments and stick to what the legal basis?
Mind your own damn business.
The Constitution is my business. And the tyranny you proudly embrace is clearly an enemy of it.
-
Folks just cannot mind their own damn business. No gay marriage ever affected a straight couple's marriage in the slightest.
Minding ones own business would have involved the Federal government never sticking their nose into this in the first place.
Instead 9 black robes found rights where there were none and gave special protection and status to gays that straight people do not have.
Once again we see an instance where you have no problem with judges creating law from whole cloth as long as it supports your own special interest.
Let God punish such marriages, not His legions of Godboys.
God also says that marriage is between a woman and a man....and says homosexuality is a sin.
Maybe if you actually took time to read the Bible instead of continually haranguing and harassing those that have and do...you wouldn't sound like such a pompous @ss all the time.
-
Jazzhands is still trying to use the Civil War Amendments pertaining to freed slaves to make his case?
:silly:
His knowledge of the Constitution could fill half a thimble.
-
Jazzhands is still trying to use the Civil War Amendments pertaining to freed slaves to make his case?
:silly:
His knowledge of the Constitution could fill half a thimble.
My knowledge of the Constitution and the reach of the Equal Protection clause is shared by a majority of the Supreme Court. The Equal Protection clause is not limited to the freed slaves, as has been found by court ruling after court ruling over the past century. This is settled law.
Again - the right of my neighbors to marry doesn't affect your marriage in the slightest. Mind your own damn business - it is not your function to enforce your view of "God's law" here on earth. You're not on Sin Patrol - and if you are, then you're no better than an Islamist demanding Sharia law.
-
God also says that marriage is between a woman and a man....and says homosexuality is a sin.
That's not your concern, other than with respect to your own life. God doesn't need or want your help harassing and haranguing my neighbors about their "sin".
-
Should the government support and encourage that commitment?
YES!
NO! The government should have nothing to do with encouraging or discouraging marriage within reason.
I thought you were against the Government meddling in our lives?
Oh wait...that's right...
-
That's not your concern, other than with respect to your own life. God doesn't need or want your help harassing and haranguing my neighbors about their "sin".
Except that Jesus and God himself encourage in the Old and New Testament instruct people to spread His word far and wide to the masses.
You just don't want to hear what He has to say because it throws up in your face how wrong you are in your views.
-
Except that Jesus and God himself encourage in the Old and New Testament instruct people to spread His word far and wide to the masses.
You just don't want to hear what He has to say because it throws up in your face how wrong you are in your views.
Gotta disagree with you, baby. God tells us many diverse things in scripture that can be interpreted too many ways to be dogmatic about it.
Just go with what it means to you and let others alone about it.
-
I think nonetheless, it should be left to the States, the States for years and years have legislated marriage, Cousins Marriages have different laws between the States.
And take a look at polygamy? What's to stop that from becoming accepted too. The US did not want the Mormons taking part in polygamy.
I can relate to the statement, "how is their marriage affecting you?" Maybe none at all, but Bed and Breakfast places having to accept a same-sex couple, there should be some leeway. Also, one can't help but find examples where some folks try to mainstream it into the public schools and elsewhere.
States should set the law, it be NC, NY, etc.
-
Gotta disagree with you, baby. God tells us many diverse things in scripture that can be interpreted too many ways to be dogmatic about it.
Just go with what it means to you and let others alone about it.
Yeah...whatever. *****rollingeyes*****
Mark 16:15 NKJV
“And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.'”
Psalms 96:3 NKJV
“Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all peoples.”
Matthew 28:19-20 NKJV
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
-
Divorce rate is the lowest it's been since the 60's and marriage rates are coming back.
Divorce rates are down because A) people can't afford to do it anymore but they are still splitting up and B) less people are getting married and instead shacking up.
Marriage rates are slightly up because of gays. Overall only 32 in a 1000 women a year age 15 and older are getting married.
Nothing here that one would want to cheer about.
-
Divorce rates are down because A) people can't afford to do it anymore but they are still splitting up and B) less people are getting married and instead shacking up.
Marriage rates are slightly up because of gays. Overall only 32 in a 1000 women a year age 15 and older are getting married.
Nothing here that one would want to cheer about.
Nope, study was done on per capita basis and did not include gays
@Frank Cannon
-
NO! The government should have nothing to do with encouraging or discouraging marriage within reason.
I thought you were against the Government meddling in our lives?
Oh wait...that's right...
Not a fan of government interference in marriage in any way shape or form. If government wants to encourage people to get married and have children the best thing they could do is as little as possible. If they cut taxes and and regulation across the board it would do plenty to encourage people to live as they wish.
Government interference is why 7 months after my mother's death I am still dealing with her piece of crap long estranged husband. In fact she would have divorced his worthless ass 20 years ago if it weren't for our idiotic no fault divorce laws giving him half of what he never earned. SS survivor benefits are another source of govt interference. My mother said outright that she would rather her survivor benefits go to my father who she hadn't been married to for 40 years.
-
Not a fan of government interference in marriage in any way shape or form. If government wants to encourage people to get married and have children the best thing they could do is as little as possible. If they cut taxes and and regulation across the board it would do plenty to encourage people to live as they wish.
Government interference is why 7 months after my mother's death I am still dealing with her piece of crap long estranged husband. In fact she would have divorced his worthless ass 20 years ago if it weren't for our idiotic no fault divorce laws giving him half of what he never earned. SS survivor benefits are another source of govt interference. My mother said outright that she would rather her survivor benefits go to my father who she hadn't been married to for 40 years.
Sorry about the infuriating hassle but one example does not make good law.
-
Yeah...whatever. *****rollingeyes*****
Mark 16:15 NKJV
“And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.'”
Psalms 96:3 NKJV
“Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all peoples.”
Matthew 28:19-20 NKJV
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Yeah, whatever? Is that a good response. Okay, then.
But I've gotten into the battle of the scriptures in many, many Bible classes and nobody wins.
I still urge you to take scripture personally as to what it means to you and leave others alone.
-
I think nonetheless, it should be left to the States
Amazingly, our Founding Fathers thought likewise. Sadly though, there is a poster here who believes that the Constitution our Founding Fathers gave us should be discarded in favor of the tyranny of five people wearing black robes.
-
Gotta disagree with you, baby. God tells us many diverse things in scripture that can be interpreted too many ways to be dogmatic about it.
Just go with what it means to you and let others alone about it.
How do you interpret "abomination"?
Or the total destruction of Sodom and Gommorah?
I mean, there might be a subtle nuance I am unaware of, but in general those sort of things aren't open to much misinterpretation.
-
Nope, study was done on per capita basis and did not include gays
@Frank Cannon
I glanced the report from last year and it made no mention of who was being married and also concluded that overall there were no positive conclusions to be made because they were comparing things to 1980 and it didn't factor in population growth.
-
How do you interpret "abomination"?
Or the total destruction of Sodom and Gommorah?
I mean, there might be a subtle nuance I am unaware of, but in general those sort of things aren't open to much misinterpretation.
Pointless to argue. Go in peace to love and serve the Lord. Amen.
-
How do you interpret "abomination"?
Or the total destruction of Sodom and Gommorah?
I mean, there might be a subtle nuance I am unaware of, but in general those sort of things aren't open to much misinterpretation.
Rush Limbaugh is on his 4 th marriage
Trump on his 3rd or 4th, cheating and adultry
New Gingrich cheated on his first 2 wives and divorced them
My SIL gay brother has been with his partner since 1986
What is the real abomination?
@Smokin Joe
-
Rush Limbaugh is on his 4 th marriage
Trump on his 3rd or 4th, cheating and adultry
New Gingrich cheated on his first 2 wives and divorced them
My SIL gay brother has been with his partner since 1986
What is the real abomination?
@Smokin Joe
Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
Those are specific. and whole towns were erased from the landscape over that.
From Proverbs:
Proverbs Chapter 6
16 These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
and
Proverbs 17:15 - He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both [are] abomination to the LORD.
Proverbs 28:9 - He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer [shall be] abomination.
Proverbs 20:10 - Divers weights, [and] divers measures, both of them [are] alike abomination to the LORD.
That's a warmup, there's more.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Abomination/ (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Abomination/)
Without making this into a religious thread, nor sitting in judgement that is above my pay grade, none of the behaviours you mention are righteous.
-
Rush Limbaugh is on his 4 th marriage
Trump on his 3rd or 4th, cheating and adultry
New Gingrich cheated on his first 2 wives and divorced them
My SIL gay brother has been with his partner since 1986
What is the real abomination?
@Smokin Joe
Right on brother! Lack of faithfulness and the breaking of solemn vows - often vows taken in the sight of God - strike me as the real sins. It is amusing to see conservative Christians having conniptions about gay couples having the gall to want their "abomination" recognized as a marriage, while shrugging their shoulders at those who ignore their wedding vows when faced with the thrill of a quick fling. Has that baker who won't provide a cake for a gay wedding ever cheated on his wife? Dollars to donuts he has!
-
Without making this into a religious thread, nor sitting in judgement that is above my pay grade, none of the behaviours you mention are righteous.
But cheating causes real, tangible harm. It is the breaking of a solemn vow, that if revealed may break up a marriage and a family.
What harm is caused by a gay couple that wants to marry?
-
It is amusing to see conservative Christians having conniptions about gay couples having the gall to want their "abomination" recognized as a marriage, while shrugging their shoulders at those who ignore their wedding vows when faced with the thrill of a quick fling
It is amusing to see liberals hold fast to moral arguments as they embrace tyranny while completely ignoring the Constitution of the United States of America.
-
It is amusing to see liberals hold fast to moral arguments as they embrace tyranny while completely ignoring the Constitution of the United States of America.
So spoken by one who ignores the Constitution's guarantee of the equal protection of the law. Son, you're the one advocating tyranny - which is exactly what arbitrary discrimination in the law's application represents.
-
So spoken by one who ignores the Constitution's guarantee of the equal protection of the law.
We already had equal protection. This has been pointed out to you again and again and again, yet you willfully contradict that simple truth.
Son, you're the one advocating tyranny - which is exactly what arbitrary discrimination in the law's application represents.
There is no arbitrary discrimination. None. Zip. Nada.
But hey, at least when I brought up liberals, you correctly assumed that I was talking about you.
-
Geez. What a pointless and incendiary exercise. Why not get the govt' out of marriage all together. They should never have been involved in it in the first place.
Amen.
Regardless of what the good book may or may not say, Telling other people that I know the Mind of God on Any issue is presumption on a cosmic scale.
As for the State's Rights argument, it's DOA.
Until and unless we repeal the marriage deduction from the tax code, gay marriage becomes Due Process and Equal Protection Issues.
Just ain't gonna happen.
-
Yeah...whatever. *****rollingeyes*****
Mark 16:15 NKJV
“And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.'”
Psalms 96:3 NKJV
“Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all peoples.”
Matthew 28:19-20 NKJV
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
FYI. Quite frankly, Mark 16:9-19 is a fake...a very late forgery added to Mark to correct what some early editors thought of as the "odd" absence of mentioning a risen Jesus. It was absolutely NOTpart of the original text of Mark. Its not found in any of the earliest known copies of Mark, though sadly it somehow found its way into many modern bibles. The fact that you cite it, shows you clearly don't know/understand the very source material of your own belief system.
Backing this up: The evidence is clear. This ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark. In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger writes: “Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.”1 The language and style of the Greek is clearly not Markan, and it is pretty evident that what the forger did was take sections of the endings of Matthew, Luke and John (marked respectively in red, blue, and purple above) and simply create a “proper” ending.http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/
-
Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
Those are specific. and whole towns were erased from the landscape over that.
From Proverbs:
Proverbs Chapter 6
16 These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
and
Proverbs 17:15 - He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both [are] abomination to the LORD.
Proverbs 28:9 - He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer [shall be] abomination.
Proverbs 20:10 - Divers weights, [and] divers measures, both of them [are] alike abomination to the LORD.
That's a warmup, there's more.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Abomination/ (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Abomination/)
Without making this into a religious thread, nor sitting in judgement that is above my pay grade, none of the behaviours you mention are righteous.
You are citing Proverbs...which is the words of Solomon, Agur and Lemuel in that order. So the Proverbs are simply the opinions of these men and a reflection of their own cultural view...not god's view. God might be infallible, but rest assured that Solomon, Agur and Lemuel were anything but.
-
It is amusing to see liberals hold fast to moral arguments as they embrace tyranny while completely ignoring the Constitution of the United States of America.
The one thing that will always expose liberals is their rabid hatred of Christianity. I've known plenty of conservative atheists who never show any animosity toward Christianity because they are essentially conservative at their core.
-
Has that baker who won't provide a cake for a gay wedding ever cheated on his wife? Dollars to donuts he has!
You are assuming someone who suffers for their faith has sinned, versus someone who proclaims their sin and demands the rest of us 'celebrate' that.
-
A little leaven leavens the entire lump.
Everything you need to know about where that lifestyle will take a people, a city , a nation is depicted in Genesis 19.
It's instructive to read all the arguments of men that loft up and condone an egregious sin listed in scripture as such as noble, virtuous, good and holy while bashing those that hold fast to the truth. It reveals with clarity, that abject hatred such people have for God of the bible because they instead prefer to worship and believe in the golden calf they have crafted in their own image and likeness to represent whom they claim to follow.
-
You are assuming someone who suffers for their faith has sinned, versus someone who proclaims their sin and demands the rest of us 'celebrate' that.
Amazing how Liberals always try to find any twig they can grasp onto or create any straw man they need to in order to defend immoral behavior.
-
You are citing Proverbs...which is the words of Solomon, Agur and Lemuel in that order. So the Proverbs are simply the opinions of these men and a reflection of their own cultural view...not god's view. God might be infallible, but rest assured that Solomon, Agur and Lemuel were anything but.
That makes logical sense to me, because if these were the words of God, there wouldn't be a contradiction between Leviticus and Proverbs Chapter 6. The Proverb is quite exacting in making clear there were six -yea seven - abominations. Homosexuality isn't among them. These passages represent contemporary opinion, not the unchanging declarations of God.
But it is interesting the number of abominations committed by the contemporary internet forum member who condemns good people with certitude, refuses to extend respect or courtesy even upon pain of violating the civil law, and counsels withdrawal from the larger community: a proud look, wicked imaginings and sowing discord among brethren.
-
The one thing that will always expose liberals is their rabid hatred of Christianity. I've known plenty of conservative atheists who never show any animosity toward Christianity because they are essentially conservative at their core.
I agree. A conservative has no animosity toward Christianity. I suppose that some of us have animosity to those who use the name of Christ to justify their abominable behavior (see Proverbs Chapter 6).
-
I know MJ means the best but she also told us she belonged to ? what a Presbyterian or Episcopalian Church when we talked about Gorsuch and what church Gorsuch went to. See, some of us may see that kind of church as more liberal in teachings.
-
You are citing Proverbs...which is the words of Solomon, Agur and Lemuel in that order. So the Proverbs are simply the opinions of these men and a reflection of their own cultural view...not god's view. God might be infallible, but rest assured that Solomon, Agur and Lemuel were anything but.
You still didn't address the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. If that isn't a clear statement, nothing will get through.
-
That makes logical sense to me, because if these were the words of God, there wouldn't be a contradiction between Leviticus and Proverbs Chapter 6. The Proverb is quite exacting in making clear there were six -yea seven - abominations. Homosexuality isn't among them. These passages represent contemporary opinion, not the unchanging declarations of God.
But it is interesting the number of abominations committed by the contemporary internet forum member who condemns good people with certitude, refuses to extend respect or courtesy even upon pain of violating the civil law, and counsels withdrawal from the larger community: a proud look, wicked imaginings and sowing discord among brethren.
I condemned no one. That part is above my pay grade. I did, however read what The Almighty doesn't like, and will pass that on. You are free to worship any golden calf you want, but you do so at your own peril.
-
I suppose that some of us have animosity to those who use the name of Christ to justify their abominable behavior.
You most certainly do. Including asserting biblical justification for that which is biblically declared sin, abomination, wickedness and perversion. You operate from a wholly Genesis 3:4 motivation.
-
You still didn't address the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. If that isn't a clear statement, nothing will get through.
What's to address? God doesn't destroy cities full of children and babies...men do that, and then they write about it blaming god. That should be clear enough for ya.
-
Except that Jesus and God himself encourage in the Old and New Testament instruct people to spread His word far and wide to the masses.
You just don't want to hear what He has to say because it throws up in your face how wrong you are in your views.
Yep.
I believe it was Jesus who said ..go forth and sin no more.
-
You most certainly do. Including asserting biblical justification for that which is biblically declared sin, abomination, wickedness and perversion. You operate from a wholly Genesis 3:4 motivation.
In your juvenile misunderstanding of the bible, you are taking the words of men to be the words of god...even when no such claim is made by the particular biblical author in question. Paul thought women should remain silent in church, for example....and that was HIS opinion, not gods. Likewise with Proverbs and the vast majority of writings in the bible. Where Jesus is quoted, it makes some sense to attribute that to the deity...but if you think Jesus would condemn gay marriage or gays themselves...well, you simply don't know Jesus at all.
Love god, love your fellow man, forgive those who harm you and be a good citizen. That's the message of Jesus...and others of a similar nature/disposition. This is all that's needed for anyone to be a good Christian. Everything else, rules and rituals and doctrine, that's the work of modern day Pharisees...put forward to obstruct people's path to god, not assist it.
-
In your juvenile misunderstanding of the bible, you are taking the words of men to be the words of god...even when no such claim is made by the particular biblical author in question. Paul thought women should remain silent in church, for example....and that was HIS opinion, not gods. Likewise with Proverbs and the vast majority of writings in the bible. Where Jesus is quoted, it makes some sense to attribute that to the deity...but if you think Jesus would condemn gay marriage or gays themselves...well, you simply don't know Jesus at all.
Love god, love your fellow man, forgive those who harm you and be a good citizen. That's the message of Jesus...and others of a similar nature/disposition. This is all that's needed for anyone to be a good Christian. Everything else, rules and rituals and doctrine, that's the work of modern day Pharisees...put forward to obstruct people's path to god, not assist it.
This, is a classic example of liberal idolatry. Substituting false for truth.
Jesus is quoted in Mathew.. as coming to fulfill.. not abrogate Gods truth. Certainly Jesus did mitigate the punishment.. at least on earth..... cast not the first stone. But still the Sin was recognized by Jesus to keep one from God unless one repented and sinned no more.
-
This, is a classic example of liberal idolatry. Substituting false for truth.
Jesus is quoted in Mathew.. as coming to fulfill.. not abrogate Gods truth. Certainly Jesus did mitigate the punishment.. at least on earth..... cast not the first stone. But still the Sin was recognized by Jesus to keep one from God unless one repented and sinned no more.
I have no idols, just plain god. I gave you truth for truth. I didn't say Jesus abrogated anything, though he did correct a great deal of misperceptions about God's truth. "Sin", as Jesus practiced, was exactly as I described above...or rather...failing to do the things I listed.
Again, stop being the Pharisee and try emulating Jesus. You'll find a happier, more spiritual life and a closer communion with the deity herself.
-
...but if you think Jesus would condemn gay marriage or gays themselves...well, you simply don't know Jesus at all.
If you think Jesus has no problem with homosexuality and does not call it a sin, and abomination and will earn eternal death - you are the one who does not know Jesus at all.
You might try re-reading John 1:1-3 and then verse 14 and discover who the God of the Scriptures was.
But I think, given your statements when it comes to the scriptures, your own intellect serves as your god.
-
If you think Jesus has no problem with homosexuality and does not call it a sin, and abomination and will earn eternal death - you are the one who does not know Jesus at all.
You might try re-reading John 1:1-3 and then verse 14 and discover who the God of the Scriptures was.
But I think, given your statements when it comes to the scriptures, your own intellect serves as your god.
As god made everything, my intellect IS from god. As is yours. But he's given you the free will to misinterpret his teachings...and luckily, the ability over time to grow into a more genuine understanding of the meaning of Jesus.
And your verses from John really have no bearing on the gay marriage debate.
-
What's to address? God doesn't destroy cities full of children and babies...men do that, and then they write about it blaming god. That should be clear enough for ya.
What about that little flood thingy?
-
What about that little flood thingy?
A number of cultures in and around...and generally pre-dating the Old Testament writings...had similar stories of epic floods. Clearly, this is a resonance from an actual flooding event. Just as clearly, its ludicrous to believe there was a flood that covered the entire earth. Stories of real events are shaded with human misperceptions and imbued with cultural significance over time...and this is true of stories in the bible as much as with ancient Egyptian and Sumerian writings.
Its hard to imagine anyone rational thinks two of every species went on to a boat...were fed...and then repopulated the planet in an event occurring less than 10000 years ago. The story is a metaphor, based on earlier mythologies that grew from some major flooding events...making more of it than that is, well, ludicrous.
-
A number of cultures in and around...and generally pre-dating the Old Testament writings...had similar stories of epic floods. Clearly, this is a resonance from an actual flooding event. Just as clearly, its ludicrous to believe there was a flood that covered the entire earth. Stories of real events are shaded with human misperceptions and imbued with cultural significance over time...and this is true of stories in the bible as much as with ancient Egyptian and Sumerian writings.
Its hard to imagine anyone rational thinks two of every species went on to a boat...were fed...and then repopulated the planet in an event occurring less than 10000 years ago. The story is a metaphor, based on earlier mythologies that grew from some major flooding events...making more of it than that is, well, ludicrous.
Nicely dodged!
The point was that all those floods were seen as a deity eliminating his creations who had become corrupted and evil. Whether you believe there is any point on the earth which has not been under water is your problem.
-
Nicely dodged!
The point was that all those floods were seen as a deity eliminating his creations who had become corrupted and evil. Whether you believe there is any point on the earth which has not been under water is your problem.
Its not much of a point, as again...God doesn't kill children babies. Not with floods nor with fires or lightning or pillars of salt. Natural events happen...like floods...and men kill each other. That is the "truth" of it.
-
Its not much of a point, as again...God doesn't kill children babies. Not with floods nor with fires or lightning or pillars of salt. Natural events happen...like floods...and men kill each other. That is the "truth" of it.
I'll let Him take credit for those He takes credit for. As for the rest, the insurance companies have been blaming Him for decades.
You are free to believe what you will.
-
But he's given you the free will to misinterpret his teachings...and luckily, the ability over time to grow into a more genuine understanding of the meaning of Jesus.
His Teachings are Written. You have openly declared them to be void. So the only understanding you are demonstrating that you have in regards to the God of the bible, is one of your own imagination.
And your verses from John really have no bearing on the gay marriage debate.
Thanks for making my point above. The verses I provided tell us plainly that the One Whom Made All Things, Whom Created all, the One Whom GAVE the Commandments and listed what was sin and abomination, the One whom then was made Flesh - the very one you claim to worship - told us plainly what He had inspired to write in Genesis regarding Marriage. Male and female He made man, that a man may be joined to his wife, and the two one flesh. Not the abominations you assert God has no opinion about.
-
His Teachings are Written. You have openly declared them to be void. So the only understanding you are demonstrating that you have in regards to the God of the bible, is one of your own imagination.
Thanks for making my point above. The verses I provided tell us plainly that the One Whom Made All Things, Whom Created all, the One Whom GAVE the Commandments and listed what was sin and abomination, the One whom then was made Flesh - the very one you claim to worship - told us plainly what He had inspired to write in Genesis regarding Marriage. Male and female He made man, that a man may be joined to his wife, and the two one flesh. Not the abominations you assert God has no opinion about.
You are looking for God in the wrong place if you seek him in a book or in the church. That is not where you will find the Kingdom of God:
"Split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there." - Gospel of Thomas
Further, God didn't write Genesis. A man did. Which explains why its such a mess.
-
Wow, Gnostic Gospel; I thought one can find some odd things stated in those Gospels as well. Specifically the Gospel of Thomas.
Then, I'd have to say we are now departing at least, Conventional Christianity.
-
Wow, Gnostic Gospel; I thought one can find some odd things stated in those Gospels as well. Specifically the Gospel of Thomas.
Then, I'd have to say we are now departing at least, Conventional Christianity.
Yes we are, and that's a very good thing. A very Jesus like thing.
Thomas is not just some "Gnostic Gospel", it has been dated to around the time of Mark making it very nearly the earliest written Gospel of them all. That makes it important, unlike the vast majority of other gnostic writings. Its simply a collection of Jesus sayings, not a "story" gospel and is thought to draw much of its material from the Q gospel...a text thought by many biblical scholars to be the source material for the 4 biblical gospels.
Few Christians realize that there WAS no bible in the early stages of the church...at least well into the 2nd (and possible the 3rd) century. Those books and letters included were hotly debated...and the ultimate criteria was overtly political and philosophical. Very little was "inspiring" about the process of selection.
-
You are looking for God in the wrong place if you seek him in a book or in the church.
I'm not looking for the god you worship.
I have the One who is Revealed in His Word through His Spirit that you have discounted.
As I said, your intellect is your god.
-
FYI. Quite frankly, Mark 16:9-19 is a fake...a very late forgery added to Mark to correct what some early editors thought of as the "odd" absence of mentioning a risen Jesus. It was absolutely NOTpart of the original text of Mark. Its not found in any of the earliest known copies of Mark, though sadly it somehow found its way into many modern bibles. The fact that you cite it, shows you clearly don't know/understand the very source material of your own belief system.
Not this tired old crap again.
One has to abuse the patristic fathers to adopt such a screed. IF it is a late edition, you'll have to explain Irenaeus (c.200 AD, Against Heresies) and Justin Martyr, and Titatian (the Diatesseron), who all refer to the passages... Not to mention a virtual hoard of uncials and miniscules... not to mention codices and great codices in which the text is contained.
And furthermore, any student of textual criticism can easily defend against the erroneous position that 'the oldest are the most authoritative' - The Masoretic text being a prime example.
-
You are looking for God in the wrong place if you seek him in a book or in the church. That is not where you will find the Kingdom of God:
"Split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there." - Gospel of Thomas
LOL! The Nag Hamadi Codices... Why am I not surprised.
Further, God didn't write Genesis. A man did. Which explains why its such a mess.
LOL sommore! Hacking the Bible at every turn, and lifting up gnosticism... The problem you will find in your travels is the same as the Mormons... without Torah, there is no need for any of it. Omit Torah, and all the rest falls with it, to include the gnostics.
-
I'm not looking for the god you worship.
I have the One who is Revealed in His Word through His Spirit that you have discounted.
As I said, your intellect is your god.
Unfortunate that you find God and intellect to be incompatible. It does, however, explain the great many shallow misperceptions you hold...clearly dogma has supplanted the intellect which god gifted to you. As for god....there is only one, and he is revealed far more deeply through one act of human kindness than he is in 10000 pages of biblical doctrine. Just as he is more clearly revealed by the spirit of biblical metaphor and myth than by some absurdly literal acceptance of ancient cultural traditions.
You are, and it breaks my heart for you, seeing only trees while missing the forest.
As for Mark, the earliest fragments we have do not contain the verses in question...likewise for contemporary commentators on this topic. Scholars are mostly united that the Verses in question are edits....and that the edit dated earlier then Irenaeus commentaries. Just because the compilers of the King James Version screwed up and included the "edited" verses does not mean we should ignore the early Greek and Latin texts they do NOT have these verses.
-
I guess since abortion doesn't directly affect me I should just keep my self righteous nose out of it. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Unfortunate that you find God and intellect to be incompatible. It does, however, explain the great many shallow misperceptions you hold...clearly dogma has supplanted the intellect which god gifted to you. As for god....there is only one, and he is revealed far more deeply through one act of human kindness than he is in 10000 pages of biblical doctrine. Just as he is more clearly revealed by the spirit of biblical metaphor and myth than by some absurdly literal acceptance of ancient cultural traditions.
You are, and it breaks my heart for you, seeing only trees while missing the forest.
So much real wisdom and appreciation for true spirituality here. Thanks, Mesaclone.
-
I guess since abortion doesn't directly affect me I should just keep my self righteous nose out of it. *****rollingeyes*****
That's what Liberals like jazz would prefer you to do.
-
That's what Liberals like jazz would prefer you to do.
Its how progressivism works.
Its pretty convenient to silence half the opposition because they're males and have no rights to talk about Abortion. Its the same with gay marriage. If you aren't gay or in agreement, you have no right to speak on it.
Just yesterday some idiot told me that I have no right to speak about the problems in Flint Mi because I don't live there and I'm not black. They wanted to push the theory that rich white people intentionally poisoned the black folks of Flint. (They didn't want anyone to notice that those rich white folks had lived there themselves with those pipes for a century)
-
Its how progressivism works.
Its pretty convenient to silence half the opposition because they're males and have no rights to talk about Abortion. Its the same with gay marriage. If you aren't gay or in agreement, you have no right to speak on it.
Just yesterday some idiot told me that I have no right to speak about the problems in Flint Mi because I don't live there and I'm not black. They wanted to push the theory that rich white people intentionally poisoned the black folks of Flint. (They didn't want anyone to notice that those rich white folks had lived there themselves with those pipes for a century)
Had a friend of mine try to tell me once that I shouldn't talk about things like what was happening at the time in Missouri and Baltimore because I wasn't black.
Pointed out to her the racist attitude of that statement and how prejudiced that mind set was by saying that I'd be called a sheet wearing Klansman and a bigot if I told someone of color they had no right to comment on an issue because he or she wasn't white.
Never ceases to amaze me how Liberals cherry pick from a narrative to support their backwards way of thinking.
-
Had a friend of mine try to tell me once that I shouldn't talk about things like what was happening at the time in Missouri and Baltimore because I wasn't black.
Pointed out to her the racist attitude of that statement and how prejudiced that mind set was by saying that I'd be called a sheet wearing Klansman and a bigot if I told someone of color they had no right to comment on an issue because he or she wasn't white.
Never ceases to amaze me how Liberals cherry pick from a narrative to support their backwards way of thinking.
Your friend apparently would not be a fan of Booker T Washington. After my mother passed I found Washington's autobiography in her kindle. Washington specifically stated that no former slave had a greater or more valid opinion on slavery than a former slave owner in the south or an abolitionist from the north. He understood that its what America was about.
-
That's what Liberals like jazz would prefer you to do.
Ah yes, putting words in my mouth.
So this is an abortion thread now? Shall I repeat (once again) my opposition to abortion? Shall I repeat (once again) my view that persuasion is simply more effective (and Constitutional) than government-enforced coercion?
You can't ignore the reality that a woman's right to choose abortion (or not) has been the law of the land for 40 years. That bird has flown the coop. The energy spent on re-criminalizing abortion, and denying women their Constitutional rights, is a waste. Spend that energy on promoting abstinence, or adoption, or birth control, or supporting financially women facing a pregnancy crisis with no partner support. Those things work. Railing on the internet that women are sluts and their liberty is garbage doesn't.
-
Folks just cannot mind their own damn business. No gay marriage ever affected a straight couple's marriage in the slightest.
The more important issue here is the Supreme Court creating brand new constitutional rights out of thin air. I really don't care one way or the other about gay rights. I care very much about a Supreme Court bounded only by it's own views of a perfect society. And unfortunately, the only way to get the Court to reconsider a case like this is for a legislature to pass a law again.
-
The more important issue here is the Supreme Court creating brand new constitutional rights out of thin air. I really don't care one way or the other about gay rights. I care very much about a Supreme Court bounded only by it's own views of a perfect society. And unfortunately, the only way to get the Court to reconsider a case like this is for a legislature to pass a law again.
The Constitution's right of equal protection is hardly new. All the SCOTUS did is extend this venerable and important right to the factual situation of the law's valuable benefits afforded with respect to civil marriage.
-
It was a split decision; the dissenting judges wrote their response in a reasonable way.
Anyone standing up for the decision should not forget some rather extremist liberal types on the Supreme Court such as Kagan, etc.
No way is it a settled issue because Elena says this. And to be fair, it works both ways, some liberals may not like the Conservative bench.
-
The Constitution's right of equal protection is hardly new. All the SCOTUS did is extend this venerable and important right to the factual situation of the law's valuable benefits afforded with respect to civil marriage.
In a mixed decision with some questionable judges on the SCOTUS. This is not the open and close shut case you seem to make it. The dissenting opinions were very reasonable.
-
Gorsuch likely will not reverse this but somewhere in the future, maybe 15 or 20 years, it might be considered again and who knows? Laws do change.
-
And the same Supreme Court (same governmental body that is) that came up with the Dredd Scott decision. Yet, we are suppose to take this governmental body's word as sacrosanct because one member seems to use it to steamroll others that he is right.
-
Unfortunate that you find God and intellect to be incompatible.
A perfect Straw Man you have erected if there ever was one. Do you feel intellectually superior that you have knocked it down?
It does, however, explain the great many shallow misperceptions you hold...clearly dogma has supplanted the intellect which god gifted to you.
You have no idea what beliefs or doctrines I hold to and believe in outside of my stated reverence for the bible as God's Word and the positions against Sin it lists that I have opined on.
As for god....there is only one, and he is revealed far more deeply through one act of human kindness than he is in 10000 pages of biblical doctrine. Just as he is more clearly revealed by the spirit of biblical metaphor and myth than by some absurdly literal acceptance of ancient cultural traditions.
Like I said, and you just confirmed - you worship the god of your imagination. You lean on your own understanding which scripture warns against. God is whatever and whomever you see and deem it to be. In short, revelation comes to you from the god of this world, the prince of the power of the air. It is how homosexuality can be declared to be virtuous and things like abortion to be 'choices' readily offered on the altar of 'freedom'.
You are, and it breaks my heart for you, seeing only trees while missing the forest.
Concern yourself not with my heart, but your own. For a Day will come when you will weep or gnash teeth over the folly of what you have accepted as truth from your own imagination when your eyes are actually opened to See. And that Day is coming for all, whether you believe it or not.
As for Mark, the earliest fragments we have do not contain the verses in question...likewise for contemporary commentators on this topic. Scholars are mostly united that the Verses in question are edits....and that the edit dated earlier then Irenaeus commentaries. Just because the compilers of the King James Version screwed up and included the "edited" verses does not mean we should ignore the early Greek and Latin texts they do NOT have these verses.
Then clearly the Jesus you claim to worship, is a fraud and your faith is in vain based on your assertion that the testimony of scriptures and the letters that confirm whom He was is bogus. Eventually your intellect and reasoning will take you there and beyond. I've seen it many times before.
You will have your temporal reward, and that is all you will receive.
-
Its how progressivism works.
Its pretty convenient to silence half the opposition because they're males and have no rights to talk about Abortion. Its the same with gay marriage. If you aren't gay or in agreement, you have no right to speak on it.
Yet at the same time they will assert we (read as "the community") have an "obligation" to embrace (IOW pick up the tab for, the reason behind "universal health care) the already trillion dollars in medical care (and growing) that will be needed by HIV/AIDS patients in the US, the whole time they want to normalize the prime vector for the infection.
Yes, the actions of others DO affect us, whether they merely shift the focus of research and money available from pediatric cancer, or allow people to entice youngsters to try something they might not because they are accused of being "a hater" or because they have been repeatedly told "there's nothing wrong with that" and get infected with a life-changing disease for which there is no cure, to taking doctors away from researching any of the other myriad diseases out there which kill daily. The shift in resources is phenomenal. So yes, although at first blush it may seem as if there is no effect, the effect is profound.
The DENIAL that such actions don't affect others is the same sort of nonsense that drug addicts spew. They whole time we are being trounced for not being "caring", we're getting a double dose of "don't give a damn" from the people who would saddle us with the costs of their self inflicted injuries and the heartbreak of dealing with the social wreckage created by their attempts to sate their perverted urges.
By their fruits shall ye know them.
-
The Constitution's right of equal protection is hardly new. All the SCOTUS did is extend this venerable and important right to the factual situation of the law's valuable benefits afforded with respect to civil marriage.
I don't want to reargue that case, so I'll just disagree with you regarding same-sex marriage being a fundamental right -- which is what the Court actually found even though it claimed it didn't. And I'll point out that based on the legal logic of that decision, the Court could just as easily create a constitutional right to incestuous marriages. The only difference would be your view on that as a matter of policy preference.
My point is that I care less about the result than about the method for reaching it. That's particularly true with respect to Anthony Kennedy, who had struck down the DOMA on the specific ground that marriage had always been something regulated solely by states, and that the federal government had no business dictating that to the states. Then he completely reversed that reasoning in Obergefell to obtain the result he wanted. He played the entire issue like a politician, not a judge.
-
The Constitution's right of equal protection is hardly new.
Equal protection was already in force. Sexual preference has never been a factor in defining marriage laws. But then you knew that already, yet still willfully choose to put forth a patently false portrayal of the case. Some people refer to that as 'lying'.
All the SCOTUS did is extend this venerable and important right to the factual situation of the law's valuable benefits afforded with respect to civil marriage.
Another lie. The Obergefell court ruled that marriage laws could no longer be defined by State legislatures, statewide referendums, State Constitutions, or even by the Federal Legislature. It is called 'tyranny'. Pure and simple. It violates the very Constitution you falsely claim to support. And you embrace it.
-
It is "tyranny" to arbitrarily deny the law's equal protection, not to extend it. Hoodat - no gay couples' marriage has ever affected your marriage in the slightest.
I don't disagree that the SCOTUS decision affording equal protection to your neighbors frosts you because of your religious beliefs. But this is a secular nation, son, with the government and religion strictly separated. You can practice your religion freely, but you can't force it onto others, or compel the state to deny a citizen his Constitutional rights because you think God would disapprove.
-
It is "tyranny" to arbitrarily deny the law's equal protection, not to extend it.
For the umpteenth time, equal protection was already in place. Stop pretending it was not.
Hoodat - no gay couples' marriage has ever affected your marriage in the slightest.
Again, this has nothing to do with preference or how it affects me. It has to do with the Constitution of the United States - something you repeatedly ignore.
I don't disagree that the SCOTUS decision affording equal protection to your neighbors frosts you because of your religious beliefs.
See? There you go again bringing up the moral argument. This isn't a moral discussion, but a legal one. And there is no legal basis for Obergefell. None. Zero. Nada. Which is why you keep doing everything possible to avoid the legal discussion, including trying to start a religious war on this board.
So enough talk of religion. Let's talk about the Constitution instead.
You can practice your religion freely, but you can't force it onto others
Kind of like how five tyrants wearing black robes are forcing their 'religion' on an entire nation - the Constitution be damned.
. . . or compel the state to deny a citizen his Constitutional rights because you think God would disapprove.
This ought to be good. Exactly what Constitutional rights are you referring to here? Please be specific.
-
But this is a secular nation, son, with the government and religion strictly separated.
You couldn't be more wrong if you actually tried.
There is no wall of separation between church and state in the Constitution.
The part of the 1st Amendment that pertains to religion was put there to prevent another Church of England type scenario from forming in the U.S. It was NOT put there to stop Nativity Scenes from being displayed on a City Hall lawn or a prayer from being said before a HS football game.
That's more of that judicial tyranny you supposedly hate coming into play when they decided Engel v. Vitale.
-
But this is a secular nation, son, with the government and religion strictly separated.
You couldn't be more wrong if you actually tried.
He also couldn't be more dishonest. The Humanists have no qualms at all in forcing their religion upon the rest of us.
-
You couldn't be more wrong if you actually tried.
He also couldn't be more dishonest. The Humanists have no qualms at all in forcing their religion upon the rest of us.
All the while bashing us for allegedly imposing ours on them. It's the definition of hypocrisy.
-
The part of the 1st Amendment that pertains to religion was put there to prevent another Church of England type scenario from forming in the U.S. It was NOT put there to stop Nativity Scenes from being displayed on a City Hall lawn or a prayer from being said before a HS football game.
It should be noted that the purpose of Amendment I was to place limitations on the Federal legislature ONLY. Our right to free speech, press, religion, etc. are not granted by Amendment I. They are granted by our Creator.
That's more of that judicial tyranny you supposedly hate coming into play when they decided Engel v. Vitale.
The biggest irony of all is Everson v. Board of Education - a case that the Humanists actually lost. The majority decision of that case was that public school buses could indeed be used to bus kids to Catholic school.
-
You couldn't be more wrong if you actually tried.
There is no wall of separation between church and state in the Constitution.
The part of the 1st Amendment that pertains to religion was put there to prevent another Church of England type scenario from forming in the U.S.
That "Church of England type scenario" to which you refer was of no small consequence. A king got his head chopped off, over that "type scenario."
The English Civil War, whereby King Charles I lost his head, was part of centuries of wars in Europe, over religious differences.
Our Founders wisely sought to keep religion away from government, as far as it being the dominant factor. And it has remained so, to a large extent.
But not entirely. Utah had to stop plural marriages, to gain statehood. Hopefully today we do not allow genital mutilation, in the name of allah, either.
Prohibition was driven mainly, by Christian Temperance movements.
My take on "separation of church and state," is those who get what they want from it, are for it. Those that don't get what they want, oppose it.
In elementary school, we got fish on Fridays. A small localized example of civil government, accommodating a denominational religious practice.
Today, we are asked as a society, to select one set of religious beliefs (above others), to apply to our entire population, even if they do not all agree.
-
You couldn't be more wrong if you actually tried.
He also couldn't be more dishonest. The Humanists have no qualms at all in forcing their religion upon the rest of us.
Of course he is dishonest. Lying is a speciality he has repeatedly demonstrated here. As all Leftists practice - lying is perfectly acceptable because their ends justifies any means they employ, and they redefine those means as morally superior.
The fact is that this mythical wall of separation from God they are pushing society to widen, is resulting in the kinds of tyranny the Founders warned would happen to the nation - and it will culminate with our utter destruction and ruin after an abject persecution of those who believe in and exercise the religion of the God they hate.
-
A perfect Straw Man you have erected if there ever was one. Do you feel intellectually superior that you have knocked it down?
Au contraire. I simply restated your original assertion and applied to our understanding of god.
You have no idea what beliefs or doctrines I hold to and believe in outside of my stated reverence for the bible as God's Word and the positions against Sin it lists that I have opined on.
My "idea" of your beliefs and doctrines comes from your own words and comments here. It paints a much broader picture than you'd like it to.
Like I said, and you just confirmed - you worship the god of your imagination. You lean on your own understanding which scripture warns against. God is whatever and whomever you see and deem it to be. In short, revelation comes to you from the god of this world, the prince of the power of the air. It is how homosexuality can be declared to be virtuous and things like abortion to be 'choices' readily offered on the altar of 'freedom'.
All of us, including you, worship the god of imagination...either your own, or that of an earlier writer to whom you ascribe divine inspiration...which is itself an act of imagination. You ARE correct that I lean on my own understanding...both of scripture and of god's presence in this world. God gave us a brain to think with, you seem to prefer to set yours aside in order to follow by rote the thoughts of other men (scripture writers, church doctrines, etcetera).
Concern yourself not with my heart, but your own. For a Day will come when you will weep or gnash teeth over the folly of what you have accepted as truth from your own imagination when your eyes are actually opened to See. And that Day is coming for all, whether you believe it or not.
Here is the best indicator of whether or not god lives in your heart. I weep for you because you can't see god for who she is...you can't wait for those who believe differently from you to burn in hell. Which sounds more like something Jesus would approve of?
Then clearly the Jesus you claim to worship, is a fraud and your faith is in vain based on your assertion that the testimony of scriptures and the letters that confirm whom He was is bogus. Eventually your intellect and reasoning will take you there and beyond. I've seen it many times before.
My Jesus, like Buddha, Ghandi, and many others...was able to be one with the divine during his time on this earth.
What he taught was compatible with intellect and reasoning....while offering its own insight into love and spirituality. That is where my intellect and reasoning take me...to a god of love and forgiveness. Yours seems to have taken you to a place of fire, brimstone and vengeance. My Jesus is a lot more....Jesus-ee....than your Jesus.
You will have your temporal reward, and that is all you will receive.
The reward, now and in the next life, is to have Jesus with you and in you. There is no need for me to wait for any "rewards"...temporal or otherwise.
You seem filled with such anger and hatred for those who don't understand the bible and god as you do. Until you can rid yourself of that, you will always be searching for Jesus but unable to bring him into your heart. Fortunately, god is eternally patient and she will be there waiting with open arms when you open your eyes.
-
You seem filled with such anger and hatred for those who don't understand the bible and god as you do. Until you can rid yourself of that, you will always be searching for Jesus but unable to bring him into your heart. Fortunately, god is eternally patient and she will be there waiting with open arms when you open your eyes.
As I see it INVAR is certain only those sharing precisely his beliefs will make it to Heaven, and others will not. Fire and Brimstone.
-
Au contraire. I simply restated your original assertion and applied to our understanding of god.
I do not share your understanding of God, which as I said - is a god of your imagination given your stated discount of scripture.
My "idea" of your beliefs and doctrines comes from your own words and comments here. It paints a much broader picture than you'd like it to.
Oh really???? Do tell. Explain for me what those doctrines are.
All of us, including you, worship the god of imagination...
You keep telling yourself that. It's the only way you can justify yourself in your own eyes.
You ARE correct that I lean on my own understanding
Yet Proverbs 3:5 explicitly tells us not to.
God gave us a brain to think with, you seem to prefer to set yours aside in order to follow by rote the thoughts of other men (scripture writers, church doctrines, etcetera).
Once again, you have no idea what I believe, what I do, where I have been or what ministry I have been called to perform.
Here is the best indicator of whether or not god lives in your heart. I weep for you because you can't see god for who she is...
I do not want your empathy, because it comes from the Prince and Power of this world.
you can't wait for those who believe differently from you to burn in hell.
Really? Where have I said that I cannot wait for people who live in ignorance to burn in hell? You continue to reveal that you know absolutely nothing that I believe, even though you assert that you think you know what I understand. You know nothing. Only your imagination again.
Which sounds more like something Jesus would approve of?
2 Peter 3:9
My Jesus, like Buddha, Ghandi, and many others...was able to be one with the divine during his time on this earth... I weep for you because you can't see god for who she is. My Jesus is a lot more....Jesus-ee....than your Jesus.
You keep thinking that. I don't worship your Gaia and neither does Jesus belong to this 'She' you reference as Elohim.
You seem filled with such anger and hatred for those who don't understand the bible and god as you do.
That sentiment is always the refuge of the Lawless and those who refuse God as Revealed for the golden calves they have created in their own minds of the one they pledge to worship.
You promote lawlessness and then cover it up in gilded sentiment and reasonings from the Prince and Power of this world claiming to be of God.
-
As I see it INVAR is certain only those sharing precisely his beliefs will make it to Heaven, and others will not. Fire and Brimstone.
As you see it? You just demonstrated you have not a clue what it is I believe in regards to the Kingdom of God, Judgment or Reconciliation.
But if it makes it easier for you to assume I think I'm the only one going to heaven - you go ahead and think that.
-
As you see it? You just demonstrated you have not a clue what it is I believe in regards to the Kingdom of God, Judgment or Reconciliation.
But if it makes it easier for you to assume I think I'm the only one going to heaven - you go ahead and think that.
How about Zoroastrians, Catholics, liberal protestants, Mormons, Jews, Buddhists, etc. Will they make it in your view?
Or are they wasting their efforts, performing "good works?"
-
How about Zoroastrians, Catholics, liberal protestants, Mormons, Jews, Buddhists, etc. Will they make it in your view?
Just curious. What do you mean by "make it"? What does 'making it' entail?
-
Just curious. What do you mean by "make it"? What does 'making it' entail?
Heaven in the Evangelical Christian sense.
-
:dontfeed:
Remember, one of the very few ways to get a topic shut down is to argue religion.
-
Heaven in the Evangelical Christian sense.
Thanks for the reply. It is one that essentially ignores the entire point of Christianity, but also one that too many people share.
Personally, I tend to go by what Jesus actually preached (i.e. the kingdom of heaven) instead of viewing salvation as some self-serving 'free-ticket-into-heaven' approach.
Of course none of this has a thing to do with North Carolina legally establishing it's own standard of marriage within the confines of the Constitution of the United States of America, which they have every right to do.
-
Thanks for the reply. It is one that essentially ignores the entire point of Christianity, but also one that too many people share.
Personally, I tend to go by what Jesus actually preached (i.e. the kingdom of heaven) instead of viewing salvation as some self-serving 'free-ticket-into-heaven' approach.
Of course none of this has a thing to do with North Carolina legally establishing it's own standard of marriage within the confines of the Constitution of the United States of America, which they have every right to do.
The reason many claim positions against same-sex unions is religious belief. So it connects.
-
Your understanding of history, and the role of religion in the West is severely lacking. Western society is built on Platonic philosophy/principles and by extension, Enlightenment thought. Much of what you think are "Christian principles" either pre-date Christianity or have developed alongside it.
Platonic principles are at peace with the practice of slavery. On the other hand, slavery is incompatible with Christian principles. You over simplify the impact of Christianity on society by focusing on a few concepts derived from the Greeks as if they were the significant components of Western culture.
It is this concept of "equal" that is alien to Plato, but inherent in Christian teachings.
Christianity has certainly played a role in the development of Western Society, that is an obvious truism, but Christianity itself has evolved and changed over the millenia....so its a moving target. Christianity was not some monolithic entity imposing its imprint on the Western world, rather, it was a melange of widely varied philosophies developed from a core concept centered around the teachings of Jesus. Teachings which in their original form bear striking similarities, for example, to those of Buddha. Since the very early church, concepts of what those teachings mean...and which teaching are valid...have varied dramatically.
Further, life is sacred to many varying faiths...moreso, in some cases (Buddhism for example), than is the case in Christianity...so your concern about wholesale slaughter related to the absence of Christianity is ridiculous.
We are in no danger of society embracing Buddhism once the Christian culture is purged. The danger we face is of society embracing what came before Christianity. If they don't embrace paganism or some other deviant spirituality, the people will embrace something even worse.
Only the Atheists have succeeded in surpassing the death toll of Islam.
That sort of thing happens with and without Christianity, as has been the case throughout history. There ARE faiths, such as Islam, that encourage barbarism and brutality...but there are many others that have ethics and history far more pacifist and respecting of life.
We are not going to get one of those. We will get Islam or worse.
The question of gay marriage has nothing do with religious belief...if a particular religion disapproves, it need not sanction gay marriage within its own practice.
The Christian religion teaches that God destroys homosexuals and everyone that associates with them. Not only does it say in plain language that Homosexuals need to die (http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm), it gives two very clear examples of entire cities being destroyed because of Homosexuals. (Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Battle of Gibeah. (http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/judges/19.html))
Some faiths, including many Christian groups, do sanction marriage with THEIR practice.
It is not a matter of opinion. It is a clearly stated and clearly demonstrated prohibition. That they chose to deliberately ignore it does not suddenly make it factually correct.
The problem is that government should have no role in the marriage business...it should neither recognize, nor offer benefit or detraction, to anyone based on marital status. Marriage is a private religious matter, not a governmental one.
This nonsense again. Yes, the government (and society at large) does have a vested interest in this business known as Marriage. Not only do inheritance issues need to be addressed by the government, but so too do issue of custody and guardianship.
Speaking bluntly, it is in the best interest of both government and society to make new people. They form the tax base that feeds the beast we call "government." It is in the best interest of government to have well adjusted and non-insane members of society.
The current crop of dysfunctional kooks from which we currently suffer is to a large extent the consequence of governmental policies that helped destroy the stable two parent family.
Christian culture is a load-bearing structural component of this system of governance. People don't realize how important it is because it has always been here.
-
But it was the REPUBLICANS who backed away from the idea, proffering the "Defense of Marriage" Act instead because it was an easier way to get free of the issue.
And they're the ones to blame for "where we are" today.
The same sort that are always enabling the Liberal ratchet effect to occur and become entrenched.
"Don't ask, Don't tell" is another Moderate Republican compromise that was intended to make the issue go away, even though we would have won had we just fought it at the time.
-
That's an entirely different fight.
It is the same fight. It just doesn't look like the same fight to people who have not followed how we got to where we are from where we were.
-
The reason many claim positions against same-sex unions is religious belief. So it connects.
That is an argument for making the law. But it has no bearing whatsoever on the Constitutionality of said law.
The moral argument that has been ensuing on this thread is just a diversion from the actual topic at hand - the right of North Carolina to enact it's own marriage definition - one which is applied equally to all.
-
What the hell would it matter if they do?
It would further erode the concept of "Marriage." It would undermine it and make it an object of ridicule.
There are a lot of people out there now who say "a man is a fool if he gets married." "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?"
As I pointed out above, "Marriage" is a beneficial force to society, and to government. We need more normal and productive citizens without psychological issues filling out our society.
You don't get such people when you let people "Marry" dogs. You get feral people that way. They do not respect anything or anyone, and you will only be able to control them so long as their numbers do not get too large.
-
Sorry, DL, but my neighbors aren't undermining Western civilization.
I'll assume you are being flippant. Your neighbors (homosexuals I assume) are a component of the overall force which is undermining Western Civilization.
Heck, when I'm gone for the weekend they pick up my paper so would-be burglars won't know I'm gone.
Years ago I learned something profound when I read a comment that said: "People are more concerned that their dog has died than that 1,000 people on the other side of the world were killed."
Local always beats abstract in human thinking.
-
I have no problem with the government providing sanction, support and benefits for couples who commit to marriage. There's no greater force for traditional values than the institution of marriage. It is a truly unique and valuable contract - a lifetime commitment of mutual support and caring. An individual provides for his/her partner, in health and in sickness, in prosperity and in poverty - so the government doesn't have to. Marriage is the most serious, consequential commitment two human beings can make to each other. Should the government support and encourage that commitment?
YES!
You got this part right. Where you go wrong is the belief that it should be applied outside of it's natural bounds.
It reminds me of that General who admired the Green Berets, and so he figured that having everyone wear the Beret would boost morale.
He obviously didn't grasp how the whole concept worked.
-
Really? Since the govt' has gotten involved with marriages the family has never been weaker. Your sophistry has been proven 100% bullshit because we have tangible results to prove it.
You are putting forth a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.
The family has become weaker because of government subsidies for bastards. Thank the North Eastern Liberal Republicans for making that happen.
-
How about Zoroastrians, Catholics, liberal protestants, Mormons, Jews, Buddhists, etc. Will they make it in your view?
Or are they wasting their efforts, performing "good works?"
Good works do not earn Salvation.
2 Peter 3:9 is pretty definitive as to God's desire.
And then there is that word 'Repentance' which is completely disregarded by most.
And consequences follow for the refusal to do so.
I Corinthians 6:9-10 - also pretty definitive.
-
The fact is that this mythical wall of separation from God they are pushing society to widen, is resulting in the kinds of tyranny the Founders warned would happen to the nation - and it will culminate with our utter destruction and ruin after an abject persecution of those who believe in and exercise the religion of the God they hate.
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies." -John Adams : Letter to Zabdiel Adams (21 June 1776)
"The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shall not covet," and "Thou shall not steal," are not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free." - John Adams : Ch. 1 Marchamont Nedham : The Right Constitution of a Commonwealth Examined
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
-
We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful. -- C.S. Lewis
-
That "Church of England type scenario" to which you refer was of no small consequence. A king got his head chopped off, over that "type scenario."
The English Civil War, whereby King Charles I lost his head, was part of centuries of wars in Europe, over religious differences.
Our Founders wisely sought to keep religion away from government, as far as it being the dominant factor. And it has remained so, to a large extent.
But not entirely. Utah had to stop plural marriages, to gain statehood. Hopefully today we do not allow genital mutilation, in the name of allah, either.
Prohibition was driven mainly, by Christian Temperance movements.
My take on "separation of church and state," is those who get what they want from it, are for it. Those that don't get what they want, oppose it.
In elementary school, we got fish on Fridays. A small localized example of civil government, accommodating a denominational religious practice.
Today, we are asked as a society, to select one set of religious beliefs (above others), to apply to our entire population, even if they do not all agree.
Well put.
-
That "Church of England type scenario" to which you refer was of no small consequence. A king got his head chopped off, over that "type scenario."
The English Civil War, whereby King Charles I lost his head, was part of centuries of wars in Europe, over religious differences.
Our Founders wisely sought to keep religion away from government, as far as it being the dominant factor. And it has remained so, to a large extent.
I believe this statement is quite wrong, depending on what you mean by it. The 13 colonies had official state religions which differed from state to state. The "respecting an establishment of religion" clause was only intended to prevent interdenominational conflicts in the Federal government, which would obviously have arisen if a particular denomination was regarded as the "official" national religion.
By clearly stating that the Federal government would not have preferential treatment for any particular denomination of Christianity, they headed off a potentially troublesome denominational conflict blowing apart their coalition of states.
That the Federal government would be explicitly Christian was implicit, and everyone at the time knew and understood this to be the case. The US Constitution explicitly states that the President does not have to work on Sundays, and the US Constitution also ends with a reference to "Our Lord" meaning Jesus Christ.
This business of "Separation of Church and State" is a modern fiction that began in 1948. It has no basis in history.
But not entirely. Utah had to stop plural marriages, to gain statehood. Hopefully today we do not allow genital mutilation, in the name of allah, either.
Prohibition was driven mainly, by Christian Temperance movements.
My take on "separation of church and state," is those who get what they want from it, are for it. Those that don't get what they want, oppose it.
In elementary school, we got fish on Fridays. A small localized example of civil government, accommodating a denominational religious practice.
Today, we are asked as a society, to select one set of religious beliefs (above others), to apply to our entire population, even if they do not all agree.
Well of course we do. The United States was founded as a specifically Christian nation. The founding document (Declaration) specifically refers to "nature and nature's God", and the Articles of Confederation also refer to God, and the US Constitution refers to Jesus.
The way we count the years is from "Anno Domini". The word "Goodbye" is derived form "God be w' ye." Christianity is inherent in English Law, as well as the subsequent American law which was derived from it.
Yes, the nation was founded as a specifically Christian nation, and we people of today have not been adequately taught about the clear intimacy that the Federal government originally shared with Christianity. Those that speak of this "Wall of Separation" are simply using the Jargon of modern deniers.
-
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies." -John Adams : Letter to Zabdiel Adams (21 June 1776)
"The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shall not covet," and "Thou shall not steal," are not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free." - John Adams : Ch. 1 Marchamont Nedham : The Right Constitution of a Commonwealth Examined
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
Great post! If you want to know what this country was founded on go to the Founders.
Our country has made the decision to abandon what this country was founded on. God. People can laugh it off or poo poo that it makes no difference but it does.
We have no control over people's personal choices in life. But we shouldn't be changing the meaning of marriage. Homosexuals could have chosen Civil Unions legislation that would have given them all the same advantages of marriage in a government view. But this fight was about making God and His institutions meaningless in American society. It was about making others who do follow Gods Word into haters and homophobes. Creating laws to punish people who do not want to bake a gay cake or say that homosexuality is not a sin. We have created laws to divide our country farther than anyone knows. Creating a social war between the world and the church.
The Hatred of the World
18If the world hates you, understand that it hated Me first. 19If you were of the world, it would love you as its own. Instead, the world hates you, because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.
20Remember the word that I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you as well; if they kept My word, they will keep yours as well. 21But they will treat you like this on account of My name, because they do not know the One who sent Me. 22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.
23Whoever hates Me hates My Father as well. 24If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have seen and hated both Me and My Father. 25But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated Me without reason.’a
26When the Advocate comes, whom I will send you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—He will testify about Me. 27And you also must testify, because you have been with Me from the beginning.
What has been done in this country is to fulfill the Words of Jesus. To turn this country from a God fearing one into a world loving one. Worse yet our churches have also been turned from God loving and fearing ones into World serving ones.
-
The 13 colonies had official state religions which differed from state to state. The "respecting an establishment of religion" clause was only intended to prevent interdenominational conflicts in the Federal government, which would obviously have arisen if a particular denomination was regarded as the "official" national religion.
That is exactly correct. The Founders had no intention to separate God from society or God from Government. Liberty as they bequeathed it to us, cannot exist outside of a biblical/Christian society. What they were guarding against, is the Popery that held Europe (at the time) in it's grip. A monarchy using religion to coerce a populace to be beholden to their tyrannical rule, mind, body and spirit. In their minds, there was no King but Jesus, and no need for a monarch to tell them what they must do in order to be within the good graces of both the government and the church (which were one and the same in Europe).
Indeed, the fear Parliament and the Crown would de-establish all Christian denominations and decree Anglican Churches as the only permitted religion in the Colonies spurned the Appeal To Heaven movement and engendered the slogan "No King But Jesus".
By clearly stating that the Federal government would not have preferential treatment for any particular denomination of Christianity, they headed off a potentially troublesome denominational conflict blowing apart their coalition of states. That the Federal government would be explicitly Christian was implicit, and everyone at the time knew and understood this to be the case.
Exactly.
This business of "Separation of Church and State" is a modern fiction that began in 1948. It has no basis in history.
That is not exactly a 100% correct statement. Like the Serpent in the Garden, the Left took a statement written by Jefferson in personal correspondence and attributed it to the First Amendment - thus actually changing the meaning and intent of the First Amendment free exercise clause.
An historical fact is that the Danbury Baptist church of Mass. wrote to Jefferson to demand he de-establsih and get rid of the Congregationalist church in 1801. Jefferson's response was to assert the Constitutional prohibition that separates the government from having any power to do such a thing. The wall of separation he noted was the wall of prohibition the Constitution directs at government from having any authority to make law or policy in regards to religion - for or against. The States were not under that prohibition.
Hugo Black decided that letter from Jefferson superseded the plain words in the Constitution and ascribed his letter as the intent behind the First Amendment is to separate God and religion from the public and having any influence or reference upon Government.
The United States was founded as a specifically Christian nation. The founding document (Declaration) specifically refers to "nature and nature's God", and the Articles of Confederation also refer to God, and the US Constitution refers to Jesus.
No one wants to hear or believe that anymore. The hostility that arises when this is asserted is akin to the flesh being ripped off the Apostle Stephen by the teeth of the Pharisees who hated the truth he spoke and declared it to be blasphemy. So too are similar sentiments that arise when making the assertion we were a Christian nation and liberty it's fruit.
-
Great post! If you want to know what this country was founded on go to the Founders.
Our country has made the decision to abandon what this country was founded on. God. People can laugh it off or poo poo that it makes no difference but it does.
We have no control over people's personal choices in life. But we shouldn't be changing the meaning of marriage. Homosexuals could have chosen Civil Unions legislation that would have given them all the same advantages of marriage in a government view. But this fight was about making God and His institutions meaningless in American society. It was about making others who do follow Gods Word into haters and homophobes. Creating laws to punish people who do not want to bake a gay cake or say that homosexuality is not a sin. We have created laws to divide our country farther than anyone knows. Creating a social war between the world and the church.
The Hatred of the World
18If the world hates you, understand that it hated Me first. 19If you were of the world, it would love you as its own. Instead, the world hates you, because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.
20Remember the word that I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you as well; if they kept My word, they will keep yours as well. 21But they will treat you like this on account of My name, because they do not know the One who sent Me. 22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.
23Whoever hates Me hates My Father as well. 24If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have seen and hated both Me and My Father. 25But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated Me without reason.’a
26When the Advocate comes, whom I will send you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—He will testify about Me. 27And you also must testify, because you have been with Me from the beginning.
What has been done in this country is to fulfill the Words of Jesus. To turn this country from a God fearing one into a world loving one. Worse yet our churches have also been turned from God loving and fearing ones into World serving ones.
True. Homosexual couples could have gained most marital rights with various legal documents.
But that's not what it's about with them. It's about equality and acceptance. Just like they could get a cake at 100 other places but they demand all bakers conform.
I'm not that worried about gay marriage. It's not a huge force in society. Other things are much worse.
-
Great post! If you want to know what this country was founded on go to the Founders.
Our country has made the decision to abandon what this country was founded on. God. People can laugh it off or poo poo that it makes no difference but it does.
We have no control over people's personal choices in life. But we shouldn't be changing the meaning of marriage. Homosexuals could have chosen Civil Unions legislation that would have given them all the same advantages of marriage in a government view. But this fight was about making God and His institutions meaningless in American society. It was about making others who do follow Gods Word into haters and homophobes. Creating laws to punish people who do not want to bake a gay cake or say that homosexuality is not a sin. We have created laws to divide our country farther than anyone knows. Creating a social war between the world and the church.
Well said.
All the ails and woes this culture, country and nation are experiencing and will experience, are the direct result of a people and culture choosing secular hedonism as their religion and government their god and Provider to the point that the leavening of sin and abomination has corrupted the entirety of society and is now being forced upon (and will be forced upon all) those who want no part of acknowledging or celebrating sin.
The consequences for refusing to resist and eschew sin and embrace idiocy and hedonism, is our complete enslavement to sin and idiocy as our faith is placed in men and government and ideas anathema to our foundations rather than God. The surety which will result in our total destruction. You are already watching the fruits of this take place right before your eyes.
And it is declared delightful and celebrated by those who insist that the problem is with those who refuse to embrace the new paradigm of morality and government power. We're the tyrants according to them because we refuse to embrace wickedness and cheer for others to pay for the consequences - thus they declare that we lack any compassion or love for fellow men.
Equality forced by government power is their doctrine of salvation and the utter ruin of liberty.
-
The nation was founded insuring individuals and congregations the right to practice their beliefs to the extent they did not impact others.
That is quite different from saying the nation will practice the Quakers' pacifist beliefs about war, or the Catholics' beliefs about meat on Friday, or divorce, or the Mormons' belief about polygamy etc.
The distinctive doctrines of denominations do NOT dictate national laws; duly elected representatives do so by laws.
And when those representatives debate issues in their respective chambers, most citizens expect more than Bible quotations, for reasons.
-
The discussion on the morality of same-sex marriage is pointless while we acquiesce to the current tyranny that prohibits us as a society from establishing marriage laws.
-
The further away from the foundational precepts of the Christian religion we get as a culture and society, the more oppressive and overt the tyranny is going to become.
And the more insane and ridiculous common sense, or the lack thereof becomes.
-
The further away from the foundational precepts of the Christian religion we get as a culture and society, the more oppressive and overt the tyranny is going to become.
And the more insane and ridiculous common sense, or the lack thereof becomes.
If only we could be more theocratic...like those bastions of freedom in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Vatican City.
-
If only we could be more theocratic...like those bastions of freedom in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Vatican City.
Usually only nut job Christian-hating Liberal Atheists puke up that equivocation when mentioning our culture should return to our Christian heritage.
Nice of you to reveal how much you have in common with them.
-
Futile.
-
If only we could be more theocratic...like those bastions of freedom in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Vatican City.
I wouldn't call this freedom.
Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/03/christian-bakers-fined-135000-for-refusing-to-make-wedding-cake-for-lesbians.html
Gay Group Demands Christian Churches Be SHUT DOWN for Opposing Same-Sex Marriage
http://toprightnews.com/gay-group-demands-christian-churches-be-shut-down-for-opposing-same-sex-marriage/
Gay Persecution of Christians: The Latest Evidence
"http://www.crisismagazine.com/author/stephen-beale"
After six years and hundreds of celebratory confections, it wasn’t the economy, the stiff competition, financing, or any of the other usual road bumps of building a new business that caused Sweet Cakes by Melissa—a husband-and-wife bakery in Portland, Oregon area—to close its doors at the end of the summer.
Instead, it was the nationwide battle over same-sex marriage.
In January, co-owner Aaron Klein had denied a request to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding. “The Bible tells us to flee from sin,” his wife and business namesake, Melissa Klein told a Fox News columnist recently. “I don’t think making a cake for it helps. Protests, boycotts, and a storm of media attention—much of it negative—ensued. The couple received death threats. Then, activists broadened the boycott: any wedding vendor that did business with Sweet Cakes would be targeted.
The final nail in the coffin came in August when the slighted lesbian couple filed an anti-discrimination suit with the state. “The LGBT attacks are the reason we are shutting down the shop. They have killed our business through mob tactics,” Klein said. His wife added: “I guess in my mind I thought we lived in a lot nicer of a world where everybody tolerated everybody.”
Christian Wedding Vendors Under Attack
In 2006, a noted advocate for traditional marriage, Maggie Gallagher, warned that the legalization of same-sex marriage would lead to constraints on religious freedom. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Gallagher saw the end of adoptions services by Boston Catholic Charities as a foreshadowing of things to come. (To retain its license, Gallagher explained, the agency would have to abide by the state’s anti-discrimination law, which had been extended to married same-sex couples.) She couched her warning in the form of a question:
This March, then, unexpectedly, a mere two years after the introduction of gay marriage in America, a number of latent concerns about the impact of this innovation on religious freedom ceased to be theoretical. How could Adam and Steve’s marriage possibly hurt anyone else? When religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought. The First Amendment, we are told, will protect religious groups from persecution for their views about marriage. So who is right? Is the fate of Catholic Charities of Boston an aberration or a sign of things to come?
Seven years later, we have the answer: as of this writing, there have been at least 11 instances of wedding vendors and venues facing some form of recrimination—threats, boycotts, protests, and the intervention of state or judicial authorities—because they denied services for gay nuptials because of their faith. Besides Sweet Cakes by Melissa, they are:
¦ Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado: Owner Jack Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in July. The Lakewood bakery has faced at least two protests, a Facebook-driven boycott, and a discrimination complaint from the state Attorney General that was scheduled for a hearing in September. Phillips has said he would rather close his bakeshop than compromise his Christian beliefs. (Sources: news reports including Washington Times and Huffington Post.)
¦ Victoria’s Cake Cottage, Iowa: Baker Victoria Childress denied service to a lesbian couple hoping to get married in 2011. The Des Moines baker was called a “bigot” and faced a protest and Facebook boycott but refused to budge, citing her Christian faith. (Sources: news reports including Washington Times and Huffington Post.)
¦ Fleur Cakes, Oregon: Pam Regentin, the owner of the Mount Hood-area cake shop, refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple earlier this year, sparking another Facebook boycott in May. (Sources: news reports including local television.)
¦ Liberty Ridge Farm, New York: The family-owned farm in mid-state New York is facing a human rights complaint after refusing to host a lesbian wedding in 2012. (Sources: local news sources here and here and the Huffington Post.)
¦ All Occasion Party Place, Texas: In February, the Fort Worth-based wedding venue declined to host a wedding reception for a gay couple. An online boycott has now been launched against the business. (Sources: local news and the Huffington Post.)
¦ Gortz Haus, Iowa: After refusing to host a gay wedding (reported in August), Betty Odgaard, the owner of the business, received threatening calls and e-mails and now must contend with a complaint the couple has filed with the state civil rights commission. (Sources: local news sources here and here and the Huffington Post.)
¦ Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, New Jersey: In 2012, a state judge ruled that a Methodist-owned events venue in Ocean Grove violated state law when it refused to host a gay wedding in 2007. Also, while the discrimination case was still pending, the facility lost its state tax exemption because it was deemed “no longer met the requirements as a place open to all members of the public,” the New York Times reported. (Sources: The New York Times here and here, Philadelphia Inquirer, and LifeSiteNews.)
¦ Elane Photography, New Mexico: The state Supreme Court ruled in August that a New Mexico photography business owned by Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon could not legally deny services to same-sex couples. The photographer had refused service for a lesbian commitment ceremony in 2006. One of the women had filed a complaint with the state Human Rights Commission, which ruled against the photographers in 2008, prompting an appeals process that led to the high court decision. It’s now unclear what will happen to the business. (Sources: press releases and news reports including the Catholic News Agency and the Santa Fe New Mexican. The case is discussed further below.)
¦ Arlene’s Flowers, Washington: A florist refused to provide flowers to a gay wedding last March and now owner Baronelle Stutzman is facing a lawsuit from the state Attorney General. (Sources: news reports including local television and the Associated Press.)
¦ Wildflower Inn, Vermont: A lesbian couple sued the Wildflower Inn under the state public accommodations law in 2011 after being told they could not have their wedding reception there. The owners were reportedly open to holding same-sex ceremonies as long as customers were notified that the events personally violated their Catholic faith. It wasn’t enough. The inn had to settle the case in 2012, paying a $10,000 fine and putting double that amount in a charitable trust. Also, the inn is no longer hosting weddings, although the decision reportedly was made before the settlement. (Sources: The New York Times and Huffington Post.)
These cases represent a new battlefield in the clash between the freedoms of Christians and the “radical homosexual agenda,” said Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of The Thomas Moore Law Center. “Despite their relatively small numbers, radical homosexuals wield enormous power. They dominate our cultural elite, Hollywood, television, the mainstream news media, public schools, academia, and a significant portion of the judiciary,” Thompson said in an e-mail interview. “As a result of their power, homosexual activists are able to intimidate and silence opposition.”
Such fundamental clashes are linked to the spreading legalization of same-sex marriage. Of the 11 total cases cited above, three occurred within two years of their state legalizing same-sex marriage. A fourth came four years afterwards. Four others were in states that did not have same-sex marriage but had granted some legal recognition to same-sex unions, such as domestic partnerships or civil unions. “When you start recognizing same-sex marriage, these cases are going to start coming up,” said Jim Campbell, an Alliance for Defense attorney involved in the New Mexico case.
The legalization of same-sex marriage has created new opportunities for Christian business owners to run afoul of longstanding anti-discrimination laws, according to Campbell. But same-sex marriage is not only creating the opportunity—it’s also affecting how those laws are interpreted, Campbell said.
Such laws ban discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation,” an ambiguous term that could refer either to the sexual attraction and self-identification of individuals or their behavior, according to Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council. Christian conservatives, he says, draw a distinction between an individual and his behavior. “To disapprove of homosexual relationships … is something quite different from discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation,” he said.
The line between the dignity of a person and their behavior, however, is being blurred by the Left, according to Sprigg, enabling it to wield anti-discrimination laws against Christian conservatives who are, in fact, not discriminating against individuals. As Denver baker Jack Phillips to his local CBS affiliate, “If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever.”
Sexual Liberty Before Religious Liberty
In refusing to participate in gay weddings, Christian business owners have invoked their constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. As the Iowa wedding venue owner asked, “Can I have my beliefs without being ostracized for that?”
Across the country, judges are answering in the negative. In ruling against the Methodist-owned Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a state judge declared that the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.” In other words, religious liberty has been shoved aside to serve a higher priority—sexual liberty, Sprigg says.
For the Founding Fathers, however, it was religious freedom that took precedent over societal goals, Thompson says. “Man’s duty of honoring God is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation to the claims of civil society,” James Madison, the Framer of the Constitution, wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessment). Likewise, Thomas Jefferson declared: “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”
“Without a narrow exemption allowed for faithful Catholics and other Christians, there is not the concern but the reality that the state is forcing Catholics and Christians to violate their faith,” said Thompson, a Catholic convert. “Society is attempting to force Catholics to violate their God–given, constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion and conscience. The very institution of the Church is being challenged and the laws that are supposed to protect our religious freedom are now being crafted to weaken and destroy that freedom.”
“The Price of Citizenship”
It’s not just the hierarchy of rights that is being inverted. It’s also the scope of the various rights that are in conflict with each other: as the right to sexual liberty has expanded, the scope of religious liberty has correspondingly narrowed.
In challenging the Colorado baker, the national ACLU said in a statement that his business was an inappropriate forum to air his religious beliefs: “[T]heir business is not a house of worship. Colorado law allows members of the clergy to decide whom they will join in a marriage or civil union—and that’s consistent with the principles of religious liberty our nation was founded on. While bakery owners are free to practice their faith and to personally oppose same-sex marriage, they cannot use those beliefs as an excuse to disrespect and discriminate against customers.”
New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Richard C. Bosson agreed. In his ominously worded concurring opinion against the wedding photographers he described limitations on religious freedom as a necessary compromise in a pluralistic democracy—in his words “the price of citizenship”:
On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.
In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship. I therefore concur.
Campbell called the opinion a “wake-up call” to Christians around the country. “If you want to be a citizen and you want to be a business owner, don’t bring your beliefs,” he said.
In other words: Christians are free to exercise their religion only within the confines of their home or church, but as soon as they leave, they must subordinate those beliefs to the dictates of the anti-discrimination laws, according to Sprigg. “I call it the ‘four-walled’ freedom,” he said.
But religious freedom is not a narrow concept, Thompson says. “It is the ability to live out one’s faith in all aspects of life—which includes earning a livelihood. A wedding vendor should not be forced to check his Christianity at the door, and act in violation of his faith while trying to earn his livelihood,” Thompson said.
Tolerance Before Freedom of Speech
It’s not just religious freedom that is threatened, it’s also freedom of speech, Campbell said.
Before the state Supreme Court, the defense attorneys had argued that “photography is an expressive art form and that photography can fall within the constitutional protections of free speech,” according to the court’s summary. “Elane Photography also states that in the course of its business, it creates and edits photographs for its clients so as to tell a positive story about each wedding it photographs, and the company and its owners would prefer not to send a positive message about same-sex weddings or same-sex marriage.”
Requiring them to photograph such weddings, is “forced speech,” Campbell said. That should concern everyone, according to Campbell. Today, it might be a photographer asked to document a gay or lesbian wedding. Tomorrow, it could be a lesbian or gay photographer asked to shoot a traditional marriage rally against their convictions, he said.
“That’s the antithesis of what the Founders created in the Constitution,” Campbell said.
It’s also the antithesis of what modern liberals supposedly believe. “Tolerance is permitting opinions and practices that differ from one’s own. It is an act of intolerance to force individuals to do something against their deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs. It is no more or less complicated than this,” Thompson
What the Future Holds
It’s unclear if the wedding photography business owned by Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon will go the way of Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon. One option is to stop doing weddings. There is also the possibility of an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court—which Thompson estimates would have a better than the usual one to two-percent chance of getting accepted.
So far, no judge has yet to rule in favor of a vendor who denied services to a same-sex couple on the basis of their faith. That leaves Christian business owners with no easy choices. “Currently Christian vendors are being forced to either 1) violate their religious views or 2) choose a different profession,” Thompson wrote. The upshot of it all, he said, is that faithful Christians eventually could be forced out of the wedding business.
The bigger question is what this all means, more broadly, for faith in public life. If other Christians in the United States are wondering what the future holds, they have to look no further than Europe. In Ireland, a Christian printer’s refusal to publish a gay magazine has landed him in court. In Scotland, a Presbyterian church group was turned away from a hotel because of its views on same-sex marriage. And, in France, a mayor is facing five years in prison because he wouldn’t perform a gay wedding.
If Europe is to be any guide, religious freedom may not even be safe within the ‘four walls’ of a church: in August, a gay couple announced they were mounting a legal challenge against a state law that allows British churches to opt out of holding gay weddings.
As Christians in the United State wonder on what these cases might mean for them, they would do well to reflect on a letter that a bishop recently issued to his diocese, after losing that state’s battle over marriage. The letter is addressed by Bishop Thomas Tobin to Rhode Island Catholics, but his words speak to Christians across the country: “Without a doubt this is a time of challenge, even disappointment for many of us, but it is also an opportunity to be steadfast and courageous, and to renew our commitment to Christ and His Church. As our Lord Jesus Christ told us, ‘In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world’ (Jn 16:33).”
.
Tagged as ACLU, Gay Lobby, persecution of Christians, religious liberty, Same-sex "Marriage"
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/gay-persecution-of-christians-the-latest-evidence
-
I wouldn't call this freedom.
Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians
....
C'mon now. You should know better than cite all that evidence of Christian bigotry and tyranny as some kind of bellwether of phantom Christian persecution. According to our resident hedonists disguised as Christians and Conservatives - anytime you decide to exercise your faith or make mention of it outside of your own mind or four walls of your house - you are a Christian Taliban, ISIS and worse.
Didn't you get the memo???
-
C'mon now. You should know better than cite all that evidence of Christian bigotry and tyranny as some kind of bellwether of phantom Christian persecution. According to our resident hedonists disguised as Christians and Conservatives - anytime you decide to exercise your faith or make mention of it outside of your own mind or four walls of your house - you are a Christian Taliban, ISIS and worse.
Didn't you get the memo???
Wasn't the first time I was compared to ISIS or Taliban. I wish it wasn't only in groups like this and all social media. It is tyranny against anyone who will not celebrate their sexual choice.
The Bible isn't meant for people who want to reject God. So I think it is a phony outrage. They won't be happy until everyone has a gay priest that omits every scripture referring to sexual sin.
And I would challenge people who say I don't believe homosexuality is a sin and you are born like that. Well then are pedophiles born like that and we should accept them and not call it sin? Alcoholics born alcoholic? Drug addicts born addicted to drugs. Are people born to become addicted to pornography, to be adulterers, thieves and killers? Are they born liars? Boy I have known a few people you would have thought were born to lie. Or maybe homosexual sin is special. Romans 1 is not merely about homosexuality. It is a scripture pertaining to God giving people over to their lusts because they reject God and a moral life. It could be any sin. They are not born with that sin.
-
Wasn't the first time I was compared to ISIS or Taliban. I wish it wasn't only in groups like this and all social media. It is tyranny against anyone who will not celebrate their sexual choice.
The Bible isn't meant for people who want to reject God. So I think it is a phony outrage. They won't be happy until everyone has a gay priest that omits every scripture referring to sexual sin.
And I would challenge people who say I don't believe homosexuality is a sin and you are born like that. Well then are pedophiles born like that and we should accept them and not call it sin? Alcoholics born alcoholic? Drug addicts born addicted to drugs. Are people born to become addicted to pornography, to be adulterers, thieves and killers? Are they born liars? Boy I have known a few people you would have thought were born to lie. Or maybe homosexual sin is special. Romans 1 is not merely about homosexuality. It is a scripture pertaining to God giving people over to their lusts because they reject God and a moral life. It could be any sin. They are not born with that sin.
To point out any sin or to call such behavior as sin, is the worst kind of tyranny imaginable to mankind and the reason Thomas Paine wrote the First Amendment to separate church and state to begin with.
Self-righteous busy-bodies like you and I, are the very reason Islam is not a threat to our liberty - but biblical fundamentalists are. Of course the fact that bigots like us who use the mythological book to measure morality and often cite Genesis 19 as all evidence about where homosexuality will take the country, are proof that criminalizing such bigotry is absolutely necessary in order for freedom to prevail.
-
To point out any sin or to call such behavior as sin, is the worst kind of tyranny imaginable to mankind and the reason Thomas Paine wrote the First Amendment to separate church and state to begin with.
Self-righteous busy-bodies like you and I, are the very reason Islam is not a threat to our liberty - but biblical fundamentalists are. Of course the fact that bigots like us who use the mythological book to measure morality and often cite Genesis 19 as all evidence about where homosexuality will take the country, are proof that criminalizing such bigotry is absolutely necessary in order for freedom to prevail.
Sounds about right. I always wondered about the Islam thing. Its Islam that throws gays off buildings and hangs them off cranes. Yet liberals defend it.
God on the other hand gives his Son and says you have free will choice. Otherwise I will give you over to your own lusts and sin. You can make your own choice. He even goes on to tell those who choose Him over the world that we will be hated for His name. The Bible certainly is true. It is also what American Freedom was founded on.
-
The Bible certainly is true. It is also what American Freedom was founded on.
You will be told that assertion is false, even by those who self-identify as Conservative Christians. Sadly a vast majority of the population no longer believes that freedom and biblical morality go hand in hand. A majority believe freedom is determined by society doing whatever is right in their own eyes, and using the government to force everyone else to pay for the consequences. Because they are not consequences - but inequality, racism, and bigotry that must be dealt with militantly by silencing those who dare to espouse such beliefs.
-
You will be told that assertion is false, even by those who self-identify as Conservative Christians. Sadly a vast majority of the population no longer believes that freedom and biblical morality go hand in hand. A majority believe freedom is determined by society doing whatever is right in their own eyes, and using the government to force everyone else to pay for the consequences. Because they are not consequences - but inequality, racism, and bigotry that must be dealt with militantly by silencing those who dare to espouse such beliefs.
So true. I honestly believe that "gay marriage" and Obamacare were means to get the rest of us to pay for AIDS/HIV. Currently, those are anticipated to cost between $600,000 and $750,000 in medical costs per patient over their lifetimes, and there are 1.3 million patients (so far, and counting). By virtue of their lifestyles, the top two risk groups, homosexuals and IV drug abusers were previously uninsurable or high risk, and those who could get insurance paid high rates.
Yet those of us who warn against sexual promiscuity and aberration are excoriated for out moral proselytizing, and attempts to slow the spread of AIDS by shutting down bath houses were so viciously attacked as being mean and anti-gay, as being the product of "haters". If trying to stop people from killing themselves slowly and miserably is "hate", I'm guilty.
The same could be said of the war on drugs: Those who see the misery it causes are cast as evil for trying to stop the self- (and cultural) destruction wrought, claiming they hurt no one but themselves, when they even admit they hurt themselves. Denial, denial, denial.
I have long viewed the rules set forth in the Bible for conduct to be a sort of user's manual. Anyone who creates something will come up with a guide to keep it in good shape and running smoothly. But to those who find those rules conflict with their appetites, the Bible is a harsh set of 'Thou shalt nots' which only affect their having fun (despite the destruction wrought by their actions).
-
Usually only nut job Christian-hating Liberal Atheists puke up that equivocation when mentioning our culture should return to our Christian heritage.
Nice of you to reveal how much you have in common with them.
And it's also nice to see how little he knows about those countries.
IF he wasn't just talking out his fourth point of contact because of a general disdain for religion...he'd know that a desire for America to return to the Christian heritage and what happens in Muslim countries is nowhere near the same.
-
So true. I honestly believe that "gay marriage" and Obamacare were means to get the rest of us to pay for AIDS/HIV.
So false. Encouraging gay marriage encourages responsibility and monogamy. And for those who do get sick - and there but for the grace of God go you, Smokin' Joe - having a loyal partner is likely the single biggest factor for saving taxpayers the cost of long-term care.
-
If only we could be more theocratic...like those bastions of freedom in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Vatican City.
If it were not for organized Christian religion, we might be like Iran and Saudi Arabia and bowing to Mecca 3 times a day.
So a few square miles in Vatican City really bother you?
-
The greatest threat to the liberal international order comes not from Russia, China, or jihadist terror but from the self-induced deconstruction of Western culture.
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/04/12/the-deconstruction-of-the-west/
-
@INVAR
Your insult has been removed.
***
"Encouraging gay marriage encourages responsibility and monogamy."
What I had to say about a mindset (and that is what I addressed specifically) that would utter such an abhorrent thing, remains in truth whether or not the mods permit it to be posted or not.
-
So false. Encouraging gay marriage encourages responsibility and monogamy. And for those who do get sick - and there but for the grace of God go you, Smokin' Joe - having a loyal partner is likely the single biggest factor for saving taxpayers the cost of long-term care.
Oh, come on. The divorces are already happening. You weigh thousands of years against only a few? Besides if the only reason to get "married" is to have access to the 'partner's' insurance as a dependent, what is the use of fidelity?
And that still doesn't address the HIV+ needle junkies the States Medicaid programs didn't want to pony up for.
The whole system holds the medical care of those who live cleanly hostage to extract payment for those who don't.
-
So false. Encouraging gay marriage encourages responsibility and monogamy.
I really don't care about any of that. The institution developed historically because of a need to deal legally with the issue of children born of that union. That's why the government got involved in the first place. It was essential for rights of inheritance, obligation to support, etc.. Protecting/endorsing those unions for those reasons makes sense. Extending it to relationships where that possibility does not exist doesn't make sense.
-
I really don't care about any of that. The institution developed historically because of a need to deal legally with the issue of children born of that union. That's why the government got involved in the first place. It was essential for rights of inheritance, obligation to support, etc.. Protecting/endorsing those unions for those reasons makes sense. Extending it to relationships where that possibility does not exist doesn't make sense.
Many homosexual pairings have children, either adopted or via a previous heterosexual partnership.
-
Many homosexual pairings have children, either adopted or via a previous heterosexual partnership.
Sure, but both of those come with legal rights already attached, via either birth or adoption. For example, if someone gay has a child from a previous marriage, their parental rights will not be changed even if they start a homosexual relationship with someone else.
The issue with male and female unions is that they produce children naturally, and therefore a mechanism to establish those rights/obligation is necessary.
-
Sure, but both of those come with legal rights already attached, via either birth or adoption. For example, if someone gay has a child from a previous marriage, their parental rights will not be changed even if they start a homosexual relationship with someone else.
The issue with male and female unions is that they produce children naturally, and therefore a mechanism to establish those rights/obligation is necessary.
Without the marriage, a stepparent can't make those medical decisions, etc.
-
Without the marriage, a stepparent can't make those medical decisions, etc.
With a document called 'medical power of attorney', they can indeed make those medical decisions. They do not have to be related in any way.
-
With a document called 'medical power of attorney', they can indeed make those medical decisions. They do not have to be related in any way.
True.... but this still ranks about 109 on my list of things I worry about.
-
True.... but this still ranks about 109 on my list of things I worry about.
109? Well, at least you have plenty of things to keep you busy.
-
109? Well, at least you have plenty of things to keep you busy.
I am not convinced that gay marriage approval poses any threat to religion or our society.
For one thing, it is miniscule in percentage of the population.
For another thing, the fight for it was symbolic more than real as not that many gay couples take advantage of it because marriage imposes obligations as well as rights.
-
I am not convinced that gay marriage approval poses any threat to religion or our society.
For one thing, it is miniscule in percentage of the population.
It is huge in it's ramifications for Christianity based society and Western civilization, but those consequences are in the future so most people don't notice them today.
For another thing, the fight for it was symbolic more than real as not that many gay couples take advantage of it because marriage imposes obligations as well as rights.
The vast majority of homosexuals have not the slightest interest in monogamy or marriage. I try to get people to look at their culture from their perspective, but it is difficult for normal people to grasp.
Imagine that you were a young boy surrounded by young attractive girls that just wanted to have sex with you. That is life in the "gay" community, except the girls are boys, and have a very strong male sex drive. In San Francisco's "bath" houses, homosexuals would have 10 sexual partners on an average visit.
In homosexual circles, having a thousand sex partners is not unusual. It is in fact, part of the lifestyle.
So yeah, "Gay Marriage" was a symbolic victory, and nothing else. It was an effort to force normal people to accept something perverted, whether they liked it or not.
-
10 partners per visit? I call hax. No one has that short a refactory period.
-
It is huge in it's ramifications for Christianity based society and Western civilization, but those consequences are in the future so most people don't notice them today.
The vast majority of homosexuals have not the slightest interest in monogamy or marriage. I try to get people to look at their culture from their perspective, but it is difficult for normal people to grasp.
Imagine that you were a young boy surrounded by young attractive girls that just wanted to have sex with you. That is life in the "gay" community, except the girls are boys, and have a very strong male sex drive. In San Francisco's "bath" houses, homosexuals would have 10 sexual partners on an average visit.
In homosexual circles, having a thousand sex partners is not unusual. It is in fact, part of the lifestyle.
So yeah, "Gay Marriage" was a symbolic victory, and nothing else. It was an effort to force normal people to accept something perverted, whether they liked it or not.
@DiogenesLamp well said. Couldn't agree more.
-
10 partners per visit? I call hax. No one has that short a refactory period.
You do know that many of them are "Catchers" as well as "Pitchers." They don't have to recover from anything while they are "catching."
-
You do know that many of them are "Catchers" as well as "Pitchers." They don't have to recover from anything while they are "catching."
Jesus. Single guy, never married...hangs out at wild parties with the "bad kids"...turns water into wine...loves weddings...sensitive and touchy feely...hangs around with 12 other fellas wherever he goes. You do the math. Catcher or pitcher...who knows.
Probably the most stereotyped essay of ignorance I've ever read as regards the "homosexual lifestyle". What would you define as the "heterosexual lifestyle"? The truth is, your statistics are made up...and your grouping of all homosexuals into a singular "lifestyle" is ludicrous. Comical even, if it weren't so dangerous in the way it dehumanizes a whole class of people. Gays make up a very small percentage of people in general, so the fact those among them who ARE monogamous choose to sanctify their union on a permanent bases hardly impacts other married persons or society. In fact, given your absurd assertion that they all have thousands of lovers...I'd think you'd favor a method for imposing monogamy on such terrible "fornicators".
-
It is huge in it's ramifications for Christianity based society and Western civilization, but those consequences are in the future so most people don't notice them today.
The vast majority of homosexuals have not the slightest interest in monogamy or marriage. I try to get people to look at their culture from their perspective, but it is difficult for normal people to grasp.
Imagine that you were a young boy surrounded by young attractive girls that just wanted to have sex with you. That is life in the "gay" community, except the girls are boys, and have a very strong male sex drive. In San Francisco's "bath" houses, homosexuals would have 10 sexual partners on an average visit.
In homosexual circles, having a thousand sex partners is not unusual. It is in fact, part of the lifestyle.
So yeah, "Gay Marriage" was a symbolic victory, and nothing else. It was an effort to force normal people to accept something perverted, whether they liked it or not.
With all due respect, I rather doubt you have much knowledge about living in the '"gay" community' because your descriptions match only a small minority of that community.
-
Jesus. Single guy, never married...hangs out at wild parties with the "bad kids"...turns water into wine...loves weddings...sensitive and touchy feely...hangs around with 12 other fellas wherever he goes. You do the math. Catcher or pitcher...who knows.
Probably the most stereotyped essay of ignorance I've ever read as regards the "homosexual lifestyle". What would you define as the "heterosexual lifestyle"? The truth is, your statistics are made up...and your grouping of all homosexuals into a singular "lifestyle" is ludicrous. Comical even, if it weren't so dangerous in the way it dehumanizes a whole class of people. Gays make up a very small percentage of people in general, so the fact those among them who ARE monogamous choose to sanctify their union on a permanent bases hardly impacts other married persons or society. In fact, given your absurd assertion that they all have thousands of lovers...I'd think you'd favor a method for imposing monogamy on such terrible "fornicators".
@Mesaclone
Good points.
-
Jesus. Single guy, never married...hangs out at wild parties with the "bad kids"...turns water into wine...loves weddings...sensitive and touchy feely...hangs around with 12 other fellas wherever he goes. You do the math.
***ambulance You're sick.
-
Jesus. Single guy, never married...hangs out at wild parties with the "bad kids"...turns water into wine...loves weddings...sensitive and touchy feely...hangs around with 12 other fellas wherever he goes. You do the math.
***ambulance You're sick.
My 3 point jump shot is sick, as for my health its just fine. Interestingly, the Pharisees loved to call Jesus a blasphemer and sacrilegious...so I'm in good company.
-
Mesaclone I don't find it amusing at all!
-
Mesaclone I don't find it amusing at all!
Neither does a Holy, Righteous, and Just God....... **nononono*
-
Neither does a Holy, Righteous, and Just God....... **nononono*
What is really sad is that there are gay clergy who would try to make Jesus gay too. Because that is the agenda to make the Bible irrelevant to our social society.
**nononono*
-
Mesaclone I don't find it amusing at all!
Nothing to marvel. The Sadducees declared Jesus to be filled with a demon, so it is no surprise those who believe in other 'gospels' would insinuate Jesus was a practicing homosexual to try and get everyone to swallow the righteousness and virtue of homosexuality as being approved of Heaven.
-
Neither does a Holy, Righteous, and Just God....... **nononono*
Actually, a holy, righteous and just god would find it hilarious. A loving, rational, and understanding god doesn't judge, doesn't punish, and doesn't condemn anyone for sacrilege. He just loves...and I imagine...laughs at the delusions of grandeur all too common amongst his creation.
On the other hand...a human constructed, fear based, tyrannical and petty god would be terribly offended. So in that, you're right, music.
-
Nothing to marvel. The Sadducees declared Jesus to be filled with a demon, so it is no surprise those who believe in other 'gospels' would insinuate Jesus was a practicing homosexual to try and get everyone to swallow the righteousness and virtue of homosexuality as being approved of Heaven.
The irony here is that you can't see the reality...you ARE the Sadducee. Condemning your fellow man and obstructing them from finding their own paths to a loving deity...that's pretty much the definition.
-
The irony here is that you can't see the reality...you ARE the Sadducee. Condemning your fellow man and obstructing them from finding their own paths to a loving deity...that's pretty much the definition.
The reality is you are promoting an evil and a sin that God Himself declares an abomination and ascribe virtue and love to something His Word Condemns.
But since you have no use for His Word in favor of your own imagination that creates god into your own image and likeness - it is to be expected that hedonists would celebrate hedonism in the golden calf you made that you worship and claim to be god.
-
Actually, a holy, righteous and just god would find it hilarious. A loving, rational, and understanding god doesn't judge, doesn't punish, and doesn't condemn anyone for sacrilege. He just loves...and I imagine...laughs at the delusions of grandeur all too common amongst his creation.
On the other hand...a human constructed, fear based, tyrannical and petty god would be terribly offended. So in that, you're right, music.
Sounds like something a loony leftist would say. I guess I could safely say that the Bible isn't for you. A god that doesn't punish? Not for anything right?
Sounds like Anarchy to me. Also self destruction.
Someone made a comment about the Bible being a manual. I agree that is pretty much what it is. A manual for living. Unlike you I find limitations loving. Sin leads to problems which take over a persons life and cause them great grief. God is the father in Heaven and just as any loving father would do he gives instructions so that your life will go well. How many times when we are young our parents say don't do this because this is what can happen? That is what God does too. Breaks the chains of sin and destruction.
-
Jesus. Single guy, never married...hangs out at wild parties with the "bad kids"...turns water into wine...loves weddings...sensitive and touchy feely...hangs around with 12 other fellas wherever he goes. You do the math. Catcher or pitcher...who knows.
Probably the most stereotyped essay of ignorance I've ever read as regards the "homosexual lifestyle". What would you define as the "heterosexual lifestyle"? The truth is, your statistics are made up...and your grouping of all homosexuals into a singular "lifestyle" is ludicrous. Comical even, if it weren't so dangerous in the way it dehumanizes a whole class of people. Gays make up a very small percentage of people in general, so the fact those among them who ARE monogamous choose to sanctify their union on a permanent bases hardly impacts other married persons or society. In fact, given your absurd assertion that they all have thousands of lovers...I'd think you'd favor a method for imposing monogamy on such terrible "fornicators".
I have to agree with a LOT of what you said. I don't think Jesus would be in favor of hate or intolerance for people who have done nothing to hurt us except offend us by their lifestyle... but that's not intentional 99% of the time.
Society has been vicious in its treatment of misfits in the past. I would hope we've grown up a little.
Very few gays would opt for marriage, especially males. But I have known faithful gay couples who might do so.
The thing that really hurts society is infidelity. Sorry if that hurts some of the self-righteous among us.
-
I have to agree with a LOT of what you said. I don't think Jesus would be in favor of hate or intolerance for people who have done nothing to hurt us except offend us by their lifestyle... but that's not intentional 99% of the time.
Society has been vicious in its treatment of misfits in the past. I would hope we've grown up a little.
Very few gays would opt for marriage, especially males. But I have known faithful gay couples who might do so.
The thing that really hurts society is infidelity. Sorry if that hurts some of the self-righteous among us.
Just like liberals reinventing history. This is reinventing Jesus to be what serves you and your beliefs. Has nothing to do with the Bible.
-
Just like liberals reinventing history. This is reinventing Jesus to be what serves you and your beliefs. Has nothing to do with the Bible.
Sweetie, I've studied the Bible in far more depth than you have and much longer .... at least I would bet on it.
In my opinion, and this is not to hurt you, your are one of those people who USE the Bible to justify your own prejudices.
-
Sweetie, I've studied the Bible in far more depth than you have and much longer .... at least I would bet on it.
In my opinion, and this is not to hurt you, your are one of those people who USE the Bible to justify your own prejudices.
I don't have a prejudice. I have a gay relative. Doesn't mean that I would try to change the Bible to accommodate his lifestyle.
And I would not bet on it sweetie. Please enlighten me with your knowledge of the Bible and where it approves of any sexual sin.
-
I don't have a prejudice. I have a gay relative. Doesn't mean that I would try to change the Bible to accommodate his lifestyle.
And I would not bet on it sweetie. Please enlighten me with your knowledge of the Bible and where it approves of any sexual sin.
You really like to argue, don't you?
-
I don't think Jesus would be in favor of hate or intolerance for people who have done nothing to hurt us except offend us by their lifestyle...
How biblically ignorant are you?
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who submit to or perform homosexual acts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God - I Corinthians 6:9-10
It's not "hate" to declare sin and wickedness what it is when eternal life is at stake.
It's only "hate" when the wicked do not want to hear the Word of the Lord or to know that people think their behavior is evil or wrong.
-
Sweetie, I've studied the Bible in far more depth than you have and much longer .... at least I would bet on it.
In my opinion, and this is not to hurt you, your are one of those people who USE the Bible to justify your own prejudices.
Calling sin as sin has never been popular. @Chosen Daughter is stone-dead right on the money.
-
You really like to argue, don't you?
I gave you the opportunity to prove your point knowing that you could not. Its make believe.
-
Sweetie, I've studied the Bible in far more depth than you have and much longer .... at least I would bet on it.
Either you never understood what you read, or you skipped over those parts you did not like.
"So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:19
-
I have to agree with a LOT of what you said. I don't think Jesus would be in favor of hate or intolerance for people who have done nothing to hurt us except offend us by their lifestyle... but that's not intentional 99% of the time.
Only idiots who would send their kids to NAMBLA conventions.
They have forced their perversion into our lives, that is enough reason to fight back.
-
Either you never understood what you read, or you skipped over those parts you did not like.
"So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:19
So that we are not misleading. Lets see what God thinks.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/immorality-sexual.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-sex/
Why God Hates Sexual Immorality
Why does God hate sexual immorality? Because in some way sexual sin is more serious than other forms of rebellion. In 1 Corinthians 6:18 we read these surprising words: “Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.” Biblical scholars debate the meaning of the words but this much is clear: Sexual sin makes a mockery of the significant physical and spiritual union bound up in the sexual relationship. As the Reformation Study Bible points out, “in Paul’s teaching, the physical union involved in sexual immorality has special consequences because it interferes with our Christian identity as people who have been united with Christ through the Holy Spirit.” Those who are united with Christ have no business being united with a prostitute or anyone else to whom they are not married.
Sexual sin degrades and misuses the body which God indwells as his temple.
Sexual sin degrades and misuses the body which God indwells as his temple. “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). It is worth pointing out the similar language Paul uses to describe idolatry and sexual immorality. Both are signs of deep rebellion against God.
https://www.challies.com/articles/god-hates-sexual-immorality
-
Actually, a holy, righteous and just god would find it hilarious. A loving, rational, and understanding god doesn't judge, doesn't punish, and doesn't condemn anyone for sacrilege. He just loves...and I imagine...laughs at the delusions of grandeur all too common amongst his creation.
On the other hand...a human constructed, fear based, tyrannical and petty god would be terribly offended. So in that, you're right, music.
But God created man in His image, and despite your best efforts, you have it backward. You'd paint Him as a queer despite that little thing of destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. But that's between you and Him. Denigrate Him at your personal and eternal peril.
-
Sweetie, I've studied the Bible in far more depth than you have and much longer .... at least I would bet on it.
In my opinion, and this is not to hurt you, your are one of those people who USE the Bible to justify your own prejudices.
If you are so familiar with the bible, then you know this:
Matthew 18:15-18 ESV
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
It isn't hate, hon, but an obligation:
Ezekiel 33:7-12 ESV
“So you, son of man, I have made a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. If I say to the wicked, O wicked one, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked person shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, that person shall die in his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul. “And you, son of man, say to the house of Israel, Thus have you said: ‘Surely our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and we rot away because of them. How then can we live?’ Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?
-
Sweetie, I've studied the Bible in far more depth than you have and much longer .... at least I would bet on it.
In my opinion, and this is not to hurt you, your are one of those people who USE the Bible to justify your own prejudices.
The fact that you agreed with that multi paragraph work of bull shite Mesc posted...it seems to be it's you using the Bible to justify your own prejudices.
You may have studied the Bible for years... but it doesn't seem in all that time you've come to understand the teachings within.
There's a BIG difference.
-
Neither does a Holy, Righteous, and Just God....... **nononono*
Who is diminished not at all by the prattling of either the wise or fools.
Seriously, do you even notice when an amoeba takes a bite out of you?
-
"So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:19
Ah, the kingdom of heaven. The very crux of Jesus' teachings. Also the most overlooked teaching in the entire Bible.
But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
Matthew 6:33 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6:33&version=NKJV)
-
I have to agree with a LOT of what you said. I don't think Jesus would be in favor of hate or intolerance for people who have done nothing to hurt us except offend us by their lifestyle... but that's not intentional 99% of the time.
Society has been vicious in its treatment of misfits in the past. I would hope we've grown up a little.
Very few gays would opt for marriage, especially males. But I have known faithful gay couples who might do so.
The thing that really hurts society is infidelity. Sorry if that hurts some of the self-righteous among us.
Yes, this. Infidelity is the sin, faithlessness is the sin. A loving and faithful couple that are true to each other through thick and thin are following in the path of the Lord - their sexual orientation is irrelevant.
The Bible thumpers wouldn't recognize Jesus if He returns tomorrow. They would resist and condemn His apostasy, because they would be terrified of His love.
Preach it, Emjay! I've often wondered whether it is necessary to leave the Church to know Jesus. But your wise words give me optimism that there are some Christians, at least, who will know Him when they see Him.
-
Calling sin as sin has never been popular.
That assumes you've correctly identified the sin. The couple that is faithful and true to each other has not sinned.
-
That assumes you've correctly identified the sin. The couple that is faithful and true to each other has not sinned.
The Word of the Lord says you are dead wrong.
"'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is abominable sin". - Leviticus 18:24
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who submit to or perform homosexual acts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." - I Corinthians 6:9-10
Homosexuality is wickedness and those who perform such acts will not inherit Life, but eternal death, contrary to your imagination of what you say God says is not a sin.
-
That assumes you've correctly identified the sin. The couple that is faithful and true to each other has not sinned.
And that is another instance where you're wrong.
Everyone is a sinner. You...me...everyone who posts here.
The reason we are able to get to Heaven is because Jesus died for our sins.
-
The Word of the Lord says you are dead wrong.
"'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is abominable sin". - Leviticus 18:24
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who submit to or perform homosexual acts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." - I Corinthians 6:9-10
Homosexuality is wickedness and those who perform such acts will not inherit Life, but eternal death, contrary to your imagination of what you say God says is not a sin.
You don't know the mind of God (and neither do I). But I am sick and disgusted at so-called Christians condemning good people, who are faithful and true to their partners.
-
And that is another instance where you're wrong.
Everyone is a sinner. You...me...everyone who posts here.
The reason we are able to get to Heaven is because Jesus died for our sins.
Of course we're all sinners. But the couple that is faithful and true to each other has not sinned. And it is a disgrace to accuse one falsely of sin.
-
You don't know the mind of God
I just quoted HIS WORD. That IS HIS MIND.
But that is not the god you worship apparently.
But I am sick and disgusted at so-called Christians condemning good people, who are faithful and true to their partners.
I'm sick and disgusted that pretend Christians push sin and abomination as righteousness upon us.
-
Of course we're all sinners. But the couple that is faithful and true to each other has not sinned. And it is a disgrace to accuse one falsely of sin.
Actually, the disgrace is making up your own definition of what is and what is not sin, and ignoring Scripture.
You and I don't make the rules, Jazz. God does.
It's not how we feel about things that makes them right or wrong. It's what God has said is right or wrong that matters.
-
Of course we're all sinners. But the couple that is faithful and true to each other has not sinned. And it is a disgrace to accuse one falsely of sin.
If it's a straight couple then you're correct.
If you're referring to a homosexual couple...you're wrong.
That is sin in the Old as well as the New Testament. You can spin this and try to sugar coat it all you want to...but at the end of the day you're still wrong and that is still a sin.
-
Yes, this. Infidelity is the sin, faithlessness is the sin.
@Jazzhead
It is noticeable that you still cannot come up with a Constitutional basis for Obergefell.
A loving and faithful couple that are true to each other through thick and thin are following in the path of the Lord - their sexual orientation is irrelevant.
What is your basis for this statement? It certainly did not come from the Bible.
The Bible thumpers wouldn't recognize Jesus if He returns tomorrow.
What makes you think He isn't here already?
-
The Bible thumpers wouldn't recognize Jesus if He returns tomorrow.
We 'bible thumpers' will recognize and know the moment Jesus starts His return if we are alive.
The rest of the world.... not so much.
"So if they tell you, ‘There He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For just as lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man". - Matthew 24: 26-27
-
@Jazzhead
It is noticeable that you still cannot come up with a Constitutional basis for Obergefell.
What is your basis for this statement? It certainly did not come from the Bible.
What makes you think He isn't here already?
I see Him nearly every time I look into my grandson's eyes. I just don't focus on that as much as I should.
-
I see Him nearly every time I look into my grandson's eyes. I just don't focus on that as much as I should.
Probably the wisest thing said in thread. :beer:
-
This morning as I was meditating on the Lord this came to me.
People who promote homosexuality as accepted by the Lord are like a child who has broken his mothers favorite vase. The child quickly picks the pieces up and glues them together hoping that all anyone will see is a whole vase. The more people look and don't see the cracks the more confident the child becomes that he has hidden it well.
A church who teaches that parts of the Bible can be omitted because its offensive to some is almost the same but not. They are a broken vessel but they don't even try to hide it. It is not just cracks but gaping holes in Gods Word. I feel so sorry for Gods children who seek wisdom with these people of sin. They are not teachers and the judgment will be severe for them.
I am telling you that in Romans God says because they did not choose Him they were given over to their sins. They were not born like this. God does not create broken vessels. He creates wholeness. He is not the author of sin and death, the devil is.
Further in Hebrews we see that we have grace to cover our sins and none of us are perfect but we are perfected in Gods love and grace. Paul says but should we continue in sin,..........NO! We should not. If we come to the Lord believing that he can fix the brokenness of sin and death we will be saved. He is the potter and we are the clay. Can the potter make the vase beautiful again. Yes, but if we merely hid the cracks and pretend we are whole there is no hope in Jesus.
Hiding the cracks and pretending sin is OK is denying the power of the blood Jesus shed. We cannot change by our own but through Christ Jesus we are free. We are able to overcome.
Don't believe the false teachers who's church is broken. These are the churches that are referred to in Revelations. Read Revelations 2-3 and you will find Gods warnings for the church who follows immorality. Lukewarm. Neither hot or cold God will spew you out.
And I say this in love. People must return to faith in Christ to heal broken lives. They cannot hide their cracks although many try. Not just the sexual immoral but churches are filled with people who hide. You cannot hide from God.
-
We 'bible thumpers' will recognize and know the moment Jesus starts His return if we are alive.
Hubris.
-
If it's a straight couple then you're correct.
If you're referring to a homosexual couple...you're wrong.
That is sin in the Old as well as the New Testament. You can spin this and try to sugar coat it all you want to...but at the end of the day you're still wrong and that is still a sin.
That's a question for God and God alone. Your job is to mind your own damn business. This is not adultery or promiscuity, which damage lives. There is no immorality here. No harm to anyone is caused by a couple remaining faithful and true to one another.
-
That's a question for God and God alone. Your job is to mind your own damn business. This is not adultery or promiscuity, which damage lives. There is no immorality here.
And God has already spoken on this. I and others are merely reminding you of what he has said.
What you are defending is the definition if immorality and attempting to sugar coat it under the guise of monogamy is ridiculous on it's face.
No harm to anyone is caused by a couple remaining faithful and true to one another.
So you say. You're just trying to put the latest Liberal spin on what the majority of the people know is wrong and not normal.
But then with that statement aren't you doing what you accuse us of by claiming to know what God thinks?
-
Hubris.
Willful ignorance.
-
This morning as I was meditating on the Lord this came to me.
Interesting analogy. If you wish to consider this further and deeper, I suggest looking at kintsugi. Although Japanese, it is safe to google.
-
Your job is to mind your own damn business.
The homosexual agenda never will. They will impose their behavior - to be accepted and celebrated by law, and by force if they see fit. That is the nature of that sin and the nature of those that promote it.
-
Hubris.
So I guess Jesus' own words in Matthew 24 that I quoted - you cannot comprehend at all.
To be expected since your god is your own imagination and not what is plainly Written.
-
The homosexual agenda never will. They will impose their behavior - to be accepted and celebrated by law, and by force if they see fit. That is the nature of that sin and the nature of those that promote it.
Funny thing is...most of us WANT to mind our own business...it's the Gay mafia and their agenda that they keep shoving in our faces that won't let 97% of America do just what jazzy demands....which is mind our own business.
-
Funny thing is...most of us WANT to mind our own business...it's the Gay mafia and their agenda that they keep shoving in our faces that won't let 97% of America do just what jazzy demands....which is mind our own business.
If you read what Jazzy advocates, it is the demand that everyone see homosexuals and their behavior as good, virtuous, holy and right. If you believe the Scriptures and what God's Word plainly tells us what God thinks of that behavior - then Jazzy will declare you to be a disgusting hubris bigot and worse - and advocates what the Gay Mafia demands - that biblical Christians be silenced and punished for their refusal to embrace their sinful lifestyle as good and normal.
-
That's a question for God and God alone.
Yet it doesn't stop you from passing moral judgment. Go figure.
Your job is to mind your own damn business.
The Constitution of the United States of America IS my business. And you have shown repeatedly that you are an enemy of it.
If you were honest, you would openly admit that there is no Constitutional basis for Obergefell. That is, if you were honest.
-
I see Him nearly every time I look into my grandson's eyes. I just don't focus on that as much as I should.
I picture Jesus looking like a young Billy Crystal. Always wondered why He looks Italian in all the paintings.
-
If you read what Jazzy advocates, it is the demand that everyone see homosexuals and their behavior as good, virtuous, holy and right.
Homosexuals are good and bad, just like everyone else. I am disgusted by the bathhouse denizens, just as I am by Christians who cheat on their wives. But I'll say it again - there is nothing immoral or sinful for two people to be faithful and true to one another. And I am sick and tired of self-righteous Bible thumpers slandering good folks. Tend to your own house.
-
But I'll say it again - there is nothing immoral or sinful for two people to be faithful and true to one another.
That's really beautiful, and all. But what does that have to do with the right of the State of North Carolina - or California, or Oregon, or Vermont for that matter - to establish it's own laws regulating of marriage within the confines of the US Constitution?
-
Homosexuals are good and bad, just like everyone else. I am disgusted by the bathhouse denizens, just as I am by Christians who cheat on their wives. But I'll say it again - there is nothing immoral or sinful for two people to be faithful and true to one another. And I am sick and tired of self-righteous Bible thumpers slandering good folks. Tend to your own house.
We are too susceptible to judging all members of a group by a few. The gay people who exercise tyranny about cake baking and stuff like that are extremely irritating but they are in the minority as are the flagrant marchers in bizarre makeup and costumes.
-
The gay people who exercise tyranny about cake baking and stuff like that are extremely irritating
Those filing suit against bakeries are not the ones exercising tyranny. It is the judicial branch of government using the point of a gun to enforce its morality upon others in direct contradiction to the Constitution that is enforcing tyranny here.
-
But I'll say it again - there is nothing immoral or sinful for two people to be faithful and true to one another.
God specifically states otherwise when two men or two women engage in sex together, regardless of what the god of your imagination tells you.
And I am sick and tired of self-righteous Bible thumpers slandering good folks. Tend to your own house.
I'm sick and tired of people like you pushing wickedness on people as a virtuous good while declaring those standing up for biblical morality as an evil. The Gay Mafia has no interest in tending to it's own house, but rather put Christians out of business when they will not embrace and celebrate homosexual perversions. Their own leaders plainly state that is their agenda and goal. So blow it out your rear-end in terms of telling us to shut up. Not gonna happen.
-
That assumes you've correctly identified the sin. The couple that is faithful and true to each other has not sinned.
There are but a few things so terribly aberrant that the very land will spit you out.
Homosexuality is one of those.
Adultery (there's your infidelity) is another.
We don't get to decide which abomination is ok and which abomination is not. Yahweh abhors BOTH.
And yes, I am an equal opportunity offender -I don't tolerate either one.
-
Homosexuals are good and bad, just like everyone else. I am disgusted by the bathhouse denizens, just as I am by Christians who cheat on their wives. But I'll say it again - there is nothing immoral or sinful for two people to be faithful and true to one another. And I am sick and tired of self-righteous Bible thumpers slandering good folks. Tend to your own house.
By "self-righteous Bible thumpers" don't you really mean people who believe that the Bible is God's word and speaks truth?
And by "slandering good folk" don't you really mean just stating what the Bible is very clear about as wrong?
As I see it, you're "slandering" a very large group of people who believe that Scripture actually means what it says about immorality.
You don't get to call the shots about what's moral and what isn't Jazz. That's already been done by the Creator, who created marriage.
-
By "self-righteous Bible thumpers" don't you really mean people who believe that the Bible is God's word and speaks truth?
And by "slandering good folk" don't you really mean just stating what the Bible is very clear about as wrong?
As I see it, you're "slandering" a very large group of people who believe that Scripture actually means what it says about immorality.
You don't get to call the shots about what's moral and what isn't Jazz. That's already been done by the Creator, who created marriage.
If you believe that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, then don't practice it. Or, if God made you gay (as He most certainly has for a small percentage of us), deny who you are for the rest of your life, and hope He rewards you for your self-flagellating piety.
If the foregoing describes you, then you're not a self-righteous Bible thumper. You're a self-righteous Bible thumper when you insist that the State enforce a fundamentalist view of "Biblical morality" even when it causes real harm to good folks who seek to be faithful and true to one another.
-
What I object to is this notion that the State should enforce the fundamentalists' view of "Biblical morality" even when it causes real harm to good folks who seek to be faithful and true to one another.
So you want the land to spit us out... Think carefully... It isn't a pleasant process.
-
So you want the land to spit us out... Think carefully... It isn't a pleasant process.
Ever notice Jazz has no problem with the State enforcement of the Liberal agenda? He only takes issue and has a problem with the State enforcing anything when it's even the least bit Conservative or Constitutional.
-
Ever notice Jazz has no problem with the State enforcement of the Liberal agenda? He only takes issue and has a problem with the State enforcing anything when it's even the least bit Conservative or Constitutional.
Tyranny is but the first step in a long painful road as the land spits us out.
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
-
Tyranny is but the first step in a long painful road as the land spits us out.
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
:amen:
-
Ever notice Jazz has no problem with the State enforcement of the Liberal agenda? He only takes issue and has a problem with the State enforcing anything when it's even the least bit Conservative or Constitutional.
The Constitution's equal protection of the law is not a "liberal agenda".
-
The Constitution's equal protection of the law is not a "liberal agenda".
This has nothing whatsoever to do with equal protection under the law.
This has to do with legalizing depravity... Depravity under the color of law.
-
So you want the land to spit us out... Think carefully... It isn't a pleasant process.
Live your life in accordance with your beliefs, roamer. I can't say that you're wrong.
I don't believe God makes mistakes, and I believe just as strongly that He will not punish a person who neither practices adultery nor immorality, but only seeks to be faithful and true to the one he/she loves.
And you can't say that I'm wrong.
-
If you believe that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, then don't practice it. Or, if God made you gay (as He most certainly has for a small percentage of us), deny who you are for the rest of your life, and hope He rewards you for your self-flagellating piety.
If the foregoing describes you, then you're not a self-righteous Bible thumper. You're a self-righteous Bible thumper when you insist that the State enforce a fundamentalist view of "Biblical morality" even when it causes real harm to good folks who seek to be faithful and true to one another.
In the first place, it's idiotic to call people who believe in obedience to the laws of God "self-righteous" while you extol the virtues of making up the rules yourself, thus being truly self righteous.
In the second place, I agree with those who call you a liberal when you agree with the federal government's dictating its morality to the states while disallowing North Carolina to make these decisions for itself.
There's some kind of bitterness in your vocabulary that describes Christians, @Jazzhead, such as your drippingly condescending description of one who CHOOSES to obey God's law as "self-flagellating piety." Many heterosexuals who never marry practice Biblical morality and chastity their entire lives. It's pretty arrogant for you to attack every single person who doesn't agree with your FEELINGS about morality, and is being obedient to God's laws, heteros and homosexuals both.
If anyone in this discussion is self-righteous, it's you. The armchair psychologist in me says that someone who was a Christian hurt you in the past and you're vengeful against everyone of us because of your own past pain.
Of course, I'm just guessing, but your arrogance and pride is coming from somewhere, and that's as good a guess as any..... :shrug:
-
This has nothing whatsoever to do with equal protection under the law.
This has to do with legalizing depravity... Depravity under the color of law.
A lifetime monogamous, committed relationship based on love is not depravity. There are many Christians in such relationships, both straight and gay.
-
Live your life in accordance with your beliefs, roamer. I can't say that you're wrong.
I don't believe God makes mistakes, and I believe just as strongly that He will not punish a person who neither practices adultery nor immorality, but only seeks to be faithful and true to the one he/she loves.
And you can't say that I'm wrong.
Oh, but I can say that you're wrong. The Bible directly and distinctly notes the judgement process.
But that is not the point here:
You are taking this on a personal basis, and extending the result to judgement day...
I am just trying to stop our nation from being spit out of the land RIGHT NOW.
-
The Constitution's equal protection of the law is not a "liberal agenda".
It is when you use it to cover things it was never written to cover or you abuse it's original intended purpose.
It has very much become a part of the Liberal agenda.
-
A lifetime monogamous, committed relationship based on love is not depravity. There are many Christians in such relationships, both straight and gay.
I loved my horse. I was faithful to him as long as he was alive, and mourned his passing for years.
But you know what? We never had sex. Go figger.
-
A lifetime monogamous, committed relationship based on love is not depravity.
Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Who's right you...or God?
There are many Christians in such relationships, both straight and gay.
And so called gay "Christians" are living in direct violation of what is taught in the Bible. If they want the salvation they supposedly seek then they need to quit doing what the Bible teaches us is wrong...same as any sinner.
-
The Constitution's equal protection of the law is not a "liberal agenda".
You keep repeating this falsehood. Please explain how Ohio marriage law, or California, Vermont, Oregon, etc. violates equal protection? Once again, what equal protection is being violated?
-
A lifetime monogamous, committed relationship based on love is not depravity.
But we're not talking about lifetime monogamous committed relationships here. We are talking about the tyranny of five people wearing black robes usurping the power of the legislature - state or federal - or even the power of the people through direct referendum from establishing marriage laws within the confines of the Constitution of the United States of America.
-
Who's right you...or God?
Hos 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
Hos 4:7 As they were increased, so they sinned against me: therefore will I change their glory into shame.
Hos 4:8 They eat up the sin of my people, and they set their heart on their iniquity.
Hos 4:9 And there shall be, like people, like priest: and I will punish them for their ways, and reward them their doings.
Hos 4:10 For they shall eat, and not have enough: they shall commit whoredom, and shall not increase: because they have left off to take heed to the LORD.
Hos 4:11 Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart.
-
That's a question for God and God alone. Your job is to mind your own damn business. This is not adultery or promiscuity, which damage lives. There is no immorality here. No harm to anyone is caused by a couple remaining faithful and true to one another.
That is where you are so wrong.
Matthew 18:15-18 ESV
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Ezekiel 33:7-12 ESV
“So you, son of man, I have made a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. If I say to the wicked, O wicked one, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked person shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, that person shall die in his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul. “And you, son of man, say to the house of Israel, Thus have you said: ‘Surely our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and we rot away because of them. How then can we live?’ Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?
We have an obligation to tell you. My obligation, as have the obligations of so many here who have tried to reprove you, has been met, and yet out of love for another whom we have not even met, we try to steer you from wickedness.
-
The Constitution's equal protection of the law is not a "liberal agenda".
Horseshit. This has nothing to do with skin color or gender. This has to do with BEHAVIOR.
I fully expect you to excoriate Christians who decry Beastiality marriages and Pedophile marriages when those perverted lifestyles are said to be a "right" by morons in black robes.
You'll throw out the 'equal protection' clause for each and every perversion and tell us that if we do not believe in having sex with animals or children, then don't do it. But mind our own business as those agendas also begin suing Christians out of business for refusing to celebrate their perversions also.
Sick begets more depravity and people like you who pretend to be Christians (but are not) will cheer it on.
-
Ever notice Jazz has no problem with the State enforcement of the Liberal agenda? He only takes issue and has a problem with the State enforcing anything when it's even the least bit Conservative or Constitutional.
Ever notice how @txradioguy is always able to understand and psychoanalyze the motives of others.
What a guy.
-
The homosexual agenda never will. They will impose their behavior - to be accepted and celebrated by law, and by force if they see fit. That is the nature of that sin and the nature of those that promote it.
Isn't that exactly what you are doing?
-
Ever notice how @txradioguy is always able to understand and psychoanalyze the motives of others.
What a guy.
It's not really a gift...but it's close. Liberal hypocrisy and Liberal BS is always easy to sniff out.
Jazzy doesn't even try to pretend he's not a Liberal anymore...his sole mission here seems to be trying...and failing to shame Conservative's for seeing homosexuality for what it is...for understanding that the 14th Amendment doesn't provide Constitutional cover for gay "marriage"...and for not buying into any of his DU-esque talking points or his totally warped view of what is and isn't sin.
What I don't get is why you're defending him? Guess you decided to play the contrarian and on this issue as well.
-
Isn't that exactly what you are doing?
In the words of Bob Dylan, 'You've Got to Serve Somebody'...
Just a generation gone by, the Judeo-Christian Ethic was not considered to be an imposition.
The question is, if we will not hearken to the will of Yah, who are we hearkening to instead?
It seems, 'do as thou wilt.'
-
Jesus. Single guy, never married...hangs out at wild parties with the "bad kids"...turns water into wine...loves weddings...sensitive and touchy feely...hangs around with 12 other fellas wherever he goes. You do the math. Catcher or pitcher...who knows.
Yes, i've heard the claims made by the Homosexual history revisionists. According to them, everyone in History was homosexual, but does comparing Jesus to Homosexuals serve any purpose beyond insulting what people believe? Do you regard it as a valid debate technique? I don't see any benefit to you from making such a comparison.
Probably the most stereotyped essay of ignorance I've ever read as regards the "homosexual lifestyle".
You've read a lot of them? I certainly have. It rings true on it's own merits. Boys attracted to boys with everybody having male sex drive? It's pretty much a non stop orgy.
What would you define as the "heterosexual lifestyle"?
"Normal."
The truth is, your statistics are made up...and your grouping of all homosexuals into a singular "lifestyle" is ludicrous. Comical even, if it weren't so dangerous in the way it dehumanizes a whole class of people. Gays make up a very small percentage of people in general, so the fact those among them who ARE monogamous choose to sanctify their union on a permanent bases hardly impacts other married persons or society. In fact, given your absurd assertion that they all have thousands of lovers...I'd think you'd favor a method for imposing monogamy on such terrible "fornicators".
Well the method used prior to the 1960s was to lock them up in mental institutions. Sure would have saved millions of lives had we simply continued to do this rather than to allow them to spread AIDS so far and wide.
For the record, In the 1980s, I was very much in favor of quarantining anyone who caught the AIDS virus. A lot of innocent people died so that the perverts could have their fun.
-
With all due respect, I rather doubt you have much knowledge about living in the '"gay" community' because your descriptions match only a small minority of that community.
And you know this description "match only a small minority of that community" how? Where do you get your knowledge of Homosexual behavior? I've read several books on the subject, several medical/research reports, and I've spoken with them and seen quite a bit of it with my own eyes.
I've read homosexuals writing about their own activities, preferences, beliefs and attitudes. Should I not believe what they say?
-
Only idiots who would send their kids to NAMBLA conventions.
They have forced their perversion into our lives, that is enough reason to fight back.
Do homosexuals harm other people by their behavior?
Does anyone remember this little girl?
(http://imagens.mdig.com.br/famosos/transformacao_Chastity_Bono_07.jpg)
Many of you may not be aware that Mother "Cher" left her in the care of a Lesbian baby sitter while "Cher" went on tour around the world. What "Cher" didn't know was that this Lesbian baby sitter was molesting her little girl while "Cher" was on tour.
Did it cause any harm?
Well, little Chastity never had any children, and has now convinced herself she needs to look like this.
(http://i2.wp.com/radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/chaz-bono-weight-gain-killing-himself-yo-yo-diet-photos-10.jpg?fit=700%2C700)
-
Isn't that exactly what you are doing?
Only people like you would suggest such a thing.
Wake me up when a biblical Christian successfully sues a homo completely out of business and depletes their entire life savings and costs them their home because they refuse to bake a cake for a baptism with a bible verse on it.
-
@Jazzhead
If you believe that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, then don't practice it. Or, if God made you gay (as He most certainly has for a small percentage of us), deny who you are for the rest of your life, and hope He rewards you for your self-flagellating piety. If the foregoing describes you, then you're not a self-righteous Bible thumper. You're a self-righteous Bible thumper when you insist that the State enforce a fundamentalist view of "Biblical morality" even when it causes real harm to good folks who seek to be faithful and true to one another.
I don't disagree with much of this, and am fine with the concept of "live and let live" when it comes to people being gay. But I think you're sidestepping a core component of the "gay agenda" that goes beyond just wanting to be left alone.
The truth is that a lot of gays want to use the power of the government to force other people to openly acknowledge that their relationships are no difference than heterosexual relationships. They believe they have the right to compel not just tolerance, but acceptance. It popped up a lot in the gay marriage debate, where some states offered "civil unions", and many gays opposed that. Why? Those unions offered the exact same legal rights. The issue was they wanted everyone else to agree with them regarding morality/normalcy (or whatever you want to call it), and for me, that goes too far.
I opposed gay marriage, and it had absolutely zero to do with religious belief. I'm no more "accepting" or "understanding" of gay relationships/behavior than I am of someone who fornicates with chickens -- I just think it is gross as hell. Now, I think people have the right to be gross. Just because I think something is rather disgusting does not mean I think nobody should be permitted to do it if that's what floats their boat. And honestly, I don't even judge them morally at all. But that doesn't mean I'm not entitled to think it is weird/deviant/gross.
And unfortunately, that's what this has morphed into. Many gays apparently believing that they have the right to force other people to change their moral views and behaviors to recognize them as they wished to be recognized. No longer arguing "just leave us alone" but "you have acknowledge that what we do is no different from what you do." And that's just a bridge too far for me.
-
Only people like you would suggest such a thing.
Wake me up when a biblical Christian successfully sues a homo completely out of business and depletes their entire life savings and costs them their home because they refuse to bake a cake for a baptism with a bible verse on it.
Okay, that is an isolated but really horrible incident and never should have happened.
But we have gradually changed in our treatment of homosexuality. As recently as World War II a computer pioneer cracked the German code and saved untold thousands of lives but was persecuted and prosecuted by the British government because he was a homosexual.
Most people do not call that right or just.
Homosexuality has been regarded as not just a sin but a crime not that long ago.
I don't think we want to go back to that.
There is a 'getting back at people' syndrome existing right now but it is only in a minority of gays. It's the government's fault for sanctioning it.
-
@Jazzhead
I don't disagree with much of this, and am fine with the concept of "live and let live" when it comes to people being gay. But I think you're sidestepping a core component of the "gay agenda" that goes beyond just wanting to be left alone.
The truth is that a lot of gays want to use the power of the government to force other people to openly acknowledge that their relationships are no difference than heterosexual relationships. They believe they have the right to compel not just tolerance, but acceptance. It popped up a lot in the gay marriage debate, where some states offered "civil unions", and many gays opposed that. Why? Those unions offered the exact same legal rights. The issue was they wanted everyone else to agree with them regarding morality/normalcy (or whatever you want to call it), and for me, that goes too far.
I opposed gay marriage, and it had absolutely zero to do with religious belief. I'm no more "accepting" or "understanding" of gay relationships/behavior than I am of someone who fornicates with chickens -- I just think it is gross as hell. Now, I think people have the right to be gross. Just because I think something is rather disgusting does not mean I think nobody should be permitted to do it if that's what floats their boat. And honestly, I don't even judge them morally at all. But that doesn't mean I'm not entitled to think it is weird/deviant/gross.
And unfortunately, that's what this has morphed into. Many gays apparently believing that they have the right to force other people to change their moral views and behaviors to recognize them as they wished to be recognized. No longer arguing "just leave us alone" but "you have acknowledge that what we do is no different from what you do." And that's just a bridge too far for me.
Of course there are some gays who want revenge on people who formerly abused them. But it is not the fault of those gays that we are in somewhat of a pickle about this. It is the fault of a liberal government that sanctions and rewards this behavior.
This has to stop and it will stop.
-
Okay, that is an isolated but really horrible incident and never should have happened.
No. Wrong. That was NOT just an isolated incident. It's an increasing continuous effort against those who will not embrace homosexuality. The homo agenda leadership have instructions on various web and forums instructing homosexuals to infiltrate churches and Christian businesses and demand them to marry or provide for a homo wedding for the purpose of getting a 'no' so they can sue them into oblivion in court. Some of them are committed to 'criminalizing Christian bigotry' and some have said they want the offending passages of the bible banned by the government altogether.
But we have gradually changed in our treatment of homosexuality. As recently as World War II a computer pioneer cracked the German code and saved untold thousands of lives but was persecuted and prosecuted by the British government because he was a homosexual.
I don't care. In 20 years you will say the same thing about pedophiles, child marriages and pet marriages. The fact society is off the cliff into debauchery doesn't mean I'm leaping off it with the rest of the country.
Homosexuality has been regarded as not just a sin but a crime not that long ago.
I don't think we want to go back to that.
Irrelevant. God calls it a sin and an abomination, one punishable by eternal death with no chance or opportunity for life everlasting.
-
You don't know the mind of God (and neither do I).
One would think his mind would be indicated by his actions. He burned two cities to death because of homosexuality, and he allowed a third city to be destroyed by the combined might of Israel over homosexuality.
I think that gives a pretty strong indication of his mind on the subject.
-
That's a question for God and God alone. Your job is to mind your own damn business. This is not adultery or promiscuity, which damage lives. There is no immorality here. No harm to anyone is caused by a couple remaining faithful and true to one another.
Is it possible that you see no harm because you refuse to look for any? Did not the spread of AIDS cause much harm?
Isaac Asimov, Ryan White and Arthur Ashe were all innocent people who were harmed by homosexuals spreading a deadly disease.
-
The fact society is off the cliff into debauchery doesn't mean I'm leaping off it with the rest of the country.
I have come to embrace Torah because it is largely a guide toward Yahweh, boldly declared in the face of normalcy bias... Normalized sin shuts off the conscience...
We don't even question a society built upon usury because it is just how we do it... Multiple marriages are just a part of life anymore, to the point that a child is unique if he only has one mom, one dad, and two grandmothers and two grandfathers... Bastard children and single parent households are just a part of the furniture... As the nation slides further into sin, more depravity lies just upon the threshold. What will normal look like to the next generation, and how will they ever find their way back to Yahweh? But his way is not changing - Ours is. And not for the better.
Irrelevant. God calls it a sin and an abomination, one punishable by eternal death with no chance or opportunity for life everlasting.
As a point of order, not true. Repentance in the blood provides a balm. :)
-
No. Wrong. That was NOT just an isolated incident. It's an increasing continuous effort against those who will not embrace homosexuality. The homo agenda leadership have instructions on various web and forums instructing homosexuals to infiltrate churches and Christian businesses and demand them to marry or provide for a homo wedding for the purpose of getting a 'no' so they can sue them into oblivion in court. Some of them are committed to 'criminalizing Christian bigotry' and some have said they want the offending passages of the bible banned by the government altogether.
I don't care. In 20 years you will say the same thing about pedophiles, child marriages and pet marriages. The fact society is off the cliff into debauchery doesn't mean I'm leaping off it with the rest of the country.
Irrelevant. God calls it a sin and an abomination, one punishable by eternal death with no chance or opportunity for life everlasting.
Somehow I knew you would bring up marriages with dogs. So ridiculous.
Someday you may want God to forgive you and then He may remind you of this part of the Lord's Prayer. Forgive me my sins as I forgive those who sin against me.
Good luck!
-
This could be struck down in the courts unless Kennedy is gone.
-
Somehow I knew you would bring up marriages with dogs. So ridiculous.
Every bit as ridiculous as two men (or tw women) marrying each other... At least that was so a generation ago.
-
As a point of order, not true. Repentance in the blood provides a balm. :)
I Corinthians 6:9-10 make the point pretty plain that those who practice such wickedness will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Repentance is required.
But what you read on this thread from some is justification for the behavior and lauding it as virtuous and not a sin at all, the only sin being anyone daring to call it a sin.
-
I Corinthians 6:9-10 make the point pretty plain that those who practice such wickedness will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Repentance is required.
Right. The passage is 1Cor 6:9-11, with :11 being my point:
1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Teshuva. Repentance. Cease and desist, turn back to YHWH. Homosexuality, like almost every sin, can be wiped away.
But what you read on this thread from some is justification for the behavior and lauding it as virtuous and not a sin at all, the only sin being anyone daring to call it a sin.
Therein one finds the one sin that remains unforgivable... The tin ear that refuses to hear. To sh'ma.
-
Every bit as ridiculous as two men (or tw women) marrying each other... At least that was so a generation ago.
People don't seem to remember how they keep moving the goal posts.
In 1991 there was an outright ban on homosexuals in the military, In 1992 it was "Don't ask, Don't tell", and in 2016 it was full blown Transvestites/Gender-Changers in active duty.
(http://www.redstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/heels3.png)
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2015/04/21/army-forces-rotc-cadets-wear-high-heels/
The goal posts, they keep getting moved.
-
Somehow I knew you would bring up marriages with dogs. So ridiculous.
Well we thought the idea of homosexuals being able to legally "marry" and have churches and Christian businesses forced to accommodate the ceremony was a ridiculous idea 20 years ago too.
The fact is, perverts who want to marry their pets and men who want to have sex with children are now demanding their "rights' to be recognized and their behavior normalized via the courts too now that homosexuals have had their behavior sanctioned. As we warned, Pandora's Box was opened.
Someday you may want God to forgive you and then He may remind you of this part of the Lord's Prayer. Forgive me my sins as I forgive those who sin against me.
There is this word called repentance. You might want to look it up. Asking God to forgive me while I still justify and promote sin is not something He is going to forgive for according to the scriptures.
-
The fact is, perverts who want to marry their pets and men who want to have sex with children are now demanding their "rights' to be recognized and their behavior normalized via the courts too now that homosexuals have had their behavior sanctioned. As we warned, Pandora's Box was opened.
Is it any wonder that we as a nation don't even know what bathroom to use? :thud:
-
I Corinthians 6:9-10 make the point pretty plain that those who practice such wickedness will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Repentance is required.
But what you read on this thread from some is justification for the behavior and lauding it as virtuous and not a sin at all, the only sin being anyone daring to call it a sin.
Corinthians is not god making a point...its Paul making a point. And Paul was a man of his time, steeped in misogyny and hostile to anything that was cultural anathema to the average Jew...ie homosexuality. So quit pretending things like Corinthians are God's law or word on an issue, asserting such just shows you have no understanding of the very book you hold sacred. Paul's OPINIONS on these matters were simply that...opinions...written in letters to churches around the Mediterranean.
Here's two samples of Paul's idiocy aimed at women:
"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says."
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
These quotes don't make Paul a bad man, but simply show that he was a man of his time...and his opinions reflect that culture. In no way do his opinions on these matters even claim to be the word of God...they are simply the opinions of one man in ancient culture.
-
When spelled out, what we have today in this country is an unbridgeable disagreement about what the family is. Misunderstand the family and all its coherent complexities, what follows is that nothing else will go right. We have no common judgment about the transcendent meaning of our lives. One division maintains, with no real proof, that man has no given nature. Logically and politically, step by step, consequences, that are not accidental, follow. We legalize contraception, then, when that does not work, abortion, euthanasia, fetal experimentation, homosexual marriages and adoptions. We can even decide if we are male or female. A “family” is configured as we wish it to be. These practices have all become “rights” under positive law. They are systematically enforced. No criticism of them is allowed, no matter how scientifically or reasonably based it may be.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/on-civility
-
Yes, i've heard the claims made by the Homosexual history revisionists. According to them, everyone in History was homosexual, but does comparing Jesus to Homosexuals serve any purpose beyond insulting what people believe? Do you regard it as a valid debate technique? I don't see any benefit to you from making such a comparison.
Actually, it serves a key purpose...and that is to say that the sexual inclinations of Jesus are utterly meaningless. They don't change the beauty and depth of his message of love to the world, and they don't make him any less of a principled, kind and loving being. It matters not at all if he was homosexual, heterosexual or asexual. That said, he most likely WAS heterosexual and had a wife (quite possibly no less a figure than Mary Magdalene).
You've read a lot of them? I certainly have. It rings true on it's own merits. Boys attracted to boys with everybody having male sex drive? It's pretty much a non stop orgy.
No, it doesn't ring true at all. And simply asserting it without evidence is nonsense.
"Normal."
Well the method used prior to the 1960s was to lock them up in mental institutions. Sure would have saved millions of lives had we simply continued to do this rather than to allow them to spread AIDS so far and wide.
For the record, In the 1980s, I was very much in favor of quarantining anyone who caught the AIDS virus. A lot of innocent people died so that the perverts could have their fun.
As for what is "heterosexual" lifestyle...you miss the point. There is no such thing as a "hetero" nor a "homo" lifestyle. There are millions of people that fit within both categories and they live widely varied lifestyles regardless of their hetero or homo orientation. As a wise man once said "You judge each man individually, on his own merits. Anyone who judges by the group is a peawit."
-
Corinthians is not god making a point...its Paul making a point. And Paul was a man of his time, steeped in misogyny and hostile to anything that was cultural anathema to the average Jew...ie homosexuality.
Anything you have to opine on in regards to the scriptures means JACK and SQUAT to me.
Your opinion of the scriptures is akin to a Satan worshipper telling me his.
-
Somehow I knew you would bring up marriages with dogs. So ridiculous.
People mocked those that predicted the Lawrence v. Texas would lead to gay "marriage" too and yet here we are.
-
Anything you have to opine on in regards to the scriptures means JACK and SQUAT to me.
Your opinion of the scriptures is akin to a Satan worshipper telling me his.
Dude, you can't even spell worshiper correctly. Citing scripture out of context and misunderstanding its meaning is almost a given.
There is no Satan, FYI, there is no need for such a figure. All that's needed for evil to flourish are the closed minds, spiteful hearts and intellectually blind perspectives of men who use god to condemn others. As if he was a bludgeon available for their personal vendettas...all in his name, of course. As I said earlier, you are the Sadducee of this modern age, impeding men's path to god's love. So, while you may not care for my "opine" on the scriptures, it is precisely the thing that God is using to show you the way back to his love.
-
Is it any wonder that we as a nation don't even know what bathroom to use? :thud:
I know which one to use....don't you?
-
Jesus. Single guy, never married...hangs out at wild parties with the "bad kids"...turns water into wine...loves weddings...sensitive and touchy feely...hangs around with 12 other fellas wherever he goes. You do the math. Catcher or pitcher...who knows.
Probably the most stereotyped essay of ignorance I've ever read as regards the "homosexual lifestyle". What would you define as the "heterosexual lifestyle"? The truth is, your statistics are made up...and your grouping of all homosexuals into a singular "lifestyle" is ludicrous. Comical even, if it weren't so dangerous in the way it dehumanizes a whole class of people. Gays make up a very small percentage of people in general, so the fact those among them who ARE monogamous choose to sanctify their union on a permanent bases hardly impacts other married persons or society. In fact, given your absurd assertion that they all have thousands of lovers...I'd think you'd favor a method for imposing monogamy on such terrible "fornicators".
@Mesaclone
Lol, yeah, Jesus is so sensitive and touchy-feely that the blood will flow up to the height of a horse's bridle when he returns. According to Scripture He will roar from heaven; the text speaks of His furious anger. He will smite His enemies and rule with a rod of iron, and the nations will tremble.
Now I know you don't buy into that part of the Bible. You only believe the parts that make you comfortable and seem to fit into your worldview. I don't care and I'm not going to get into an extended argument with you over it.
I just want you to know that everything you're parroting is old and tired. I used to hear it from leftwingers in the old AOL politics chatrooms and on the message boards.
It isn't shocking, though I'm sure you hoped it might be. It's just boring and predictable.
-
@Mesaclone
Lol, yeah, Jesus is so sensitive and touchy-feely that the blood will flow up to the height of a horse's bridle when he returns. According to Scripture He will roar from heaven; the text speaks of His furious anger. He will smite His enemies and rule with a rod of iron, and the nations will tremble. This is a great example of how the writings of one lunatic paint a loving god as a monstrous and cruel beast...a being of hate and punishment and cruelty. Fortunately, the simple fact that some 3rd century church leaders liked this view of god and inserted such a book into "the book"...does not change the true and loving nature of Jesus genuine message and of a loving deity.
Now I know you don't buy into that part of the Bible. You only believe the parts that make you comfortable and seem to fit into your worldview. I don't care and I'm not going to get into an extended argument with you over it.
I don't "believe" in what other men have written, I believe in my personal relationship with a loving god. Further, in terms of textual analysis, I recommend reading The Five Gospels for some good analysis of what was genuine source material from the actual Gospel writers vs edits and late additions. Its quite informative and enlightening.
I just want you to know that everything you're parroting is old and tired. I used to hear it from leftwingers in the old AOL politics chatrooms and on the message boards.
"Liberty and Justice for all" is old and tired....as "I am the way and the light". Yet their meaning is undiminished and worthy of repetition.
It isn't shocking, though I'm sure you hoped it might be. It's just boring and predictable.
I have no wish to shock you...though it IS true that “I come to cast fire in your heart, and would that it were already kindled!"
Keep seeking, Catherine, one day you will find the true god of love.
-
Actually, it serves a key purpose...and that is to say that the sexual inclinations of Jesus are utterly meaningless.
If he engaged in Homosexuality, it would make of him a lawbreaker and a hypocrite. It would not even be possible for someone in that culture to carry a religious message if they were known to be a homosexual. To say it is meaningless is merely an indication that you do not very well grasp the religious significance of what such a thing would represent.
For the damage it would have caused to his message, he might as well have been a cripple or a leper. No one would have listened to him.
They don't change the beauty and depth of his message of love to the world, and they don't make him any less of a principled, kind and loving being. It matters not at all if he was homosexual, heterosexual or asexual.
From my perspective, your thinking is incredibly weird. Weird in such a way I cannot grasp it. Suffice it to say I think it would make a huge difference. There is only one natural and accepted sexual practice in that culture, and it is heterosexual monogamy. He could not deliver any sort of message at all if he could not live up to the normal religious expectations of the populace to whom he preached.
As for what is "heterosexual" lifestyle...you miss the point. There is no such thing as a "hetero" nor a "homo" lifestyle. There are millions of people that fit within both categories and they live widely varied lifestyles regardless of their hetero or homo orientation.
The most accurate study so far places the number of male homosexuals at 2% of the overall population. (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/cdc-gay-men-only-2-population)
In my opinion they are a subset of the mentally ill component of the nation, and indeed that is the way both the Medical and the legal system used to regard them.
As a wise man once said "You judge each man individually, on his own merits. Anyone who judges by the group is a peawit."
Your "wise man" appears to have been a made up fictional character that someone wrote in a book called " The Killer Angels" (http://www.one-eternal-day.com/2011/05/any-man-who-judges-by-group-is-pea-wit.html) and he appears to be fictional character "Lawrence Chamberlain, commander of the 20th Maine".
Here is a quote from another wise man in a book. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether he is real or not. He seems to be judging people as a group. (http://biblehub.com/nlt/jeremiah/13.htm)
Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?
-
People mocked those that predicted the Lawrence v. Texas would lead to gay "marriage" too and yet here we are.
Back in 1980 I was telling one of my friends about the threat that the "gay" lifestyle posed to the United States. He said all the things I was predicting were utter hogwash and would never happen.
Back in 2008 he told me everything I said had come to pass. He said that he was the foolish one and I was the more perceptive between the two of us.
-
Anything you have to opine on in regards to the scriptures means JACK and SQUAT to me.
Your opinion of the scriptures is akin to a Satan worshipper telling me his.
The fact still remains that the court had no right to make federal law so those wanting to abandon the fight over gay marriage are betraying both God and the federalism of the Constitution.
They are progressives by any other name.
-
Teachers’ Union: ‘Promote’ LGBT Lifestyles to Two Year Olds to Stop Hate Crime
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/04/General-Election-Education-640x480.png)
Transgender lifestyles and same-sex relationships should be ‘promoted’ to children as young as two to reduce hate crime, the National Union of Teachers (NUT) has said.
Delegates at the union’s national conference in Cardiff on Monday voted for its members to teach about ‘LGBT+’ issues and lifestyles to toddlers starting from nursery school.
Teachers bemoaned a “lack of policies which promote LGBT+ within schools”, which they allege has a “significant negative impact” on the well-being of students and teachers who are homosexual or transgender.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/18/promote-lgbt-lifestyles-two-year-olds/
Moving the goal posts again. At least this is in England. I think the Muslims will roll that back once they take over that country.
-
Keep seeking, Catherine, one day you will find the true god of love.
@Mesaclone
I have, and when I did, I understood right away that God has a capital G.
-
@Mesaclone
I have, and when I did, I understood right away that God has a capital G.
Yes, the holy and profound capital G.
Not wanting to understate the very important letter "G"...but maybe keep searching...there's a bit more that's of much greater significance that you seem to have passed by.
-
Teachers’ Union: ‘Promote’ LGBT Lifestyles to Two Year Olds to Stop Hate Crime
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/04/General-Election-Education-640x480.png)
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/18/promote-lgbt-lifestyles-two-year-olds/
Moving the goal posts again. At least this is in England. I think the Muslims will roll that back once they take over that country.
Teaching 2 year olds about anyone's sexual lifestyle...is dimwitted and sick. Has nothing to do with the Homo-vs-Hetero thing. Its about politics and power, sadly...and the liberal need to force people to think as they do. Its even worse than its mirror image, that seeks to force a Christian brand of morality on everyone.
-
Citing scripture out of context and misunderstanding its meaning is almost a given.
You worship a completely different God than I do.
There is no Satan, FYI, there is no need for such a figure.
“Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.” He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven". - Luke 10:17-18
Like I said - you have no authority to declare anything in regards to the scriptures. All you have is the intellect of yourself that you worship while proclaiming a god that simply the god of this world.
So, while you may not care for my "opine" on the scriptures, it is precisely the thing that God is using to show you the way back to his love.
Your god is using you to do only one thing: to show and lead people to the wide gate that leads to destruction.
-
I know which one to use....don't you?
Yeah... My own.
-
Teachers’ Union: ‘Promote’ LGBT Lifestyles to Two Year Olds to Stop Hate Crime
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/04/General-Election-Education-640x480.png)
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/18/promote-lgbt-lifestyles-two-year-olds/
Moving the goal posts again. At least this is in England. I think the Muslims will roll that back once they take over that country.
Just like Texas is a minority-majority state headed blue, Georgia by 2025. You sure seem like to put down other people while upholding a Confederation of States that fought a war over slavery.
-
I just hit reply because I am not going to argue with anyone. There is nothing to argue.
The plain truth is that homosexuals deny Gods Word and His power to heal. I have heard gays don't choose to be gay. Hard life......... When they get tired of it and they are at the lowest low Jesus is there. Then, and only then, when and if they sincerely need Jesus; that is when they will be able to see that God did not create the hell they live in. He did not create their hard life. He does not create little children gay. He gives people over to their sinful natures because they don't want or need?, healing.
If you say in your heart there is nothing wrong with me then you don't need Jesus. So mind your own business and leave Christianity alone.
In other words,.........There are no scriptures which say God made you gay. No scripture approving of gay marriage. No scripture that says you can be gay in a monogamous relationship.
The Bible is not for you. If you wan to be gay be gay. Don't worry about the Bible because it is not going to change for you.
-
Interesting analogy. If you wish to consider this further and deeper, I suggest looking at kintsugi. Although Japanese, it is safe to google.
God finds beauty in brokenness. Brokenness opens the door for healing.
-
Every bit as ridiculous as two men (or tw women) marrying each other... At least that was so a generation ago.
No. There have been homosexuals in every era in history. I know of no instances of a person marrying his or her dog.
Although I do love Smitty very much in a mother/doggie sort of way.
-
No. There have been homosexuals in every era in history. I know of no instances of a person marrying his or her dog.
Although I do love Smitty very much in a mother/doggie sort of way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L2Efj5RuNw
-
“Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.” He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven". - Luke 10:17-18
Like I said - you have no authority to declare anything in regards to the scriptures. All you have is the intellect of yourself that you worship while proclaiming a god that simply the god of this world.
What's the saying? Satans greatest trick was convincing people he doesn't exist.
-
Anything you have to opine on in regards to the scriptures means JACK and SQUAT to me.
Your opinion of the scriptures is akin to a Satan worshipper telling me his.
Except he speaks the truth and you're too stubborn to accept it. Those words that you use to condemn and slander good people aren't those of God, but of a man speaking his opinion in the culture of his times.
Gay and straight are merely labels applied by those too lazy or, in your case, malevolent to address folks as individuals. The gay couple who remain faithful and true to each other are condemned by you as morally degenerate, no differently than those who prowl the bathhouses in search of multiple partners. And you don't say much at all about the Christians (and others) who commit adultery and divorce the spouses for whom they took an oath before God.
My neighbors are honest, faithful and honorable. I'll continue to defend them against the likes of you.
-
I just hit reply because I am not going to argue with anyone. There is nothing to argue.
The plain truth is that homosexuals deny Gods Word and His power to heal. I have heard gays don't choose to be gay. Hard life......... When they get tired of it and they are at the lowest low Jesus is there. Then, and only then, when and if they sincerely need Jesus; that is when they will be able to see that God did not create the hell they live in. He did not create their hard life. He does not create little children gay. He gives people over to their sinful natures because they don't want or need?, healing.
If you say in your heart there is nothing wrong with me then you don't need Jesus. So mind your own business and leave Christianity alone.
In other words,.........There are no scriptures which say God made you gay. No scripture approving of gay marriage. No scripture that says you can be gay in a monogamous relationship.
The Bible is not for you. If you wan to be gay be gay. Don't worry about the Bible because it is not going to change for you.
@Chosen Daughter well said!
-
Except he speaks the truth and you're too stubborn to accept it. Those words that you use to condemn and slander good people aren't those of God, but of a man speaking his opinion in the culture of his times.
Gay and straight are merely labels applied by those too lazy or, in your case, malevolent to address folks as individuals. The gay couple who remain faithful and true to each other are condemned by you as morally degenerate, no differently than those who prowl the bathhouses in search of multiple partners. And you don't say much at all about the Christians (and others) who commit adultery and divorce the spouses for whom they took an oath before God.
My neighbors are honest, faithful and honorable. I'll continue to defend them against the likes of you.
I once knew a pedophile preacher who justified himself in much the same way that you portray.
-
@Jazzhead
I don't disagree with much of this, and am fine with the concept of "live and let live" when it comes to people being gay. But I think you're sidestepping a core component of the "gay agenda" that goes beyond just wanting to be left alone.
The truth is that a lot of gays want to use the power of the government to force other people to openly acknowledge that their relationships are no difference than heterosexual relationships. They believe they have the right to compel not just tolerance, but acceptance. It popped up a lot in the gay marriage debate, where some states offered "civil unions", and many gays opposed that. Why? Those unions offered the exact same legal rights. The issue was they wanted everyone else to agree with them regarding morality/normalcy (or whatever you want to call it), and for me, that goes too far.
I opposed gay marriage, and it had absolutely zero to do with religious belief. I'm no more "accepting" or "understanding" of gay relationships/behavior than I am of someone who fornicates with chickens -- I just think it is gross as hell. Now, I think people have the right to be gross. Just because I think something is rather disgusting does not mean I think nobody should be permitted to do it if that's what floats their boat. And honestly, I don't even judge them morally at all. But that doesn't mean I'm not entitled to think it is weird/deviant/gross.
And unfortunately, that's what this has morphed into. Many gays apparently believing that they have the right to force other people to change their moral views and behaviors to recognize them as they wished to be recognized. No longer arguing "just leave us alone" but "you have acknowledge that what we do is no different from what you do." And that's just a bridge too far for me.
Thanks for your response, Major Bill. I understand your perspective, because it used to be my own. For many years, I supported civil unions as conveying similar rights to civil marriage, and viewed them as an acceptable accommodation with traditionalists. I changed my mind, if I recall, when I read the California Supreme Court decision that affirmed the right of gays to marry. Civil marriage isn't just a bundle of legal rights, protections and obligations; it has a value in the larger community as a status worthy of respect. That is, of course, the linchpin of your objection to it - you claim that gays want to "force" others to recognize and respect their relationships.
Well, what's wrong with that? Don't we all seek respect and acceptance, especially when what we seek is objectively virtuous - to live permanently and monogamously with the person we love? I was forced to conclude that civil union status was as repugnant as black and white drinking fountains in the Jim Crow south - separate but equal doesn't cut it.
I understand that you feel differently - some traditionalists are uncomfortable that government "blesses" gay unions with the imprimatur of the word "marriage". Some traditionalists are like that - they want government to conform to their view of the world, and are loathe to accept cultural change. But traditionalists have the same rights as everyone else, no more and no less. Choose your friends, choose your associates, choose your lifestyle and live with the consequences of your actions.
Nowadays, gays want the same respect that Christians want. That's not hard to understand, just as it's not hard to understand why others may find homosexual relationships "gross". I haven't a clue any more than you do what prompts a guy to dig another guy. I don't understand why folks like rap or sushi either. But my attitude is simply this - whether gays (or anyone else) earn my respect is a function of how they conduct their lives. I respect my gay neighbors who've been with each other for over 20 years (and who were just able to marry last year), far more than my Christian neighbor who's now on his third marriage. Just as I respect my Christian neighbor who spends her free time counseling pregnant teens to do the right thing far more than my gay colleague who spends his free time meeting up at bars.
What I oppose is government taking sides and calling my union a marriage and my neighbors' union something else. Separate but equal isn't equal; it is an official acknowledgement that my neighbors' relationship is less worthy of respect and acceptance than mine. But rest assured, no one's "forcing" such acceptance - as it has been seen the time of Jesus, respect must be earned.
-
I once knew a pedophile preacher who justified himself in much the same way that you portray.
@roamer_1
People doing things they know are wrong always find a way to justify it.
-
For many years, I supported civil unions as conveying similar rights to civil marriage, and viewed them as an acceptable accommodation with traditionalists. I changed my mind, if I recall, when I read the California Supreme Court decision that affirmed the right of gays to marry.
This would be the point at which you abandoned the Constitution in favor of judicial tyranny.
-
This would be the point at which you abandoned the Constitution in favor of judicial tyranny.
Top down societal management is the epitome of progressivism.
-
For many years, I supported civil unions as conveying similar rights to civil marriage, and viewed them as an acceptable accommodation with traditionalists. I changed my mind, if I recall, when I read the California Supreme Court decision that affirmed the right of gays to marry.
That would be the case where the decision of the people of California was discarded in favor of judicial fiat. A case IIRC that was presided over by a closeted gay judge who should have recused himself from the case because of a conflict of interest...who ruled against Prop 8 then promptly cam out and retired at the same time.
So once again we have an instance where Jazzy thinks edicts handed down by justices that over rule the majority of the people in a state is perfectly fine.
Right now the only two instances where he doesn't want judicial interference involves any re-look at Roe or anything that might rule the ACA unconstitutional.
Otherwise men and women in black robes are perfectly ok to overturn the will of the people as long as it supports the Liberal agenda.
-
I just hit reply because I am not going to argue with anyone. There is nothing to argue.
The plain truth is that homosexuals deny Gods Word and His power to heal. I have heard gays don't choose to be gay. Hard life......... When they get tired of it and they are at the lowest low Jesus is there. Then, and only then, when and if they sincerely need Jesus; that is when they will be able to see that God did not create the hell they live in. He did not create their hard life. He does not create little children gay. He gives people over to their sinful natures because they don't want or need?, healing.
If you say in your heart there is nothing wrong with me then you don't need Jesus. So mind your own business and leave Christianity alone.
In other words,.........There are no scriptures which say God made you gay. No scripture approving of gay marriage. No scripture that says you can be gay in a monogamous relationship.
The Bible is not for you. If you wan to be gay be gay. Don't worry about the Bible because it is not going to change for you.
Excellent post. Thank you!
-
If he engaged in Homosexuality, it would make of him a lawbreaker and a hypocrite. It would not even be possible for someone in that culture to carry a religious message if they were known to be a homosexual. To say it is meaningless is merely an indication that you do not very well grasp the religious significance of what such a thing would represent.
For the damage it would have caused to his message, he might as well have been a cripple or a leper. No one would have listened to him.
From my perspective, your thinking is incredibly weird. Weird in such a way I cannot grasp it. Suffice it to say I think it would make a huge difference. There is only one natural and accepted sexual practice in that culture, and it is heterosexual monogamy. He could not deliver any sort of message at all if he could not live up to the normal religious expectations of the populace to whom he preached.
The most accurate study so far places the number of male homosexuals at 2% of the overall population. (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/cdc-gay-men-only-2-population)
In my opinion they are a subset of the mentally ill component of the nation, and indeed that is the way both the Medical and the legal system used to regard them.
Your "wise man" appears to have been a made up fictional character that someone wrote in a book called " The Killer Angels" (http://www.one-eternal-day.com/2011/05/any-man-who-judges-by-group-is-pea-wit.html) and he appears to be fictional character "Lawrence Chamberlain, commander of the 20th Maine".
Here is a quote from another wise man in a book. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether he is real or not. He seems to be judging people as a group. (http://biblehub.com/nlt/jeremiah/13.htm)
Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?
Minor correction - Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (written about in "Killer Angels") is very much a real person with a fascinating life.
In that conversation, it is the Irish soldier, Buster who uses the 'peawit' line, and he most likely is fictional...... (don't know for sure).
Do some research on Chamberlain. He's a fascinating man, an educator and professor of rhetoric at Bowdoin College in Maine who became a courageous and very smart General and key player in the victory of the North at Gettysburg. He was wounded six times during the War and died of his wounds in his 80's in the 20th century.
At any rate, he's not fictional, and that's not his line, but your other points are valid. :patriot:
-
@roamer_1
People doing things they know are wrong always find a way to justify it.
He was dying when I met him... A very bright man, and a pleasure to talk to... A curiosity, to be sure, for me. I had to ask him how his homosexual pedophilia squared with his otherwise staid Methodist beliefs.
He nearly broke his arm patting himself on the back for saving the boy (8 at the time) from Vegas street life, proud of the home he provided to him, and in his mind, raising him up right... All the while, plowing that poor boy for over a decade.
And he was blind to the flaw. Utterly blinded. **nononono* **nononono* **nononono*
-
Teaching 2 year olds about anyone's sexual lifestyle...is dimwitted and sick. Has nothing to do with the Homo-vs-Hetero thing. Its about politics and power, sadly...and the liberal need to force people to think as they do. Its even worse than its mirror image, that seeks to force a Christian brand of morality on everyone.
How silly of you to think that the understanding that homosexuality is wrong is merely a "Christian brand of morality."
You don't know very much about the world, do you, @Mesaclone ? :shrug:
Always bragging about how much you know while flailing in ignorance......
-
This would be the point at which you abandoned the Constitution in favor of judicial tyranny.
The guarantee of the law's equal protection is explicitly provided for in the Constitution. It is hardly judicial tyranny to apply that protection to the facts of state law benefits for civil marriage, any more than it was judicial tyranny back in 1954 to apply that protection to black kids forced to attend "separate but equal" segregated schools.
It has been accepted by all but the troglodytes that the federal appellate courts have the authority to interpret and construe the federal Constitution. That you disagree with a particular decision does not mean we have succumbed to "judicial tyranny". Separate but equal is an obsolete concept, both as applied to segregated schools and the protections and benefits of civil marriage. And besides - the SCOTUS hasn't taken any rights away from you nor impaired their exercise. Your civil marriage isn't affected in the slightest by what your neighbors now have the right to do.
Bottom line - mind your own business.
-
He was dying when I met him... A very bright man, and a pleasure to talk to... A curiosity, to be sure, for me. I had to ask him how his homosexual pedophilia squared with his otherwise staid Methodist beliefs.
He nearly broke his arm patting himself on the back for saving the boy (8 at the time) from Vegas street life, proud of the home he provided to him, and in his mind, raising him up right... All the while, plowing that poor boy for over a decade.
And he was blind to the flaw. Utterly blinded. **nononono* **nononono* **nononono*
Wow....
-
Bottom line - mind your own business.
If only you could follow your own advice...
-
Top down societal management is the epitome of progressivism.
The SCOTUS's decision didn't affect your marriage in the slightest. Why do are so resentful that your neighbors can marry just as you can?
-
The SCOTUS's decision didn't affect your marriage in the slightest. Why do are so resentful that your neighbors can marry just as you can?
Because it gave gays yet another protected fake "right" that straight couples don't have...so yes it does affect @Cripplecreek it affects me and everyone who is in a normal marriage.
When and how do WE get our protected "right" of marriage?
-
The SCOTUS's decision didn't affect your marriage in the slightest. Why do are so resentful that your neighbors can marry just as you can?
Because they are not a man and a woman.
Giving people that which they ought not have does not lift them up. It lowers the sanctity, or power, or verity of the thing they've obtained falsely. Marriage, all ready under attack, is diminished further.
Legalizing depravity and calling it good, does not make it legal or good.
-
That would be the case where the decision of the people of California was discarded in favor of judicial fiat. A case IIRC that was presided over by a closeted gay judge who should have recused himself from the case because of a conflict of interest...who ruled against Prop 8 then promptly cam out and retired at the same time.
In Michigan the law clerk of the federal judge who ruled in favor of gay marriage happily told the story of emotionally manipulating the judge over a 20 year period. She hid the fact that she was a lesbian for 10 year and then after coming out she and her partner adopted 2 kids and got them into the habit of calling the judge "Grampa". They clerk then made sure to have the kids in the courtroom where the judge could see them during arguments for and against gay marriage.
They are manipulative garbage.
I have a lesbian cousin who is currently at the Mayo clinic being treated for depression because not everyone accepts her and the family is supposed to fawn all over her. I won't.
-
No. There have been homosexuals in every era in history. I know of no instances of a person marrying his or her dog.
Bestiality has always been around too... And Caligula married his horse in the depravity of Rome's final death throes.
-
Because if gave gays yet another protected fake "right" that straight couples don't have...so yes it does affect @Cripplecreek it affects me and everyone who is in a normal marriage.
When and how do WE get our protected "right" of marriage?
Ever notice how the supporters of gay marriage add "how does it affect you" as if its supposed to make a difference? Its because like all progressives, they're liars and cowards trying to direct the argument in a direction of their choosing.
The fact is that the court even ruling on it was unconstitutional.
-
The guarantee of the law's equal protection is explicitly provided for in the Constitution.
Equal protection was already in place. This has been pointed out to you again and again and again, yet you continue to offer this lie. Furthermore, you have been asked repeatedly to show how California law et al denied equal protection. And each and every time, you fail to make a case.
So again, how was equal protection violated? Either make the case, or stop lying about it.
-
Ever notice how the supporters of gay marriage add "how does it affect you" as if its supposed to make a difference? Its because like all progressives, they're liars and cowards trying to direct the argument in a direction of their choosing.
The fact is that the court even ruling on it was unconstitutional.
I believe you described it best when you used the term "manipulative garbage."
-
The guarantee of the law's equal protection is explicitly provided for in the Constitution. It is hardly judicial tyranny to apply that protection to the facts of state law benefits for civil marriage, any more than it was judicial tyranny back in 1954 to apply that protection to black kids forced to attend "separate but equal" segregated schools.
It has been accepted by all but the troglodytes that the federal appellate courts have the authority to interpret and construe the federal Constitution. That you disagree with a particular decision does not mean we have succumbed to "judicial tyranny". Separate but equal is an obsolete concept, both as applied to segregated schools and the protections and benefits of civil marriage. And besides - the SCOTUS hasn't taken any rights away from you nor impaired their exercise. Your civil marriage isn't affected in the slightest by what your neighbors now have the right to do.
Bottom line - mind your own business.
Troglodytes?? Seriously, Jazz??? You think that little of every Christian who defends Scriptural truth??
Btw, you have completely swallowed the leftist propaganda you've been fed for decades.
Congratulations on being malleable to the will and purposes of the anti-American left.
-
How silly of you to think that the understanding that homosexuality is wrong is merely a "Christian brand of morality."
Homosexuality isn't "wrong" in the sense that sexual orientation is part of who someone intrinsically is. Folks are wired to be gay or straight - you know you are, don't you? - which is why I've said that God doesn't make mistakes. God created my neighbors in His own image, just as He created you and I.
Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, can be wrong. Or not, depending on the circumstances. As I've said before, true immorality includes such behaviors as promiscuity, pedophilia, unfaithfulness, infidelity, or the breaking of vows made in the sight of God to another. Such immorality can be practiced by straights or gays, Christians and non-Christians. I'll evaluate folks based on their honor and honesty as individuals, not on whether or not the Creator made them gay or straight.
Am I wrong to think that God is capable of similar nuance?
-
the federal appellate courts have the authority to interpret and construe the federal Constitution
So what happens when say the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decides that the federal edict that gave gays the fake right of marriage violates the 9th and 10th Amendments and strikes down the federal regulation and returns the right to determine if gay "marriage" is legal to each individual state?
Will you still insist that the courts have that authority...or will you suddenly decide that courts interpreting the Constitution is a bad thing and needs to be stopped?
I'm guessing the latter.
-
Troglodytes?? Seriously, Jazz??? You think that little of every Christian who defends Scriptural truth??
Btw, you have completely swallowed the leftist propaganda you've been fed for decades.
Congratulations on being malleable to the will and purposes of the anti-American left.
ML, by troglodytes I was referring to those who refuse to accept the federal courts' role in interpreting the Federal Constitution, that is, who do not accept Marbury v. Madison.
If you believe in the Bible's literal truth, be my guest. You're not a troglodyte, you're practicing your faith as you see it - and which the Constitution guarantees. But the Constitution also guarantees the law's equal protection - and that applies to my neighbors as well as those who parse the opinions recorded in the Bible and insist they represent the "word" of God Himself.
-
Homosexuality isn't "wrong"
Yes it is.
in the sense that sexual orientation is part of who someone intrinsically is.
No it's not.
Am I wrong to think that God is capable of similar nuance?
Why, yes you are! It is written.
That isn't to say that YHWH doesn't love them. He wants them (and all of us) to turn from wickedness and come back to him. Some would rather keep their demons.
-
Homosexuality isn't "wrong" in the sense that sexual orientation is part of who someone intrinsically is. Folks are wired to be gay or straight - which is why I've said that God doesn't make mistakes. God created my neighbors in His own image, just as He created you and I.
Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, can be wrong. Or not, depending on the circumstances. As I've said before, true immorality includes such behaviors as promiscuity, pedophilia, unfaithfulness, infidelity, the breaking of vows made in the sight of God to another. Such immorality can be practiced by straights or gays, Christians and non-Christians. I'll evaluate folks based on their honor and honesty as individuals, not on whether or not God made them gay or straight.
Am I wrong to think that God is capable of similar nuance?
You are wrong to think that God is made in your image, and not the other way around.
Where you are correct is that God doesn't make mistakes. However, we are all born into a sinful world as sinners because of the choice of Adam and Eve to sin. Homosexual behavior is a sin, just as stealing is a sin and assaulting people is a sin.
I was born with a desire to take things that weren't mine and hit people who made me mad. (I was also born with a temper). If I act on those urges, I am sinning, and it is wrong. If indeed, a homosexual is "born that way" (highly unscientific and doubtful, btw, but you have swallowed the line), then acting on it is a sin, just as a heterosexual's having sex without a wife or husband is a sin (and no, you can't pretend that a man is a wife, or a woman is a husband.... they are physiologically not), is a sin.
The idea that it is only Christians who understand this basic reality, is silly. It is the result of progressive propaganda that has sunk in to the gullible part of our society. It is not truth that you tout here, Jazz. It is made up liberalism.
The reality is that homosexuals cannot "marry." You can pretend all you like, but it isn't normal, and it doesn't work.
btw, I'm glad your neighbors are happy. I'm sure they are nice. Some very, very nice people are homosexual, and none of them should be mistreated or made fun of.
Even those of us whom you smear as "troglodytes" treat them with the love that all people should get.
THAT...... is because we believe what the Scripture says, and don't make up our own rules in opposition to God's law.
-
Bestiality has always been around too... And Caligula married his horse in the depravity of Rome's final death throes.
Homosexuality as akin to bestiality? It's cruel slander such as this that turns so many decent folks off to "Christian" conservatism.
-
I was born with a desire to take things that weren't mine and hit people who made me mad.
We must be kin.
-
ML, by troglodytes I was referring to those who refuse to accept the federal courts' role in interpreting the Federal Constitution, that is, who do not accept Marbury v. Madison.
If you believe in the Bible's literal truth, be my guest. You're not a troglodyte, you're practicing your faith as you see it - and which the Constitution guarantees. But the Constitution also guarantees the law's equal protection - and that applies to my neighbors as well as those who parse the opinions recorded in the Bible and insist they represent the "word" of God Himself.
It's already been clearly pointed out on this thread that the "law" you believe in (because it suits your liberal perspective on morality), is not even close to being Constitutional.
I assume that you would call people who opposed Jim Crow laws, passed by the vaunted Supreme Court, as "troglodytes" as well.
The SC court gets a lot of things wrong, Jazz. They're fallible, mostly leftist men, who believe in Progressive "principles."
Progressive principles like segregation, abortion, and now homosexual 'marriage.'.........
They got this one wrong.
-
Homosexuality as akin to bestiality? It's cruel slander such as this that turns so many decent folks off to "Christian" conservatism.
They're both sins.
Adultery. Fornication. Homosexuality. Bestiality. Incest. ALL sins.
-
We must be kin.
:beer:
Here's to not giving in to our sinful impulses, brother.
-
Am I wrong to think that God is capable of similar nuance?
Yes.
-
Homosexuality as akin to bestiality? It's cruel slander such as this that turns so many decent folks off to "Christian" conservatism.
Why? Aren't folks that are sexually drawn to animal sex 'decent people'?
Aren't they just 'wired that way' sexually, so it's OK?
How are they hurting you, or anyone else (assuming the beast is voluntarily participating)?
What if they're faithful to their partner? Doesn't that make it alright?
Why can't they marry? Who does it hurt?
I think I am detecting a double standard.
-
Adultery. Fornication. Homosexuality. Bestiality. Incest. ALL sins.
But somehow the Christian right concentrates on 2% of the population while the vast rest of the population are being adulterous and screwing around at a record pace and not a word, or very little is said.
@musiclady
@Jazzhead
-
Why? Aren't folks that are sexually drawn to animal sex 'decent people'?
Aren't they just 'wired that way' sexually, so it's OK?
How are they hurting you, or anyone else (assuming the beast is voluntarily participating)?
What if they're faithful to their partner? Doesn't that make it alright?
Why can't they marry? Who does it hurt?
I think I am detecting a double standard.
The animal cannot give consent as two adults can. No homosexual I know has ever said bestiality or child sex is ok.
@roamer_1
-
But somehow the Christian right concentrates on 2% of the population while the vast rest of the population are being adulterous and screwing around at a record pace and not a word, or very little is said.
That is not true.
-
Why? Aren't folks that are sexually drawn to animal sex 'decent people'?
Aren't they just 'wired that way' sexually, so it's OK?
How are they hurting you, or anyone else (assuming the beast is voluntarily participating)?
What if they're faithful to their partner? Doesn't that make it alright?
Why can't they marry? Who does it hurt?
I think I am detecting a double standard.
This is so idiotic I nearly ignored it.
The issue is consent. An animal cannot consent, nor can a child. So comparisons to these are ludicrous. What is being discussed is partnerships between consenting human adults....it takes a true moron to compare that with bestiality, in which there is only one consenting human. Grow up.
-
The animal cannot give consent as two adults can. No homosexual I know has ever said bestiality or child sex is ok.
LOL! If a male beast hops up to get it done, that's pretty much an indicator of consent.
Face it. It's the same dang thing. Using the things God gave you in the wrong way.
It's simply that in your mind, one is revolting and the other is not.
-
This is so idiotic I nearly ignored it.
The issue is consent. An animal cannot consent, nor can a child. So comparisons to these are ludicrous. What is being discussed is partnerships between consenting human adults....it takes a true moron to compare that with bestiality, in which there is only one consenting human. Grow up.
Pedophilia is next, and beastiality is not far behind...
-
Except he speaks the truth and you're too stubborn to accept it.
I NEVER accept truth from the mouth of a man. Never.
Especially when their 'truth' contradicts scripture.
The gay couple who remain faithful and true to each other are condemned by you as morally degenerate, no differently than those who prowl the bathhouses in search of multiple partners.
Sin is sin earning the same penalty. That homosexuality is listed with an additional moniker of 'abomination' multiple times in both the Old and New Testaments leaves no wiggle room for those that would pervert the scriptures as well as created nature itself to insist such behavior is good, right and normal.
And you don't say much at all about the Christians (and others) who commit adultery and divorce the spouses for whom they took an oath before God.
Not the topic of discussion in these homosexual agenda threads. But my reaction to ignorant imbeciles who would try and tell us that God has no problem with adultery and fornication would be met with the same militancy you witness in regards to your pushing homosexuality as a good thing.
You are pushing evil as a good and using the reasoning of a debased mind and society to deem wickedness as a good.
My neighbors are honest, faithful and honorable. I'll continue to defend them against the likes of you.
My brethren are honest, faithful and obedient. I'll continue to defend the Word of God and biblical Christians against the likes of you.
-
Pedophilia is next, and beastiality is not far behind...
It's already starting:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light
http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/337010/normalizing-pedophilia
The first warning signal that will go up is when it's removed from the DSM
-
That is not true.
Sure it is.. When is adultury and fornication laws brought by people asking politicians on the political trail or town halls? I have never seen it as laws about homosexuality is.
Show me a Presidential candidate ever asked about anti adultury or anti fornication laws or even discussing the matter.
@roamer_1
-
Sure it is.. When is adultury and fornication laws brought by people asking politicians on the political trail or town halls? I have never seen it as laws about homosexuality is.
Show me a Presidential candidate ever asked about anti adultury or anti fornication laws or even discussing the matter.
@roamer_1
Ummm there's already adultery laws on the books.
Nice try though.
-
I was born with a desire to take things that weren't mine and hit people who made me mad.
Your stealing affects more people negativity than two women who have loved each other for 40 years wanting to get married.
@musiclady
-
Your stealing affects more people negativity than two women who have loved each other for 40 years wanting to get married.
@musiclady
So when are straight married people going to get their "right" of marriage and have it protected with the full force and weight of the Federal government like gays now have?
-
Ummm there's already adultery laws on the books.
Nice try though.
In divorce situations-civil case. That's it. Otherwise Newt Gringrich would be in the slammer right now.
-
Ummm there's already adultery laws on the books.
Nice try though.
Again show me a politician who has said there should be anti adultury and anti fornication laws developed.
Name me one.
I can name plenty of politicians on the right who have wanted laws which were anti gay.
@txradioguy
-
This is so idiotic I nearly ignored it.
The issue is consent. An animal cannot consent, nor can a child.
What about the baker and the florist that refused to consent?
Consent... my rear-end.
You'll declare 'consent' now because it appears magnanimous and there is a sufficient amount of people appalled at pedophiles and beastiality. But history teaches that deviancy is an avalanche and once it starts downhill it picks up speed, gathering even larger damaging debris and flattens everything in its path on its rush to the bottom of the mountain. As we get desensitized to more and more outrageous acts of wickedness, we will become more and more accepting of them as practitioners lecture us on how 'virtuous', 'righteous' and 'good' those behaviors are. Just as we witness from the homosexual agenda lobbyists.
In a few years, once some imbeciles in black robes make a convoluted ruling that pedophelia and beastiality are protected rights we all have to accommodate - you will be right back here to trip over yourself to explain what the definition of 'consent' really means. Jazzy here just enlightened us to his convoluted reasonings that civil unions was not enough for homosexuals and was akin to segregated drinking fountains. I'm sure in a few years, your explanations in a vain attempt to shame the biblically adherent about child and animal marriages will be just as stupefying.
-
Your stealing affects more people negativity than two women who have loved each other for 40 years wanting to get married.
When society redefines what constitutes a family, the basic building blocks of society are thrown down - and that civilization will collapse in a mighty roar.
Or put another way - "There is a way that seems right to the mind of man, but that is the way that leads to death". - Proverbs 16:25/14:12
-
Folks are wired to be gay or straight - you know you are, don't you? - which is why I've said that God doesn't make mistakes. God created my neighbors in His own image, just as He created you and I.
Regardless of whether you have your wires crossed, People are plumbed for a purpose. If you are using the plumbing in a manner inconsistent with the design, all sorts of problems will occur that would not be there otherwise.
Considering that God doesn't make mistakes, and God created that design, maybe someone just isn't following the directions.
-
Homosexuality as akin to bestiality?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj4LnfkdJDM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj4LnfkdJDM)
-
Regardless of whether you have your wires crossed, People are plumbed for a purpose. If you are using the plumbing in a manner inconsistent with the design, all sorts of problems will occur that would not be there otherwise.
Considering that God doesn't make mistakes, and God created that design, maybe someone just isn't following the directions.
How do you feel about masturbation? That's "inconsistent with the design", too, and I've heard some Christians claim that it, too, is a sin.
I ask in part because a significant number of homosexuals in relationships don't engage in sodomy, but merely mutual masturbation. Are they going to hell too? Because if they are, I think we'll all be seeing each other at the meet and greet in Beelzebub's place after we're gone.
-
What about the baker and the florist that refused to consent?
Consent... my rear-end.
You'll declare 'consent' now because it appears magnanimous and there is a sufficient amount of people appalled at pedophiles and beastiality. But history teaches that deviancy is an avalanche and once it starts downhill it picks up speed, gathering even larger damaging debris and flattens everything in its path on its rush to the bottom of the mountain. As we get desensitized to more and more outrageous acts of wickedness, we will become more and more accepting of them as practitioners lecture us on how 'virtuous', 'righteous' and 'good' those behaviors are. Just as we witness from the homosexual agenda lobbyists.
In a few years, once some imbeciles in black robes make a convoluted ruling that pedophelia and beastiality are protected rights we all have to accommodate - you will be right back here to trip over yourself to explain what the definition of 'consent' really means. Jazzy here just enlightened us to his convoluted reasonings that civil unions was not enough for homosexuals and was akin to segregated drinking fountains. I'm sure in a few years, your explanations in a vain attempt to shame the biblically adherent about child and animal marriages will be just as stupefying.
The idiocy is strong in this one . . .
-
But somehow the Christian right concentrates on 2% of the population while the vast rest of the population are being adulterous and screwing around at a record pace and not a word, or very little is said.
@musiclady
@Jazzhead
For various and sundry reasons, the rest of the population isn't having parades proclaiming their "pride" in being adulterous, in bestiality, incest, or, for the most part, even just ordinarily promiscuous. They aren't demanding their behaviour be held up on par with a faithful one man/one woman sacramental marriage, with all the rights, privileges, and appurtenances thereto.
-
Folks are wired to be gay or straight - you know you are, don't you? - which is why I've said that God doesn't make mistakes.
Regardless of whether you have your wires crossed, People are plumbed for a purpose. If you are using the plumbing in a manner inconsistent with the design, all sorts of problems will occur that would not be there otherwise.
Considering that God doesn't make mistakes, and God created that design, maybe someone just isn't following the directions.
Using Jazzy's ridiculous argument - that people are 'wired' a certain way and "God doesn't make mistakes' - the argument becomes "I was born a rapist. I know I am. God doesn't make mistakes. It's who I am"
Or:
"I was born a thief"; or "I was born an adulterer"; or "I was born an alcoholic"; or "I was born a liar"; or "I was born a wife beater"; or "I was born a drug addict" - and if God makes no mistakes with proclivities people have desires to fulfill - by the logic we read from advocates of homosexuality, those people are free to practice their urges and we have no right to 'judge' their behavior because they were 'born that way'.
It's all part and parcel with defining deviancy down and redefining sin and unacceptable behavior with mandating such behaviors be acceptable and preferred.
-
Again show me a politician who has said there should be anti adultury and anti fornication laws developed.
Name me one.
I can name plenty of politicians on the right who have wanted laws which were anti gay.
@txradioguy
You're tossing up the stupidest of straw men to try and defend an untenable position.
There is no need to push for anti-adultery laws because in civil law and family law it's already codified.
Texas was the last state to have an anti-Sodomy law and that was struck down in Lawrence v Texas.
But hey who am I to stop you from continuing to try and convince us that your Liberal talking points are valid.
-
The idiocy is strong in this one . . .
That is a compliment coming from you on this subject.
-
Are they going to hell too?
Not mine to judge. But who would get the legal entanglements associated with "marriage" for just hand jobs, when they could DIY and call out any name they want?
Either you are lying, or someone else is.
-
Using Jazzy's ridiculous argument - that people are 'wired' a certain way and "God doesn't make mistakes' - the argument becomes "I was born a rapist. I know I am. God doesn't make mistakes. It's who I am"
Sexual attraction/orientation is inborn. God's responsible for that. Sexual behavior is not. The responsibility for behavior lies solely with the individual.
-
Why? Aren't folks that are sexually drawn to animal sex 'decent people'?
Aren't they just 'wired that way' sexually, so it's OK?
How are they hurting you, or anyone else (assuming the beast is voluntarily participating)?
What if they're faithful to their partner? Doesn't that make it alright?
Why can't they marry? Who does it hurt?
I think I am detecting a double standard.
Logic never enters into liberal arguments........... especially about morality, since they are entirely based on emotion.
-
@Jazzhead
Still waiting. Show me how California's marriage law violates equal protection.
-
Not mine to judge. But who would get the legal entanglements associated with "marriage" for just hand jobs, when they could DIY and call out any name they want?
Either you are lying, or someone else is.
Folks marry (or should) for love, not lust. For most of us, sexual activity fades as we age. But not the love we have for our partners.
Marriage is a lifetime commitment of mutual support and caring. Knocking boots is a nice perk, but I highly doubt that God is as obsessed with sexual mechanics as so many "Bible-believing Christians" are.
-
Sexual attraction/orientation is inborn. God's responsible for that.
That is complete 100% debris piled up to the sky.
Can you possibly come up with something else rather than insulting the Creator?
-
But somehow the Christian right concentrates on 2% of the population while the vast rest of the population are being adulterous and screwing around at a record pace and not a word, or very little is said.
@musiclady
@Jazzhead
You obviously don't spend any time with Christians. A LOT is said about all of those things.
It's the left that's made a point to "normalize" sin. If you're reading more about homosexuality (you clearly are) then that explains your warped view on what is and isn't said among Christians about other sins.
Ask your leftist buddies to quit trumpeting their sins in from of the world, and there won't need to be such a strong response against it.
Will there?
The pro-active stuff is coming from your side of the argument, not mine.
-
Not mine to judge. But who would get the legal entanglements associated with "marriage" for just hand jobs, when they could DIY and call out any name they want?
Either you are lying, or someone else is.
Cripple Creek just the other day on this very site said he wanted to marry his platonic woman friend of 50 years just for friendship and economic advantages and wondered why marriage just always had to be about sex and physical love..
btw a friend of mine was paralyzed chest down in a accident 40 years ago and married a woman
I'm sure he is just using his tongue and hands.
@Cripplecreek
@Smokin Joe
-
Sexual attraction/orientation is inborn. God's responsible for that. Sexual behavior is not. The responsibility for behavior lies solely with the individual.
But we're not talking about sexual orientation, preference, or behavior here. We are talking about the right of society to enact laws through their legislature - state or federal - or by statewide referendum within the confines of the Constitution of the United States of America. And you are on record selectively opposing that right.
Does your selective opposition also apply to polygamy? For example, if I wanted to take on a second spouse even though it violates federal law, would you declare that law unconstitutional? Or is this where your double-standard kicks in.
-
Sexual attraction/orientation is inborn. God's responsible for that. Sexual behavior is not. The responsibility for behavior lies solely with the individual.
Please give your scientific 'proof' of that spurious argument. They've tried before, and failed to prove it's inborn.
God created the world in perfection, and the union between one male and one female. Satan and human sin messed it all up. God allows sin, but is not "responsible" for our disobedience to His perfect will.
Therefore, it is a choice to engage in homosexual sin, just as it would be my choice to slug my neighbor when I get mad at him.
Neither can be blamed on God................ your valiant efforts notwithstanding.
-
Sexual attraction/orientation is inborn. God's responsible for that. Sexual behavior is not. The responsibility for behavior lies solely with the individual.
Who are you kidding? You do not believe in responsibility for evil and bad behavior at all. You want it subsidized and accepted using the force of government to impose.
Child molesters, thieves, liars, extortionists, abusers and addicts all love to insist those behaviors are inborn and blame God for it too.
Your problem is that sin is arbitrary with you and you have on your own authority declared what is and is not sin based on your own perverted reasoning. That is what wickedness does.
All you spew is the moral authority of men and their reasoning, while discarding the morality and authority of God - making a mockery of Him and His Word.
I highly doubt that God is as obsessed with sexual mechanics as so many "Bible-believing Christians" are.
You just made my point, demonstrating that you are totally and completely ignorant of the scriptures themselves. You pay homage to a god of your own imagination and your own arbitrary ideas of morality while preaching a gospel of evil and wickedness dressed in the morality of those practicing it.
No marvel - for you do the same exact thing with Constitutional Conservatism, and spend your time here attempting to redefine it into a Socialist perversion of what it is and what the founders' writings intended.
-
Marriage is a lifetime commitment of mutual support and caring.
State-sanctioned marriage is not. There is no legal mandate for commitment, mutual support, or caring. Please try to stay on topic here.
-
Regardless of whether you have your wires crossed, People are plumbed for a purpose. If you are using the plumbing in a manner inconsistent with the design, all sorts of problems will occur that would not be there otherwise.
Considering that God doesn't make mistakes, and God created that design, maybe someone just isn't following the directions.
There are hermaphrodites born with both sex organs, babies born fused together and with out half a head.
If God is keeping track of how may times I beat off he really needs to get a life. Off course he is not so I ma not worried.
@Smokin Joe
-
Your stealing affects more people negativity than two women who have loved each other for 40 years wanting to get married.
@musiclady
Except that I don't steal because it's a sin. Having sex with a person of your own gender is clearly a sin.
And ALL sin hurts society. (Insert here your inane arguments/lies that all men are porn addicts and debase women, and that it doesn't "hurt" anyone).
We are all born in sin because of the Fall. We all have to fight the temptation to do wrong.
And the leftist influences in our culture that have inculcated your own malleable thought processes don't change what is right and what is wrong.
You're not that powerful, mirraflake. You don't get to decide.
-
If God is keeping track of how may times I beat off he really needs to get a life. Off course he is not so I ma not worried.
I wouldn't bank on that.
"The good man brings good things out of his good store of treasure, and the evil man brings evil things out of his evil store of treasure. But I tell you that men will give an account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken". - Matthew 12:35-36
"We tear down arguments, and every presumption set up against the knowledge of God; and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." - 2 Corinthians 10:5
If every thought and every idle word we speak is to be held to account and Judged by God - I would think we need to be a bit more circumspect of the things we do that we assume He has no problem with.
-
There are hermaphrodites born with both sex organs, babies born fused together and with out half a head.
If God is keeping track of how may times I beat off he really needs to get a life. Off course he is not so I ma not worried.
@Smokin Joe
And yet, He loves you and knows exactly the number of hairs on your head.
It's sad that in your attempt to dismiss right and wrong, you also dismiss Who created you and how very much you are loved.
-
I wouldn't bank on that.
"The good man brings good things out of his good store of treasure, and the evil man brings evil things out of his evil store of treasure. But I tell you that men will give an account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken". - Matthew 12:35-36
"We tear down arguments, and every presumption set up against the knowledge of God; and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." - 2 Corinthians 10:5
If every thought and every idle word we speak is to be held to account and Judged by God - I would think we need to be a bit more circumspect of the things we do that we assume He has no problem with.
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Matthew 5:27-28
-
You sure seem like to put down other people while upholding a Confederation of States that fought a war over slavery.
Several points here. First of all, this is an ad hominem attack on me that does nothing to actually refute my point. Second of all, the War was fought over Independence, not slavery, and third of all, I am not upholding the Confederacy, I'm upholding the natural law right of independence, which they too possessed, even if they were bad people by today's standards.
-
I once knew a pedophile preacher who justified himself in much the same way that you portray.
Pedophilia has yet to obtain the social acceptance that Homosexuality has. Given time, White Liberals will eventually get around to de-stigmatizing it, and thereafter declaring it to be a right.
They are already working on it, and have been since at least the 1960s.
It is the foolish among us who thinks this isn't going to be one of the next tricks they pull out of their hat.
-
Pedophilia has yet to obtain the social acceptance that Homosexuality has. Given time, White Liberals will eventually get around to de-stigmatizing it, and thereafter declaring it to be a right.
In California, it is now legal for a child to prostitute themselves.
-
There are hermaphrodites born with both sex organs, babies born fused together and with out half a head.
If God is keeping track of how may times I beat off he really needs to get a life. Off course he is not so I ma not worried.
@Smokin Joe
Luke 12:7 And the very hairs on your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are more valuable to God than a whole flock of sparrows.
Yes there are hermaphrodites and other people with birth defects and genetics abnormalities. Shall we make policy based on the rare exception or the norm?
-
Minor correction - Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (written about in "Killer Angels") is very much a real person with a fascinating life.
In that conversation, it is the Irish soldier, Buster who uses the 'peawit' line, and he most likely is fictional...... (don't know for sure).
Do some research on Chamberlain. He's a fascinating man, an educator and professor of rhetoric at Bowdoin College in Maine who became a courageous and very smart General and key player in the victory of the North at Gettysburg. He was wounded six times during the War and died of his wounds in his 80's in the 20th century.
At any rate, he's not fictional, and that's not his line, but your other points are valid. :patriot:
I used the word "Appears" because I wasn't quite sure whether he was fictional or not, but given the text of the conversation quoted in that link I found, I surmised he was likely fictional. *Most* Union officers and soldiers did not give a tinker's damn about blacks or slavery.
The people who want to justify the war simply spent a lot of time combing through the available examples to find those few who did, and then quote them so as to make it appear to have been a common attitude.
Most such examples are "cherry picking" of the available data.
-
The fact is that "Marriage" is a religious institution and the state has no right to redefine it. This is why liberals don't want civil unions which confer every single right to gay couples that are afforded to married couples. Instead they want to redefine the religion itself to fit their degenerate view of society.
Even without that the issue of gay marriage was not for 5 unelected judges to decide over the will of millions of Americans and the people they elected to represent them.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
-
Gay marriage is but one more step in destroying the family in order to elevate the State.
-
I used the word "Appears" because I wasn't quite sure whether he was fictional or not, but given the text of the conversation quoted in that link I found, I surmised he was likely fictional. *Most* Union officers and soldiers did not give a tinker's damn about blacks or slavery.
The people who want to justify the war simply spent a lot of time combing through the available examples to find those few who did, and then quote them so as to make it appear to have been a common attitude.
Most such examples are "cherry picking" of the available data.
I'm not interested in debating the Civil War with you, but I thought it was important to verify that Joshua Chamberlain was very much a real person, very much a brilliant man, very much a successful Union soldier, and very much opposed to slavery. He's also worth a look, even for a southerner, to perhaps help convince you that everyone on our side of the war wasn't evil.
-
The guarantee of the law's equal protection is explicitly provided for in the Constitution.
Homosexuals have always been regarded by the law as "Non Compos Mentis." To declare them to have "rights" stemming from their insanity is as reasonable as pretending males dressed like females are actually women.
It is a war on reality.
-
The fact is that "Marriage" is a religious institution and the state has no right to redefine it. This is why liberals don't want civil unions which confer every single right to gay couples that are afforded to married couples. Instead they want to redefine the religion itself to fit their degenerate view of society.
Even without that the issue of gay marriage was not for 5 unelected judges to decide over the will of millions of Americans and the people they elected to represent them.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Yes. Only today law has been made by the courts demanding respect for the establishment of the secular hedonist/Socialist religion while prohibiting the free exercise of the biblical Christian religion if it can be seen by anyone in public via lawsuit, fine and jail time.
-
You sure seem like to put down other people while upholding a Confederation of States that fought a war over slavery.
That lie being repeated just won't cut the mustard anymore.
And exactly how did a guy uphold the CSA when he was never even born?
-
Even without that the issue of gay marriage was not for 5 unelected judges to decide over the will of millions of Americans and the people they elected to represent them.
Article III, Section 2
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Gee, no mention of federal judicial power extending to cases between a state and citizens of that state.
-
@Jazzhead
Still waiting. Show me how California's marriage law violates equal protection.
-
The SCOTUS's decision didn't affect your marriage in the slightest. Why do are so resentful that your neighbors can marry just as you can?
It lights fire to the Monotheistic foundation of the society.
Maintaining a civil order with a minimum of bloodshed is far more important than letting 2% of the insane portion of our population feel good about themselves.
-
Homosexuals have always been regarded by the law as "Non Compos Mentis." To declare them to have "rights" stemming from their insanity is as reasonable as pretending males dressed like females are actually women.
It is a war on reality.
:amen:
And those of us who continue to argue on behalf of reality are called "troglodytes."
To the left up is down and down is up. :shrug:
-
I'm not interested in debating the Civil War with you, but I thought it was important to verify that Joshua Chamberlain was very much a real person, very much a brilliant man, very much a successful Union soldier, and very much opposed to slavery. He's also worth a look, even for a southerner, to perhaps help convince you that everyone on our side of the war wasn't evil.
What Civil War? We never had one. A Civil War is one faction seeking to overthrow the government. The South never wanted that. It wanted the USA to leave them alone.
It was a War between the States caused by Union Aggression.
-
What Civil War? We never had one. A Civil War is one faction seeking to overthrow the government. The South never wanted that. It wanted the USA to leave them alone.
It was a War between the States caused by Union Aggression.
I said I wasn't interested in discussing that particular War..........whatever you choose to call it.
It's a thread hijack and I don't want to be part of it.
My only point was that Joshua Chamberlain was not fictional.
That's it.
That's all. **nononono*
-
Sexual attraction/orientation is inborn. God's responsible for that. Sexual behavior is not. The responsibility for behavior lies solely with the individual.
@Jazzhead
A frequently repeated lie.
Sexual orientation is not inborn. Its a product of genetics, hormones, as well as environmental factors. Its is highly malleable for many people largely depending on their age, maturity level, and mental state. This is why homosexuals target teens as that is when our brains are developing and we are at our weakest.
-
What Civil War? We never had one. A Civil War is one faction seeking to overthrow the government. The South never wanted that. It wanted the USA to leave them alone.
It was a War between the States caused by Union Aggression.
Which is why I refer to it as the War of Secession. The North attacked the South for one reason and one reason only - to preserve the Union. It was a violation of the oral agreement promised to Virginia et al 84 years prior.
-
@Jazzhead
A frequently repeated lie.
Jazzhead has as much medical evidence proving that sexual preference is inborn as he has legal evidence proving that California marriage law is unconstitutional. In other words, none. But hey, that doesn't stop him from repeating the lie.
-
Jazzhead has as much medical evidence proving that sexual preference is inborn
How do you know you're not gay, hoodat? Have you always known you're not gay?
-
And those of us who continue to argue on behalf of reality are called "troglodytes."
I prefer 'Knuckle-dragging Neanderthal' myself. But even a Neanderthal has more ability to employ logic, reason, and think critically than your average liberal.
To the left up is down and down is up. :shrug:
Mick Jagger and Keith Richard wrote a song about it.
Sympathy for the Devil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj6y6tohW_0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj6y6tohW_0
Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints . . .
-
Homosexuality isn't "wrong" in the sense that sexual orientation is part of who someone intrinsically is. Folks are wired to be gay or straight - you know you are, don't you?
I know the exact opposite of that. Numerous medical studies have shown that about 40% of male homosexuals were molested as children. (40% who participated in these studies admitted it. The actual number may be much higher.)
It is too great a stretch of coincidence to believe that 40% of children who would grow up to be Homosexuals happened to get molested. It is far more plausible to believe that it is the molestation that steered them into that lifestyle.
In other words, God didn't make them that way.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Sexual_abuse_being_a_contributing_factor_for_homosexuality
-
Gay marriage is but one more step in destroying the family in order to elevate the State.
That's idiocy. How does your neighbor's marriage destroy your family?
What you should be arguing is that the State has no business granting rights and protections to married couples, or providing the means for one party to a marriage to enforce the other's marital obligations. If you did that, that would eliminate the equal protection guarantee that extends, quite rightly and Constitutionally, to gay couples.
But that, of course, would destroy the family.
-
I said I wasn't interested in discussing that particular War..........whatever you choose to call it.
It's a thread hijack and I don't want to be part of it.
My only point was that Joshua Chamberlain was not fictional.
That's it.
That's all. **nononono*
Then please call it properly rather than attempting to go along with diatribe that alters its beginnings.
-
How do you know you're not gay, hoodat? Have you always known you're not gay?
It doesn't matter whether I choose to consider myself gay or not. My sexual preference is not taken into account in regard to marriage laws. There is no sexual preference qualifier or condition when it comes to California marriage law. It's called 'Equal Protection' in that the law applies equally regardless of sexual preference.
And you falsely argue for equal protection even though you oppose the very law that guarantees it.
-
Homosexuality as akin to bestiality? It's cruel slander such as this that turns so many decent folks off to "Christian" conservatism.
Is it cruel slander to compare it to pedophilia? Because over and over, those who inquireabout this, find that there appears to be a very close relationship between child molestation and homosexuality.
If you do not know about the relationship between child molestation and homosexuality, you need to do more research so you can speak intelligently on the subject.
Furthermore, about 42% of all child molestations are of male children. For some reason, 2% of the population that prefers males manages to make 42% of all cases of child molestation.
-
But somehow the Christian right concentrates on 2% of the population while the vast rest of the population are being adulterous and screwing around at a record pace and not a word, or very little is said.
Has heterosexual adultery resulted in the deaths of 700,000 people?
http://kff.org/hivaids/fact-sheet/the-hivaids-epidemic-in-the-united-states-the-basics/
The bloodshed is on the hands of the Homosexuals. *THAT* is why we talk about them.
-
That's idiocy. How does your neighbor's marriage destroy your family?
Same way the homosexual marriage agenda destroyed the livelihoods, businesses and private properties of biblical Christians that refused to violate their consciences to participate in celebrating deviancy.
Eventually - the goal (stated by the homo leadership themselves) is to DESTROY the institution of marriage itself for normal people who will not embrace homosexuality.
Like all Leftist logic that is a twisted miasma of illicit imbecility, yours selects which behaviors are to be accepted and approved and which ones you grant the state the power to destroy for refusing to accept evil behavior as good and normal.
-
That's idiocy. How does your neighbor's marriage destroy your family?
What you should be arguing is that the State has no business granting rights and protections to married couples, or providing the means for one party to a marriage to enforce the other's marital obligations. If you did that, that would eliminate the equal protection guarantee that extends, quite rightly and Constitutionally, to gay couples.
But that, of course, would destroy the family.
@Jazzhead
Because the family is the foundation of our country. Through strong families children are taught morals ethics values love all kinds of things. But most of all they are taught the govt is not their caretaker and is instead an institution subordinate to the people.
-
@Jazzhead
Because the family is the foundation of our country. Through strong families children are taught morals ethics values love all kinds of things. But most of all they are taught the govt is not their caretaker and is instead an institution subordinate to the people.
One only need to look to the inner cities to see what the destruction of the family has done to most blacks there.
Both Frederick Douglass and Booker T Washington spoke of the destruction of the family being a tool of slavery and subservience.
-
Then please call it properly rather than attempting to go along with diatribe that alters its beginnings.
:threadjack: :threadjack: :threadjack:
-
The animal cannot give consent as two adults can.
Do you mean legal consent or actual consent? It is clear that animals can give actual consent because there exists in the world numerous examples of beastiality porn in which this is clearly true.
If you are referring to legal consent, prior to the 1973, Homosexuals couldn't give legal consent either. They were legally adjudged to be "non compos mentis" and therefore unable to give legal consent.
My point here is that your point is merely a technicality, and one which Homosexuals have overcome. Therefore it is not unreasonable to believe that beastophiles will also be capable of overcoming this silly technicality eventually. Indeed, in several other countries, Beastiality is legal.
No homosexual I know has ever said bestiality or child sex is ok.
Which proves exactly what? It is quite possible they wouldn't tell you the truth about these things because they know how normal people will react. If you go undercover in the "gay" community, you find out pretty quickly that they often make jokes about child molestation, and there is a lot of "wink wink" about it in those circles.
I've read reports and seen videos of homosexuals admitting that it is a common thing in the gay community to talk about "Chickens." (Young boys) Just look up "Chicken Hawk" (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/you-v10n2) in the gay context and you'll see.
Beyond that, we have so many examples of prominent homosexuals molesting boys, of which Dennis Hastert is but one relatively recent example.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/05/29/18/292F63A800000578-3102662-image-a-14_1432922037216.jpg)
-
:threadjack: :threadjack: :threadjack:
@musiclady
No, wait! This is a rare opportunity to get a combination of the TOS religion forum and its Civil War threads in one! A twofer! :silly:
-
@Jazzhead
Still waiting. Show me how California's marriage law violates equal protection.
-
@musiclady
No, wait! This is a rare opportunity to get a combination of the TOS religion forum and its Civil War threads in one! A twofer! :silly:
Dang, did I miss the Mormon-bashing already?
-
@musiclady
No, wait! This is a rare opportunity to get a combination of the TOS religion forum and its Civil War threads in one! A twofer! :silly:
Oy vey! :laugh:
-
Dang, did I miss the Mormon-bashing already?
Someone can surely bring that up here, and make it an absolutely charming thread! :dx1:
-
Dang, did I miss the Mormon-bashing already?
@Hoodat
Should we go for three?
(Just kidding!)
-
This is so idiotic I nearly ignored it.
The issue is consent. An animal cannot consent, nor can a child.
Again with the "consent" dodge. Yes, animals *can* consent in fact, though they may not "consent" in law.
Again, Homosexuals couldn't "consent" either prior to 1973. Did their acquisition of legal "consent" in 1973 have any significance other than as a technicality? They were doing it anyways, regardless of what the law said.
So comparisons to these are ludicrous. What is being discussed is partnerships between consenting human adults....it takes a true moron to compare that with bestiality, in which there is only one consenting human. Grow up.
If you take this "consent" tack (assuming you are referring to legal consent) you are hitching your argument to the ever changing winds of the "law" instead of something immutable, like natural law.
In other words, your argument lives and dies by what is currently "the law", rather than what is actually true or false.
Change the law, and your argument becomes false.
-
In California, it is now legal for a child to prostitute themselves.
I saw that article some weeks ago. Basically it was a defacto legalization by a refusal to enforce the law against it.
-
I saw that article some weeks ago. Basically it was a defacto legalization by a refusal to enforce the law against it.
Do either of you have a link to that? It was only a matter of time for it to happen, since they broke down the barrier with the normalization of homosexuality, but I was unaware that it had already taken place.
@DiogenesLamp @Hoodat
-
One only need to look to the inner cities to see what the destruction of the family has done to most blacks there.
Both Frederick Douglass and Booker T Washington spoke of the destruction of the family being a tool of slavery and subservience.
I completely agree that preservation of the family is absolutely critical, and that government policy should encourage strong and stable families.
And that's why I support gay marriage. I want to encourage gays to marry and form families, in part so they will be less likely to be burdens on the state and private charities. Families care and provide for each other through prosperity and poverty, through health and sickness.
-
@Jazzhead
Still waiting. Show me how California's marriage law violates equal protection.
-
I completely agree that preservation of the family is absolutely critical, and that government policy should encourage strong and stable families.
And that's why I support gay marriage. I want to encourage gays to marry and form families, in part so they will be less likely to be burdens on the state and private charities. Families care and provide for each other through prosperity and poverty, through health and sickness.
They aren't families. There is no such thing as "Susie has Two Mothers" actually being a family. It is two women and a child living together. They may love each other, but they are not a family, no matter how much the left tries to redefine it.
-
It's already starting:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light
http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/337010/normalizing-pedophilia
The first warning signal that will go up is when it's removed from the DSM
Yeah... Thee have been several times in the last couple years that the question has been raised to lower the age of consent...
And so is bestiality... Every now and then there's some article about some dumbass wanting to marry an animal... that's how it starts... light-hearted with a bit of an eye-roll... Five years from now we'll be having this same argument with the 'legalize animal marriage critters... Wonder where @Jazzhead @mirraflake and @Mesaclone will be on it by then?
-
Do either of you have a link to that? It was only a matter of time for it to happen, since they broke down the barrier with the normalization of homosexuality, but I was unaware that it had already taken place.
@DiogenesLamp @Hoodat
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/california-democrats-legalize-child-prostitution/article/2610540 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/california-democrats-legalize-child-prostitution/article/2610540)
SB 1322 bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution.
This terribly destructive legislation was written and passed by the progressive Democrats who control California's state government with a two-thirds "supermajority." To their credit, they are sincere in their belief that decriminalizing underage prostitution is good public policy that will help victims of sex trafficking. Unfortunately, the reality is that the legalization of underage prostitution suffers from the fatal defect endemic to progressive-left policymaking: it ignores experience, common sense and most of all human nature — especially its darker side.
The greatest flaw of liberalism/socialism is that it denies human nature.
-
Do either of you have a link to that? It was only a matter of time for it to happen, since they broke down the barrier with the normalization of homosexuality, but I was unaware that it had already taken place.
@DiogenesLamp @Hoodat
Its a fight they've been fighting in California for several years. A few years back they had protests to complain about police harassing minors in the "sex industries". The very same people who scream bloody murder about kids in Africa picking bananas turn right around and promote child prostitution.
-
Yeah... Thee have been several times in the last couple years that the question has been raised to lower the age of consent...
And so is bestiality... Every now and then there's some article about some dumbass wanting to marry an animal... that's how it starts... light-hearted with a bit of an eye-roll... Five years from now we'll be having this same argument with the 'legalize animal marriage critters... Wonder where @Jazzhead @mirraflake and @Mesaclone will be on it by then?
All you have to do is be old enough to have watched what the left did with homosexuality to brainwash the young and gullible (and obviously succeed).
You can see it happening now with both pedophilia and bestiality, but those who are unaware of what has been done in the past in this cultural regression are indignant that it's ridiculous to make the comparison.
And yet, the comparison is there for any and all to observe. It's happening, in spite of their naïve protests that it never will.
-
Sure it is.. When is adultury and fornication laws brought by people asking politicians on the political trail or town halls? I have never seen it as laws about homosexuality is.
Show me a Presidential candidate ever asked about anti adultury or anti fornication laws or even discussing the matter.
@roamer_1
@Jazzhead
I have been fighting no fault divorce and promiscuity all my life. I am dead set against adultery and fornication, and have declared so hereon. No doubt I have even admitted that no fault divorce is what started the whole plunge into decadence right in your presence, As I do not assign that to the gays, rightfully.
All that has a 20 year head start on your pet project. I know that media and society accept it as 'normal' even as they are now doing with homos. But don't you think for a minute that adultery wasn't shoved down our throats just the same way as this.
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/california-democrats-legalize-child-prostitution/article/2610540 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/california-democrats-legalize-child-prostitution/article/2610540)
SB 1322 bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution.
This terribly destructive legislation was written and passed by the progressive Democrats who control California's state government with a two-thirds "supermajority." To their credit, they are sincere in their belief that decriminalizing underage prostitution is good public policy that will help victims of sex trafficking. Unfortunately, the reality is that the legalization of underage prostitution suffers from the fatal defect endemic to progressive-left policymaking: it ignores experience, common sense and most of all human nature — especially its darker side.
The greatest flaw of liberalism/socialism is that it denies human nature.
Thank you, @Hoodat !
This is so disturbing on so many levels.............. but to me the most disturbing thing is that there are gullible regurgitators of the same leftist propaganda that gave us homosexual "marriage" saying that this will never happen.
They don't understand that what was clearly, obviously wrong and unnatural to everyone is now just peachy keen for a portion of the population, and that the same evildoers who have accomplished that over the past decades are doing the same thing to naturalize pedophilia and bestiality.
It's wrong to keep people from marrying "who they love".....right??? Even if who they "love" is 12 years old.
The left disgusts me.
-
Cripple Creek just the other day on this very site said he wanted to marry his platonic woman friend of 50 years just for friendship and economic advantages and wondered why marriage just always had to be about sex and physical love..
btw a friend of mine was paralyzed chest down in a accident 40 years ago and married a woman
I'm sure he is just using his tongue and hands.
@Cripplecreek
@Smokin Joe
And this has what, exactly, to do with homosexual "marriage"? I assume you have a point?
-
@Jazzhead
I have been fighting no fault divorce and promiscuity all my life. I am dead set against adultery and fornication, and have declared so hereon. No doubt I have even admitted that no fault divorce is what started the whole plunge into decadence right in your presence, As I do not assign that to the gays, rightfully.
All that has a 20 year head start on your pet project. I know that media and society accept it as 'normal' even as they are now doing with homos. But don't you think for a minute that adultery wasn't shoved down our throats just the same way as this.
mirraflake is clearly clueless as to what has happened in the past, both the left's forcing immorality on us (back to the "free love" movement, which he clearly doesn't remember), and the Christian opposition to it.
It's an imaginary world these anti-Christian leftists live in, and they are oblivious to facts that disprove their imaginary arguments. And this one thinks his own little circle is the world at large.
Clueless. **nononono*
-
I have been fighting no fault divorce and promiscuity all my life. I am dead set against adultery and fornication, and have declared so hereon. No doubt I have even admitted that no fault divorce is what started the whole plunge into decadence right in your presence, As I do not assign that to the gays, rightfully.
When I left Virginia in 1983, cohabitation was illegal. Not sure if that is still the case, but it was a good law nonetheless. Never enforced, but it definitely prevented a mess of civil suits regarding common law situations.
When I moved to Georgia, common law marriage was on the books. Since then, they have gotten rid of it, along with a whole mess of legal mumbo jumbo. Good riddance.
btw, the Virginia cohabitation law discriminated against straight couples because gay couples could legally cohabit while straight couples could not. Yet I never once heard a single liberal complain about that. Go figure.
-
Your stealing affects more people negativity than two women who have loved each other for 40 years wanting to get married.
I can't speak for her @mirraflake , but it is her LACK of stealing that is affecting people positively... That is how it is with me... Yahweh somehow puts people in front of me that need my testimony... custom fit to turn them in a different direction. On many occasions I have testified to the road I went down, with very positive effects upon a person traveling where I had already been.
That's the beauty of it. My worst sins, found in my testimony, becoming glory to the Father - The agent that brings another one home.
It isn't where we've been that matters. We're all sinners. Me more than most. It's where we are going that counts.
And you don't get there with your sins intact. What seems like bias to you is deep concern. Not only for the individuals therein, but for the direction of us all as a people. We've all been down that road, or one just like it. It leads to death.
@musiclady
-
There are hermaphrodites born with both sex organs, babies born fused together and with out half a head.
If God is keeping track of how may times I beat off he really needs to get a life. Off course he is not so I ma not worried.
@Smokin Joe
It is strange you don't give Him more credit for multitasking ability, and might consider being more humble. As for me, I don't profess to know what He is or isn't doing at any particular moment, so I just try to conduct myself in such a way as not to have anything new to worry about. YMMV.
-
They aren't families. There is no such thing as "Susie has Two Mothers" actually being a family. It is two women and a child living together. They may love each other, but they are not a family, no matter how much the left tries to redefine it.
I've never seen a kid raised by gay "parents" who wasn't a mess. Just a couple of weeks back I had lunch with a childhood friend who is gay and he doesn't want his own grandkids at his house because gay men come and go from there. He visits them at their home because he wants to keep them away from the lifestyle.
A few years back my friend told me about his trip to the Rainbow Farm here in Michigan. It was advertised as a family event where gay couples and their families were welcome. What they found was live sex shows in full view of the children who were running all over the place. He was in full agreement with the raid that left the owners dead and the place burned to the ground.
-
Logic never enters into liberal arguments........... especially about morality, since they are entirely based on emotion.
Reminds me of my kid sitting under the deck eating cat poop when he was two.
He just couldn't understand what the big deal was either.
-
I completely agree that preservation of the family is absolutely critical, and that government policy should encourage strong and stable families.
And that's why I support gay marriage. I want to encourage gays to marry and form families, in part so they will be less likely to be burdens on the state and private charities. Families care and provide for each other through prosperity and poverty, through health and sickness.
The absurdity of this statement is nearly beyond my comprehension.
It's as absurd as those who would tell us that they completely agree with the preservation of life and liberty as absolutely critical, which is why they support abortion. They want to encourage a woman's right enjoy sex with whomever and to kill the consequences of that sex because an unwanted child should not be a burden on the state and private charities. Or as you put it - the state should not force a woman to procreate. She should be able to have sex whenever she wants, and kill the consequence of that sex so that liberty may abound.
The perversion you spout here both political and religious is beyond absurdly nauseating.
-
Knocking boots is a nice perk, but I highly doubt that God is as obsessed with sexual mechanics as so many "Bible-believing Christians" are.
He wrote a Book. You should read it sometime.
-
Please give your scientific 'proof' of that spurious argument. They've tried before, and failed to prove it's inborn.
In fact, it's proven otherwise.
-
@Jazzhead
I have been fighting no fault divorce and promiscuity all my life. I am dead set against adultery and fornication, and have declared so hereon. No doubt I have even admitted that no fault divorce is what started the whole plunge into decadence right in your presence, As I do not assign that to the gays, rightfully.
No fault divorce is why my mother remained married to her idiot till she died and why we had to put up such a fight to keep what little she had for an estate.
In fact, as long as social security exists, a person should be able to choose who gets the survivor benefits rather than it automatically going to the spouse.
-
State-sanctioned marriage is not. There is no legal mandate for commitment, mutual support, or caring. Please try to stay on topic here.
Good point
-
:threadjack: :threadjack: :threadjack:
You are the one that tried to do this. Let's stay on point then and call the word 'gay' a thread-jack as well.
A Homosexually-inspired hijacking of a common English adjective to account for deviancy.
-
@Jazzhead
Sexual orientation is not inborn. Its a product of genetics, hormones, as well as environmental factors. Its is highly malleable for many people largely depending on their age, maturity level, and mental state. This is why homosexuals target teens as that is when our brains are developing and we are at our weakest.
Isn't genetics inborn or hormones? I believe the latest scientific study is homosexulality are cause by epi markers. I personally believe it it is is caused by a hormonal/chemical regulation problem while in the womb. Most gay people I have known I knew they were different at a very early age . My classmates just discussed the passing of one of our gay classmates (heart attack, not Aids) on FB and we knew he was different/a was a "sissy" in kindergarten.
None of the 4-5 gay people I know well were ever abused.
@driftdiver
-
If you do not know about the relationship between child molestation and homosexuality, you need to do more research so you can speak intelligently on the subject.
Furthermore, about 42% of all child molestations are of male children. For some reason, 2% of the population that prefers males manages to make 42% of all cases of child molestation.
Very few young girls are molested by older women mostly molested by men. Where are all the lesbians coming from?
@DiogenesLamp
-
I've never seen a kid raised by gay "parents" who wasn't a mess. Just a couple of weeks back I had lunch with a childhood friend who is gay and he doesn't want his own grandkids at his house because gay men come and go from there. He visits them at their home because he wants to keep them away from the lifestyle.
Simple explanation. In years past only the gays took the troubled kids-ones the straight couples did not want. These were the the only kids the system would allow gays to have. The refuse or scraps with mental or emotional problems no one else wanted.
@Cripplecreek
-
The absurdity of this statement is nearly beyond my comprehension.
So now you Bible-thumpers want to dictate the meaning of the word "family" too?
My neighbors are as much a family as yours is. They've likely been together for longer than you and your spouse. They don't have kids, but they have been there for each other through thick and thin. By what measure do they not constitute a family as worthy as yours?
-
Simple explanation. In years past only the gays took the troubled kids-ones the straight couples did not want. These were the the only kids the system would allow gays to have. The refuse or scraps with mental or emotional problems no one else wanted.
@Cripplecreek
Ahh yes, Saint Turdbuglar is the most godly of us all.
-
Very few young girls are molested by older women mostly molested by men. Where are all the lesbians coming from?
A depraved and permissive culture. A lot of it is a sexual 'fad' with all the 'taboo' removed for deviant behavior. In fact not too long ago a lot of the peers of my daughters were declaring themselves lesbians in high school and college. Today - they mostly have gotten married - to men.
A culture that celebrates evil and depravity will have no problems with other forms of it. In Jihadist Islamic areas, sex with boys and goats is said to be permissible along with marrying children as young as 7 years old, all the while they cheer the slow beheading of 'infidels' and those charged with violating Sharia Law.
A culture that has no problems with what we once called evil - will embrace more evil and look for more heinous and barbaric forms to satisfy themselves.
-
Ahh yes, Saint Turdbuglar is the most godly of us all.
:silly: :silly: :silly:
you owe me a keyboard.
-
A depraved and permissive culture. A lot of it is a sexual 'fad' with all the 'taboo' removed for deviant behavior. In fact not too long ago a lot of the peers of my daughters were declaring themselves lesbians in high school and college. Today - they mostly have gotten married - to men.
A culture that celebrates evil and depravity will have no problems with other forms of it. In Jihadist Islamic areas, sex with boys and goats is said to be permissible along with marrying children as young as 7 years old, all the while they cheer the slow beheading of 'infidels' and those charged with violating Sharia Law.
A culture that has no problems with what we once called evil - will embrace more evil and look for more heinous and barbaric forms to satisfy themselves.
Years ago the female volleyball coach at our school went to prison for molesting several girls.
-
So now you Bible-thumpers want to dictate the meaning of the word "family" too?
Actually we 'Bible Thumpers' follow God's declaration as to what the meaning of the word family is. You do not get to redefine it to meet and satisfy your perversion of it. You did not create it. HE DID. HE Defines it in His Word.
All you spew is vile perversion, of both the evidence from nature and the revelation from God Himself to sate your debased mindset.
My neighbors are as much a family as yours is.
Right. And the 55 year old pervert who self identifies as a 13 year old girl so he can use their bathrooms, even though he sports male plumbing, is as much a little girl as your neighbors think themselves a family.
.... By what measure do they not constitute a family as worthy as yours?
They are homosexuals. That is the measure.
-
So now you Bible-thumpers want to dictate the meaning of the word "family" too?
@Jazzhead
Still waiting. Show me how California's marriage law violates equal protection.
-
(Insert here your inane arguments/lies that all men are porn addicts and debase women, and that it doesn't "hurt" anyone).
You bring this up again and lie what i said? You are a flat out liar and I will say it......Again
1. I never said all men. I said the majority of Christian men view porn. This is the 3rd or 4th time I posted this study below in the link to refute what you lie about what I originally said. This study backs me up. 77% of Christian men view porn on a regular basis and the study was done by a Christian polling group not liberal.
2. I never said porn was not harmful. In some people it is. Just like people who over eat or drink too much brewskies.
3. You are not a man. Men are visual by nature and like to view beautiful naked women. My wife has no interest in viewing men's genitals as with most women. Men are visual, women are emotional by nature when it comes to sex.
http://www.charismanews.com/us/45671-shocker-study-shows-most-christian-men-are-into-porn
Besides stealing and hitting people add liar to your sin list.
@musiclady
-
So now you Bible-thumpers want to dictate the meaning of the word "family" too?
Guess you are ignorant of the definition of a family in almost 100% of the world's other religions too, most of which do not even know what a Bible is.
You are against most civilizations on this earth.
I suggest you visit some of the Middle Eastern countries like say, Yemen or Iran and try to influence them the same way.
Please report back to us all the results of your endeavors if you can.
-
All you have to do is be old enough to have watched what the left did with homosexuality to brainwash the young and gullible (and obviously succeed).
You can see it happening now with both pedophilia and bestiality, but those who are unaware of what has been done in the past in this cultural regression are indignant that it's ridiculous to make the comparison.
And yet, the comparison is there for any and all to observe. It's happening, in spite of their naïve protests that it never will.
They are still 'culture norming' homosexuality by stuffing it into the story line of pretty near everything in entertainment.
Other deviant behaviour will be squeaked into the 'edgy' standup crowd before it gets trickled into the sitcoms before it ends up in regular dramas. That's the usual progression. The 'edgy' crowd rely as much on shock and nervous laughter as humor, but between nervous tittering and the laugh track, the people 'at home' are trained to laugh at virtually anything. Then, it comes out in sitcom material, then it slipped into serial dramas, usually somewhere into the middle of or later in the first season when people are busy identifying with other characters enough that they will not just stop watching, because they feel invested in the story line. It's the same reason people will finish a book they don't particularly like aspects of. By the end of the season, if they keep watching, they are over any initial revulsion and are more accepting of the deviant characters, just so they can keep up with the story and the character(s) they identified with. In time, deviant characters will become major characters in story lines, and the process will be nearly complete. All that will remain is taking the deviancy out of the fictional realm and into the news and the courts and/or legislatures, with sympathy generated in advance by 'entertainment' media.
It is an interesting process of culture norming deviancy, and an insidious insertion of depravity into the mainstream but fictional cultural matrix, then into the culture itself.
The formula has already been followed, and likely will continue to be used.
-
You are the one that tried to do this. Let's stay on point then and call the word 'gay' a thread-jack as well.
A Homosexually-inspired hijacking of a common English adjective to account for deviancy.
Bizarre accusation. I haven't used the word "gay" on this thread because I don't use it.
I'm a choral singer who loves madrigals, and you can't sing half of them because of the hijacking of the word to mean what it doesn't even come close to meaning. The left steals our vocabulary and distorts it, and this is but one example of their theft.
But thanks for getting back on topic and leaving your hijack behind. :beer:
-
You bring this up again and lie what i said? You are a flat out liar and I will say it......Again
1. I never said all men. I said the majority of Christian men view porn. This is the 3rd or 4th time I posted this study below in the link to refute what you lie about what I originally said. This study backs me up. 77% of Christian men view porn on a regular basis and the study was done by a Christian polling group not liberal.
2. I never said porn was not harmful. In some people it is. Just like people who over eat or drink too much brewskies.
3. You are not a man. Men are visual by nature and like to view beautiful naked women. My wife has no interest in viewing men's genitals as with most women. Men are visual, women are emotional by nature when it comes to sex.
http://www.charismanews.com/us/45671-shocker-study-shows-most-christian-men-are-into-porn
Besides stealing and hitting people add liar to your sin list.
@musiclady
LOL!
You're the meanest person on this forum. Stop being so mean.
btw, for the record, I didn't lie. And I don't steal or hit people either. Try reading the real words some time. You might find you learn something. ^-^
Back on Ignore where you belong! :seeya:
-
LOL!
You're the meanest person on this forum. Stop being so mean.
btw, for the record, I didn't lie. And I don't steal or hit people either. Try reading the real words some time. You might find you learn something. ^-^
Back on Ignore where you belong! :seeya:
I'm only mean to people who LIE about what I said. Yes, you continually attack and lie what I originally said and I'm damn well going to stick up for myself.
@musiclady
-
They are still 'culture norming' homosexuality by stuffing it into the story line of pretty near everything in entertainment.
Other deviant behaviour will be squeaked into the 'edgy' standup crowd before it gets trickled into the sitcoms before it ends up in regular dramas. That's the usual progression. The 'edgy' crowd rely as much on shock and nervous laughter as humor, but between nervous tittering and the laugh track, the people 'at home' are trained to laugh at virtually anything. Then, it comes out in sitcom material, then it slipped into serial dramas, usually somewhere into the middle of or later in the first season when people are busy identifying with other characters enough that they will not just stop watching, because they feel invested in the story line. It's the same reason people will finish a book they don't particularly like aspects of. By the end of the season, if they keep watching, they are over any initial revulsion and are more accepting of the deviant characters, just so they can keep up with the story and the character(s) they identified with. In time, deviant characters will become major characters in story lines, and the process will be nearly complete. All that will remain is taking the deviancy out of the fictional realm and into the news and the courts and/or legislatures, with sympathy generated in advance by 'entertainment' media.
It is an interesting process of culture norming deviancy, and an insidious insertion of depravity into the mainstream but fictional cultural matrix, then into the culture itself.
The formula has already been followed, and likely will continue to be used.
Good post.
I have no doubt that some of the liberals making these inane arguments got their "facts' from watching sit coms.
As for the formula (that we all watched with homosexuality), we are seeing it before our very eyes, aren't we?
I don't suppose that the 'normalization' of pedophilia will take as long since the culture has already been brainwashed with the homosexual argument.
But it will happen. As sure as we're both sitting here discussing it. It WILL happen, because it's already started.
-
They are still 'culture norming' homosexuality
Look at this thread. Christians are bad and homosexuals are the compassionate people who take in the poor unfortunate children that no one straight people want.
-
I'm only mean to people who LIE about what I said. Yes, you continually attack and lie what I originally said and I'm damn well going to stick up for myself.
@musiclady
Good. You do that.
Because your smearing of my husband as being a pervert is on the record (and there were witnesses).
It's no lie, and you know it.
I just defended good men and truth, and it hurt your feelings.
But that's the last I'll comment on your past sins, and the last I'll respond to your spurious accusations.
This discussion is over. You're back on Ignore.
:seeya:
-
Look at this thread. Christians are bad and homosexuals are the compassionate people who take in the poor unfortunate children that no one straight people want.
Exactly.
This is what the left does. It exalts the bad and demeans the good. It commends the bad and mocks those who try to avoid it.
And they lie.
-
Years ago the female volleyball coach at our school went to prison for molesting several girls.
Lesbians can be extremely predatory. I recall watching one I knew moving in on a woman who had just been in (another, verbal) fight with her husband in a public place (yep, alcohol fueled, and he had left).
She put her arm around the upset woman's shoulders..."Oh, you poor dear..." She looked up and saw me watching at her and grinned--she knew what she was doing, and it wasn't sympathy. A guy who 'moved in' on someone's wife like that would be seen as a lowlife creature indeed.
-
My neighbors are as much a family as yours is. They've likely been together for longer than you and your spouse. They don't have kids, but they have been there for each other through thick and thin. By what measure do they not constitute a family as worthy as yours?
By that definition I'm married to my XO. He was my corporal back when I was a private, so we've been together for 38 years. We've been there for each other through thick and thin. Hell, we even technically have a kid (we were both guardians to the same one and are now honored grandfathers to HER kids.).
I'd best let him know. Sod's been sleeping around on me.
-
Lesbians can be extremely predatory. I recall watching one I knew moving in on a woman who had just been in (another, verbal) fight with her husband in a public place (yep, alcohol fueled, and he had left).
She put her arm around the upset woman's shoulders..."Oh, you poor dear..." She looked up and saw me watching at her and grinned--she knew what she was doing, and it wasn't sympathy. A guy who 'moved in' on someone's wife like that would be seen as a lowlife creature indeed.
I only knew one of the victims of the volleyball coach well and she did indeed turn out to be a lesbian a year or so later.
I was heartbroken because she was my neighbor and I had a crush on her for a long time.
-
Look at this thread. Christians are bad and homosexuals are the compassionate people who take in the poor unfortunate children that no one straight people want.
I have been watching that and other inversions of reality. It's about what I'd expect from people who think they created God, instead of the other way around.
-
Look at this thread. Christians are bad and homosexuals are the compassionate people who take in the poor unfortunate children that no one straight people want.
That is how it was in years past. Ask any adoption center. Gays were only given the troubled kids no one else wanted. When no one else would take them gays would as that is the only choice they had. It is 100% fact. Look it up. So of course kids from that generation are going to have a higher rate of problems and it is going to skew the results.
@Cripplecreek
-
I completely agree that preservation of the family is absolutely critical, and that government policy should encourage strong and stable families.
And that's why I support gay marriage. I want to encourage gays to marry and form families, in part so they will be less likely to be burdens on the state and private charities. Families care and provide for each other through prosperity and poverty, through health and sickness.
The worst thing you can do to a child is to teach it that homosexuality is in any way normal. By teaching a child this, you may convince them to destroy any chances of their own progeny; Effectively genetic death for their line.
-
Exactly.
This is what the left does. It exalts the bad and demeans the good. It commends the bad and mocks those who try to avoid it.
And they lie.
The only thing left is to blame Christians and straight people for the high suicide rates among gays/lesbians/bisexuals etc
-
Very few young girls are molested by older women mostly molested by men. Where are all the lesbians coming from?
@DiogenesLamp
Let us focus solely on male homosexuals. Lesbianism is a completely different animal with completely different causation. It is generally far less dangerous than the male version, and women often grow out of it.
For many it was just a fad, or a response to a previous abusive situation.
-
I said the majority of Christian men view porn. This is the 3rd or 4th time I posted this study below in the link to refute what you lie about what I originally said. This study backs me up. 77% of Christian men view porn on a regular basis and the study was done by a Christian polling group not liberal.
You are absolutely correct about this. Even among pastors, the percentage of them that view porn on a regular basis is almost 60% - and those are numbers from those willing to disclose the fact that they do. The actual numbers may be much, much higher.
This is a great program and the trouble has been getting churches to even permit the discussion of the subject:
https://conquerseries.com
It seems that the older a Christian is, the less exposed to porn they seem to be, and that meets with the devolution of our society. Back when I was a kid, you had to actually GO to a place that had smut in brown paper-wrapped magazines. By the 80s when VHS came out - you had to go to a seedy place and buy them, or mail -order them. By the time the internet came around, it was in your face at the touch of a mouse button - and people who grew up with the internet have been exposed to vile stuff not many of us in our 50s and older would even allow ourselves to look at.
I never said porn was not harmful. In some people it is. Just like people who over eat or drink too much brewskis.
That is not correct. People addicted to crack and meth can get clean in a few weeks. Alcoholics and go cold turkey sometimes. Porn addicts take 5 to 6 years to get clean, because this stuff attacks the very center of the mind, and once there - it does not come out very easily. It is why scripture tells us that someone who commits sexual sin , sins against his own flesh.
I've counseled wives who caught their husbands viewing porn, and of them - it was the same as if they caught their husband in bed with another woman. It is damaging to marriages, families and self.
-
Simple explanation. In years past only the gays took the troubled kids-ones the straight couples did not want. These were the the only kids the system would allow gays to have. The refuse or scraps with mental or emotional problems no one else wanted.
@Cripplecreek
I've read several accounts from grown children of "gay" parents, and they themselves tell of how this experienced warped them.
Here's one.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/children-gay-parents-testify-against-same-sex-marriage
-
So now you Bible-thumpers want to dictate the meaning of the word "family" too?
No, we want your side to stop trying to warp it into being something it isn't and never was.
-
By that definition I'm married to my XO. He was my corporal back when I was a private, so we've been together for 38 years. We've been there for each other through thick and thin. Hell, we even technically have a kid (we were both guardians to the same one and are now honored grandfathers to HER kids.).
I'd best let him know. Sod's been sleeping around on me.
That's one of the problems with all this nonsense. If you call a person you have been working with for decades "partner", now that has ambiguity in terms of other implications. Cops had partners, lawyers and businessmen had partners, but now it has to be qualified to remove the aura of perversion. Who would have thought?
-
I've read several accounts from grown children of "gay" parents, and they themselves tell of how this experienced warped them.
Here's one.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/children-gay-parents-testify-against-same-sex-marriage
I can post stories from gay kids saying their gay parents are the best thing ever.
@DiogenesLamp
-
I've counseled wives who caught their husbands viewing porn, and of them - it was the same as if they caught their husband in bed with another woman.
No, it's not. Actual infidelity is what ruins marriages, not watching porn. Indeed, porn may provide a safe outlet for urges that would otherwise manifest themselves in real infidelity and venereal disease.
-
Here's one.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/children-gay-parents-testify-against-same-sex-marriage
"While I do not believe all gays would be de facto bad parents, I know that the gay community has never in my lifetime put children first as anything other than a piece of property, a past mistake or a political tool to be dressed up and taken out as part of a dog-and-pony show to impress the well-meaning," Klein wrote.
Wow.
-
No, it's not. Actual infidelity is what ruins marriages, not watching porn.
@Jazzhead
Still waiting. Show me how California's marriage law violates equal protection.
-
I can post stories from gay kids saying their gay parents are the best thing ever.
@DiogenesLamp
Well then in your mind this balances the claims of those children of gay parents who say it is terrible.
So it becomes a question of is more harm or less harm being caused by such situations, and it is therefore a task of drudgery to drag up the quantity of proof necessary to prove it one way or the other.
I believe this is likely to be a task beyond either of us, but at least I have made you aware of people who have had bad experiences with "gay" parents.
-
Wow.
You should read the stuff Robert Oscar Lopez writes on the subject.
-
Lets hope this kid doesn't get treated like a junior drag queen at home.
(http://i.imgur.com/eHT2FFB.jpg)
-
No, it's not. Actual infidelity is what ruins marriages, not watching porn. Indeed, porn may provide a safe outlet for urges that would otherwise manifest themselves in real infidelity and venereal disease.
Goes to figure coming from you.
Absolutely everything that is sickening, detestable, vile, vulgar, wicked and sinful according the God and scripture (and basic decency) - YOU declare to be virtuous, good, wholesome, holy and righteous.
But then, you are a rabid Leftist - so it should come as no surprise you are for everything anathema to a civil society.
-
People addicted to crack and meth can get clean in a few weeks. Alcoholics and go cold turkey sometimes. Porn addicts take 5 to 6 years to get clean, because this stuff attacks the very center of the mind, and once there - it does not come out very easily. It is why scripture tells us that someone who commits sexual sin , sins against his own flesh.
The marriage counselor in my office building who I eat lunch with most days says the porn problem is overrated when it comes to problems with marriages and breakups. He is ultra conservative, not liberal. Not saying there is not a problem there is but he said it's not at the top of the list by far. Some men use it too much where it affects their marriage or wanting to go out and try to find a mate-takes away their desire. I have read the studies.
I've counseled wives who caught their husbands viewing porn, and of them - it was the same as if they caught their husband in bed with another woman. It is damaging to marriages, families and self.
Yes, what I was referring to..men are visual and don't see what is wrong looking at porn while women are emotional and take it as cheating.
And @Jazzhead is right many married men use it as a safety valve when their wives sex drive drops or she gets in a tizzy and cuts him off for a period of time.
@INVAR
-
No, it's not. Actual infidelity is what ruins marriages, not watching porn. Indeed, porn may provide a safe outlet for urges that would otherwise manifest themselves in real infidelity and venereal disease.
@Jazzhead
So...watching porn and masturbating saves marriages?
Lol, okay.
-
Well then in your mind this balances the claims of those children of gay parents who say it is terrible.
No, both sides find ancedontyl stories to make their point. When the study is done by Lifesite News you posted they have an agenda. I am on FB. The lies liberals and conservatives make is astounding to say the least. Both sides are very guilty of it.
@DiogenesLamp
-
Lets hope this kid doesn't get treated like a junior drag queen at home.
(http://i.imgur.com/eHT2FFB.jpg)
@Cripplecreek
Yeah, it's supposed to be fine for that kid to grow up like that. Don't even begin to try and sell me that line, because it's ridiculous on its face.
In San Francisco, homosexuals have put their adoptive children in bondage outfits and paraded them around during street festivals.
-
So...watching porn and masturbating saves marriages?
Lol, okay.
I'm guessing here that Jazzhead isn't married.
-
I'm guessing here that Jazzhead isn't married.
The supreme court decided he could be married.
-
No, both sides find ancedontyl stories to make their point. When the study is done by Lifesite News you posted they have an agenda. I am on FB. The lies liberals and conservatives make is astounding to say the least. Both sides are very guilty of it.
@DiogenesLamp
So you are saying the children of "gay" parents have some sort of agenda beyond what they regard as the truth?
I would take them at their word unless it was demonstrated otherwise.
Did you see what happened to "Cher's" daughter? Do you think she was destined to turn out as a pretend man?
-
The supreme court decided he could be married.
No, the Supreme Court decided that states could no longer establish their own marriage laws, and that only the judiciary had the authority to define marriage. There has never been a prohibition against Jazzhead getting married.
-
@Jazzhead
So...watching porn and masturbating saves marriages?
Lol, okay.
Men are from Mars, Women from Venus. You will never understand the male sex drive. When you gotta "go" you gotta "go"and if your wife cuts you off for some reason on comes the computer...no pun intended.
My wife's post menopasuel spell was horrible..her hormones were totally out of whack. Terrible to say the least. The doctor finally put her on some hormones to adjust things. Afterwards she wanted sex at least 2 times per day, very day-way too high a dosage. She came out an told me now I know what you guys really go through, how do you every get things done?. She has since been taken off those hormones with another treatment and everything is fine.
Majority of married men go to porn at one time or another. Sorry to burst your bubble it's true. as jazzhead said it's a safety valve instead of adultery
There is an old saying "Married women don't wish porn is taken away because then you will have to start having sex with your husband again.
BTW study came out the other day only 8% of women wanted sex. the other 92% would rather read a book, take a long bath etc.
@CatherineofAragon
-
@Cripplecreek
Yeah, it's supposed to be fine for that kid to grow up like that. Don't even begin to try and sell me that line, because it's ridiculous on its face.
In San Francisco, homosexuals have put their adoptive children in bondage outfits and paraded them around during street festivals.
"Zombie" (a conservative journalist who lives in Berkeley) has documented all sorts of weirdity viewable by children at various "gay" and otherwise liberal protests, rallies and parades.
Not for the faint of heart.
http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/
Also, @Jazzhead and others, take a look what "gay" culture looks like in an area where it is the dominant culture; an area where they are not afraid to behave as they like.
-
So you are saying the children of "gay" parents have some sort of agenda beyond what they regard as the truth?
Yes, some do. Both side lie and misconstrue. There is truth somewhere in the middle.
@DiogenesLamp
-
Yes, what I was referring to..men are visual and don't see what is wrong looking at porn while women are emotional and take it as cheating.
And @Jazzhead is right many married men use it as a safety valve when their wives sex drive drops or she gets in a tizzy and cuts him off for a period of time.
That's entirely bent.
I cannot believe the obsession some have with sex.
I have a massive sex drive when the time comes... But I sure ain't whacking off to porn.
Ithink what you are describing is symptomatic of the societal problem - And the rank obsession proves the point.
-
I have a massive sex drive when the time comes... But I sure ain't whacking off to porn.
You got that right. It will make you go blind.
(http://de.acidcow.com/pics/20100906/gif_05.gif)
-
You got that right. It will make you go blind.
LOL!
-
Quick, let me take notes. @mirraflake is dispensing some more wisdom about life, and God knows we've never heard any of it before.
-
Quick, let me take notes. @mirraflake is dispensing some more wisdom about life, and God knows we've never heard any of it before.
Just telling the normal American males view of things to a few women here who think men think and do just as women.
@CatherineofAragon
-
Yes, the idea that people would marry animals is just absurd.
Desperate woman is marrying her college diploma
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/170419-graduate-marries-diploma-05.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=664&h=441&crop=1)
She’s got a college diploma — now she’s adding a wedding certificate!
A new med-school grad is “marrying” her degree in an effort to get her family and friends as excited about her graduation and acceptance into her dream residency at Georgetown University as she is.
http://nypost.com/2017/04/19/desperate-woman-is-marrying-her-college-diploma/
Making marriage into a joke can't possibly be bad for American society. Can it?
-
@Cripplecreek
Yeah, it's supposed to be fine for that kid to grow up like that. Don't even begin to try and sell me that line, because it's ridiculous on its face.
In San Francisco, homosexuals have put their adoptive children in bondage outfits and paraded them around during street festivals.
I guess a ball gag would keep the little nippers quiet..
Seriously, it is just wrong.
Luke 17:2 "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin." (ESV)
-
Just telling the normal American males view of things to a few women here who think men think and do just as women.
@CatherineofAragon
@mirraflake
Well, the other day you posted that you've had sex with everything except animals and children, so...normal? Well...
You don't know very much about women's sex drives. I'm sorry.
-
I guess a ball gag would keep the little nippers quiet..
Seriously, it is just wrong.
Luke 17:2 "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin." (ESV)
@Smokin Joe
It's very serious. And yet, I've seen pictures of those street festivals where it happens, and there were police roaming around and doing nothing.
-
"Zombie" (a conservative journalist who lives in Berkeley) has documented all sorts of weirdity viewable by children at various "gay" and otherwise liberal protests, rallies and parades.
Not for the faint of heart.
http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/
Also, @Jazzhead and others, take a look what "gay" culture looks like in an area where it is the dominant culture; an area where they are not afraid to behave as they like.
@DiogenesLamp
I was at another site when I saw pics from the Folsom Street Fair, and there were things I didn't expect, including men drinking each other's urine. With respect to you, I don't care to revisit any of it.
-
@DiogenesLamp
I was at another site when I saw pics from the Folsom Street Fair, and there were things I didn't expect, including men drinking each other's urine. With respect to you, I don't care to revisit any of it.
One of the things my friend told me about his trip to the Rainbow Farm was the guy in an outdoor bathtub with guys peeing on him.
-
One of the things my friend told me about his trip to the Rainbow Farm was the guy in an outdoor bathtub with guys peeing on him.
Quick, give that guy some children to raise. /s
-
I was at another site when I saw pics from the Folsom Street Fair, and there were things I didn't expect, including men drinking each other's urine. With respect to you, I don't care to revisit any of it.
But, but... It's for the childrennn...
-
@mirraflake
Well, the other day you posted that you've had sex with everything except animals and children, so...normal? Well...
You don't know very much about women's sex drives. I'm sorry.
I am 100% different than the person I was back then. I regret much.
I know plenty about women's sex drives. I know my wifes vanished after menopause until she got treatment for it.
I know enough about womens sex drives that there are plenty of married men whose wives have cut them off after children, menopause, lost emotional attachment to their husband, hubbie didn't get the promotion etc. and the men resort to porn because they won't go the divorce or adultery route. Men with close males friends talk to each other about these things out of frustration and a few beers loosen up their tongues.
And I dated around enough to know not all women's sex drives are the same. Womens sex drives are all over the board.. 1. No interest, 2. some interest once you get them revved up, 3. some that like it and 4. some that absolutely love it.
Men?? sex drive pretty much on 24/7 for most men.
If you have a nice sex drive good for you. There are many women out there if their privates rusted shut it would not concern them in the least. Again the lastest study shows only 8% of women want sex the other 92% would rather read a book, take a long bath etc.
Every guy on this board has dated or married to them or knows many male friends who have been through the no sex route. and would agree with me but in this case will White Knight you because They don't like my stance on gay marriage or think I was too harsh with another poster. or just don't like me.
@CatherineofAragon
-
But, but... It's for the childrennn...
Careful. That's the Liberal Socialist battle cry. You might stir 'em up (more!) :silly:
-
But, but... It's for the childrennn...
Lol, yeah right...tell me another one.
-
@mirraflake
Well, the other day you posted that you've had sex with everything except animals and children, so...normal? Well...
You don't know very much about women's sex drives. I'm sorry.
He also hasn't got a clue as to how moral men think. If he thinks debauchery is what all men do, he lives in a sordid little world.
-
He also hasn't got a clue as to how moral men think. If he thinks debauchery is what all men do, he lives in a sordid little world.
Adultery and infidelity are what's immoral. If porn can allow a man to keep his vows, what's the harm?
-
I'm guessing here that Jazzhead isn't married.
I'm guessing here that you've been divorced.
-
Adultery and infidelity are what's immoral.
Says who? You?
-
He also hasn't got a clue as to how moral men think. If he thinks debauchery is what all men do, he lives in a sordid little world.
.
Invar posted up thread 60 percent of pastors admit to viewing porn on a regular basis and my stats shoed 77 percent of Christian men admit to it. Keep your head in the sand.
@musiclady
-
@DiogenesLamp
I was at another site when I saw pics from the Folsom Street Fair, and there were things I didn't expect, including men drinking each other's urine. With respect to you, I don't care to revisit any of it.
It isn't us that needs to see the evidence of "gay" culture. It is those who defend it that need to see what it is that they think they wish to defend.
-
One of the things my friend told me about his trip to the Rainbow Farm was the guy in an outdoor bathtub with guys peeing on him.
And this is the stuff they aren't afraid to show the world. I think it is a safe bet that the depravity extends well beyond what they are willing to show in public.
-
It isn't us that needs to see the evidence of "gay" culture. It is those who defend it that need to see what it is that they think they wish to defend.
They have assured us they are very knowledgeable.
-
It isn't us that needs to see the evidence of "gay" culture. It is those who defend it that need to see what it is that they think they wish to defend.
No one here is defending that crap. Every gay person I know hates it. If you think only gays pee in each other's mouths I have some news for you. The weirdest of gay kooks heads to sf and is not representative of the entire gay world.
@DiogenesLamp
-
.
Invar posted up thread 60 percent of pastors admit to viewing porn on a regular basis and my stats shoed 77 percent of Christian men admit to it. Keep your head in the sand.
The difference is, a majority of those men do not justify the addiction or think porn is a-okay. A good majority of them struggle with it, having been poisoned with exposure to it and would prefer not to have their proclivities to watching it necessary to get them off. Like any addiction - it takes more viewing and often more exposure to heinous and bizarre sex acts for them to achieve orgasm. A huge amount of shame darkens their walk, and some give up on God, and/or lose their marriages because of their inability to overcome the problem. Oftentimes what some men watch, they need their spouses to mimic in order for a healthy sex life to take place between them. And sometimes the things they watch - takes them directly into seeking out and performing the behavior they are watching.
-
.
Invar posted up thread 60 percent of pastors admit to viewing porn on a regular basis and my stats shoed 77 percent of Christian men admit to it. Keep your head in the sand.
@musiclady
Wasn't that admit to having seen it?
Besides, among Christian men, define "porn".
Is that 'soft' porn, hard core, XXX, kiddie porn, gay porn, Lesbian porn, orgy porn, animal porn, snuff flicks, what exactly are you calling 'porn'?
For some people, nekkid calves (lower human leg) are a turn on and 'porn'. In some cultures, apparently a low neckline and mid thigh dress are an invitation to be raped.
Playboy? Maxim? GQ? MTV? Do those count?
-
I'm guessing here that you've been divorced.
Your guess is correct. Now, back to that equal protection question. Please show how California's marriage law violates equal protection. You keep indicating that equal protection is the constitutional basis for tyranny. So let's hear it. How did state law violate equal protection?
At this point, it has become an issue of integrity. In order to salvage any, you could simply admit that your repeated assertion was baseless and refrain from offering it again. Or an alternative would be to abandon integrity entirely and cling to the lie, repeating it again and again and again while pretending to be immune from the consequences of it. Your call.
-
Wasn't that admit to having seen it?
Besides, among Christian men, define "porn".
Is that 'soft' porn, hard core, XXX, kiddie porn, gay porn, Lesbian porn, orgy porn, animal porn, snuff flicks, what exactly are you calling 'porn'?
For some people, nekkid calves (lower human leg) are a turn on and 'porn'. In some cultures, apparently a low neckline and mid thigh dress are an invitation to be raped.
Playboy? Maxim? GQ? MTV? Do those count?
Wow really pulling straws here. I think we all know whatvporn they were viewing and I don't think it was Maxim style of stuff
-
The difference is, a majority of those men do not justify the addiction or think porn is a-okay. A good majority of them struggle with it, having been poisoned with exposure to it and would prefer not to have their proclivities to watching it necessary to get them off. Like any addiction - it takes more viewing and often more exposure to heinous and bizarre sex acts for them to achieve orgasm. A huge amount of shame darkens their walk, and some give up on God, and/or lose their marriages because of their inability to overcome the problem. Oftentimes what some men watch, they need their spouses to mimic in order for a healthy sex life to take place between them. And sometimes the things they watch - takes them directly into seeking out and performing the behavior they are watching.
It ruins lives. It destroys marriages. And it destroys men.
Decent men who struggle with it are desperate to get free from its addiction and the ruination of their lives. Decent men understand that it degrades women and makes us no more than objects without dignity.
And yet this fellow continues his crusade on this forum to belittle men who are winning the fight, or never succumb to the filth in the first place, and considers himself cool and the rest of us idiots because we don't see life through his dark and ugly lenses, and continues to tout the degradation of women.
I feel sorry for him. He's pathetic.
-
No one here is defending that crap. Every gay person I know hates it. If you think only gays pee in each other's mouths I have some news for you. The weirdest of gay kooks heads to sf and is not representative of the entire gay world.
@DiogenesLamp
San Fransisco may not represent the image that most gays want to project, but it is what happens when this "lifestyle" is allowed to blossom into full flower. This behavior is not limited to just San Fransisco. I've seen reports of the same sort of debauchery taking place in Boston and New York.
I believe it would be worse still if they thought society would tolerate it. If the bible can be believed, when there is no authority to stop them, Homosexuals appear to have no problems with the idea of raping male travelers.
Both the Sodom and Gomorrah incident as well as the City of Benjamin incident (battle of Gibeah) are examples of Homosexuals trying to rape newly arrived males.
In both cases it resulted in their cities and everyone living in them being destroyed.
-
Wasn't that admit to having seen it?
Besides, among Christian men, define "porn".
Is that 'soft' porn, hard core, XXX, kiddie porn, gay porn, Lesbian porn, orgy porn, animal porn, snuff flicks, what exactly are you calling 'porn'?
For some people, nekkid calves (lower human leg) are a turn on and 'porn'. In some cultures, apparently a low neckline and mid thigh dress are an invitation to be raped.
Playboy? Maxim? GQ? MTV? Do those count?
He thinks I'm naïve because I don't agree with his sordid worldview. He thinks every man on this forum is stupid or lying if they don't agree with his distorted perception of right and wrong.
But more importantly, he thinks that degrading and using women is just fine, and spends a significant amount of his time on this forum bragging about how perverse men are, and how perverse he is.
I wonder if he has the "courage" to belittle women to their faces or if he only degrades us because he's protected by his anonymity.
-
It ruins lives. It destroys marriages. And it destroys men.
Decent men who struggle with it are desperate to get free from its addiction and the ruination of their lives. Decent men understand that it degrades women and makes us no more than objects without dignity.
Preach it!
-
Wow really pulling straws here. I think we all know whatvporn they were viewing and I don't think it was Maxim style of stuff
You see, there is a fundamental difference between you and I. I wouldn't claim to know what anyone else was doing if I couldn't see, at a minimum, what they were doing.
You, otoh, are telling me what 77% of christian males surveyed saw.
The issue of defining obscenity has been a problem, and porn would be, too. I don't know what they saw. I guess I'm just not as smart as you. But I am in good company:
In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced... but I know it when I see it ..."
This quote, and the intent behind it, is well known as summarizing the irony and difficulty in trying to define obscenity. For at least fifty years, the Supreme Court has been struggling with defining what speech is "obscene".
It is surprising that the difficulty in defining obscenity in our history did not fully begin until the mid-1900s. Supreme Court Justice Brennan, who served from 1956 to 1990, who was one of the great, and often liberal, legal minds of the 20th century, attempted repeatedly to define obscenity. The task was much more daunting than he had anticipated.
- See more at: http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/movie-day-at-the-supreme-court-or-i-know-it-when-i-see-it-a.html#sthash.ykqkG6WR.dpuf (http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/movie-day-at-the-supreme-court-or-i-know-it-when-i-see-it-a.html#sthash.ykqkG6WR.dpuf)
Now, I know the definition of what was considered the threshold for 'porn' was a fairly low bar in the sixties and seventies, many movies which have been since shown on television were rated 'X'. I don't know when these alleged 77% viewed what they considered "porn", nor do I pretend to know what they considered "porn" at that time. Sure, there is a level where everyone would generally agree that isn't a film they want to watch with their grandmother, but would what was porn then be porn now, or just a modest ad for ladies underwear?
-
It ruins lives. It destroys marriages. And it destroys men.
Decent men who struggle with it are desperate to get free from its addiction and the ruination of their lives. Decent men understand that it degrades women and makes us no more than objects without dignity.
And yet this fellow continues his crusade on this forum to belittle men who are winning the fight, or never succumb to the filth in the first place, and considers himself cool and the rest of us idiots because we don't see life through his dark and ugly lenses, and continues to tout the degradation of women.
I feel sorry for him. He's pathetic.
You are a hoot. You are changing the subject. You said majority of men do not view porn and I showed you stats otherwise. The stats for non Christian men is over 90 percent if I recall.
Where did I say porn wasn't bad. I said up thread many men have problems with it but most who view it don't. Numerous men have said in studies they used porn rather than adultery or divorce. That is a fact.
Speak to a marriage counselor who isn't a feminist and they will tell you what is breaking up marriages and it is not porn. Porn is not even in the top ten reasons for divorce.
@musiclady
-
Adultery and infidelity are what's immoral. If porn can allow a man to keep his vows, what's the harm?
If you did it in your mind, you did it. That IS adultery. It dishonors your wife, and diminishes the act.
-
.
Invar posted up thread 60 percent of pastors admit to viewing porn on a regular basis and my stats shoed 77 percent of Christian men admit to it. Keep your head in the sand.
@musiclady
This I already addressed in one of my posts when I said that the church is full of people who are broken and hiding. But I'm curious. The argument here seems like there are other sinners so homosexual sin is OK? No, no sexual sin is OK.
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."
Ephesians 5:31
Run away from sexual immorality [in any form, whether thought or behavior, whether visual or written]. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the one who is sexually immoral sins against his own body.
1 Corinthians 6:18 AMP
A church should preach the truth about all sins. All sinners are welcome.
I saw a sign on a Lutheran church today. It was a rainbow sign saying God loves all people no exceptions. That is the truth. God loves all people and they should be welcome in all churches. That after all is the reason for church to save sinners. I wondered though whether it meant they would never hear the truth in Gods Word about sin? If so they are merely a social meeting place on Sunday mornings.
If a church refuses to teach on one sin they will refuse to teach on many. Either their church leaders are sinning themselves or they are afraid of loosing people who may be offended by God's Word. If the church refuses to preach on sin I guess that would make Jesus irrelevant. No need for the blood he shed which breaks sin and death. The Bible is clear that you cannot continue to sin. Sexual sin of any kind is a sin against your own body which is the Temple of God. Sexual sin, Pornography, homosexuality, infidelity..etc., is a sin against your own body and if you are married it is a sin against your wife. Being that you have been joined and are one flesh. You cannot continue to defile it. And if you are saved you will know when you are sinning.
No person should ever feel comfortable in their sin.
-
Unless Kennedy retires, it seems futile.
It will take a couple of years to file a lawsuit and make it through the courts so... maybe there is time
-
Your guess is correct. Now, back to that equal protection question. Please show how California's marriage law violates equal protection. You keep indicating that equal protection is the constitutional basis for tyranny. So let's hear it. How did state law violate equal protection?
At this point, it has become an issue of integrity. In order to salvage any, you could simply admit that your repeated assertion was baseless and refrain from offering it again. Or an alternative would be to abandon integrity entirely and cling to the lie, repeating it again and again and again while pretending to be immune from the consequences of it. Your call.
A puppy keeps peeing on my leg. Fine, you answered my question, so I'll answer yours. You do know, don't you, that I wasn't "lying" about equal protection but merely stating the basis upon which the SCOTUS (in Obergefell ) ruled?
Okay, here's the basic deal. Bob and Joe get married in Maryland, where same sex marriage is legal. They later move to Ohio, where their marriage isn't recognized. Meanwhile, I get married in Maryland too, and later move to Ohio. Ohio recognizes my marriage.
Ohio, like most states, imposes an inheritance tax, but waives the tax if one gives their wealth to their spouse. Bob and I both die, and leave our estates to our spouses. But Joe, Bob's spouse, is stuck paying an inheritance tax while my spouse pays nothing.
See, Ohio can't have it both ways. It can apply its inheritance tax waiver with respect to all spouses, if it wants as a matter of public policy to provide a break for married couples and their families. Or it can repeal its inheritance tax waiver and force all spouses to pay the tax. But what it can't do is treat Bob's spouse differently than it treats mine. We were both lawfully married in the United States, and the Constitution guarantees my, and Bob's, natural right to travel and establish our households in any state in the Union we choose - Ohio included. But Bob and his spouse must pay a tax for making such a choice whereas me and my spouse do not.
That's an arbitrary denial of the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection. That's unConstitutional.
-
If you did it in your mind, you did it. That IS adultery. It dishonors your wife, and diminishes the act.
Merely thinking about sex is not adultery. Let's not cheapen the sin, shall we?
Masturbation as an alternative to cheating on one's spouse is not adultery. Let's not cheapen the sin, shall we?
-
A puppy keeps peeing on my leg. Fine, you answered my question, so I'll answer yours. You do know, don't you, that I wasn't "lying" about equal protection but merely stating the basis upon which the SCOTUS (in Obergefell ) ruled?
Okay, here's the basic deal. Bob and Joe get married in Maryland, where same sex marriage is legal. They later move to Ohio, where their marriage isn't recognized. Meanwhile, I get married in Maryland too, and later move to Ohio. Ohio recognizes my marriage.
Ohio, like most states, imposes an inheritance tax, but waives the tax if one gives their wealth to their spouse. Bob and I both die, and leave our estates to our spouses. But Joe, Bob's spouse, is stuck paying an inheritance tax while my spouse pays nothing.
That's an arbitrary denial of the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection. That's unConstitutional.
All that is different is that in Ohio, Joe isn't recognized as Bob's spouse. Therefore, the law does not apply. You are aware, I assume, that in some states marriages between a man and a woman which would be legal in other states are not considered valid? SIL and husband married in Reno. SIL died, but the wedding is not recognized in ND. The fight over the estate is still going on two years later. There's a trucking business involved and one of the kids wants it.
If that is a problem, it should be researched beforehand. If I take my legally licensed North Dakota vehicle to California, they might not register it in California because the emissions standards are different. It won't be recognized as a legal vehicle there. Just one more reason not to move to California, imho, but a consideration. A common law marriage in one state might not be recognized in another, either. The same goes for marriage among first cousins (yes, some states permit this, others do not and consider it incest and prosecutable).
So in matters of estate planning, maybe the Bob and Joe of your example should have stayed some place that was more amenable to their relationship instead of imposing their idea of what is a valid marriage on millions of other people instead of doing a little estate planning.
-
That's an arbitrary denial of the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection. That's unConstitutional.
So screw the 10th Amendment when it comes to demanding each state permit aberrant behavior to be celebrated, practiced and accepted.
Merely thinking about sex is not adultery. Let's not cheapen the sin, shall we?
You are an amazing blasphemer who claims to be Christian but spits in His Face each time you post with demonic logic. Thinking about sex with someone other than your wife or husband IS adultery according to Jesus Himself:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a person lustfully has already committed adultery with them in his heart." Matthew 5:28
-
Merely thinking about sex is not adultery. Let's not cheapen the sin, shall we?
Masturbation as an alternative to cheating on one's spouse is not adultery. Let's not cheapen the sin, shall we?
Matthew 5:28 ESV
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
If you're choking your chicken and not thinking of a woman (or whatever turns your crank), not even for a second, chances are your arm is going to get tired long before you get any results. Be honest for a change. The successful wanker is going to be envisioning some sort of sexual event beyond what they are doing, unless they get all hot and bothered looking at their hand.
So, wrong. Thanks for playing.
-
It isn't us that needs to see the evidence of "gay" culture. It is those who defend it that need to see what it is that they think they wish to defend.
No one here is defending promiscuity. Heck, as I've said before, I support gay marriage because it provides a respectable alternative to promiscuity. You want to push gays back into the shadows, where responsible behavior isn't rewarded or respected, and instant gratification rules. You want gay men to marry straight women, and deny their wives a lifetime of gratification.
This Christian absolutist condemnation of homosexuality encourages all sorts of pathological behaviors. See, folks are who they are. No one chooses to be gay - God does that. But His church demands that those of His children who are gay must either deny themselves any outlet for sexual gratification or social respectability, or else deliberately deceive an innocent person. In the most tragic cases, this conflict between God's alleged "demands" for self-denial and one's God-given nature leads to suicide. Happens all the time.
That's sick. What do you think lies behind the recent scandals in the Catholic church? What's the one respectable occupation where celibacy is a requirement? The priesthood - no wonder it attracts closeted gays. But after decades of denial, the pain and temptation prove too much.
The Church should be concerned with encouraging folks to do the right thing - to be honest, faithful and true - not to aspire to unattainable self-denial. The last few pages of this thread have included statements that a "moral" Christian cannot masturbate nor even think about sex - and must remain faithful to their spouse for a lifetime. How many of the Bible thumpers here have been divorced? Certainly Hoodat and txradioguy. What about you INVAR? Others care to admit the truth about themselves?
I've been having these debates with Christians for years on the internet. I'm on the good-works side of the fence - I think the basic Christian idea that all sins are washed clean so long as you repent is a racket. It's not that easy. Walk the walk, don't just talk the talk. Stay married, and if you need to watch some porn to keep from cheating when your spouse isn't in the mood, or is post-menopausal, then do that rather than cheat, and end up in divorce.
We've all sinned, and we should all strive to be better people. All I'm saying is that the Church should help us to be better and more joyous human beings, not saddle us with crushing guilt and fear.
-
Preach it!
One of the filthy facts about pornography being ignored by our pro-porn crusader here, is that there is a direct...... a DIRECT..... correlation between girls who have been the victims of sex trafficking and pornography.
The truth is that many of the women degraded and abused in the porn (that is supposedly innocent??) have been the sex slaves of evil men and have been forced to be in the movies that some poor fellows need to satisfy their desires.
The idea that MY head is in the sand because I understand that porn ruins lives, and that it degrades women, and that there are many men who do not give in to this particular sin is just idiotic.
Our daughter has dedicated her life to helping and ministering to women who have been trafficked, and are victims of sex abuse. This is not a laughing matter, and the facts are staggering.
But I guess the boy with his head in the sand doesn't care about facts.......... or women.
-
Merely thinking about sex is not adultery. Let's not cheapen the sin, shall we?
Is that seriously what you think Jesus did when He told us that? You think that the One who died an excruciating death on a Cross to atone for OUR sins........yours and mine, "cheapened" it by telling us exactly that?
Wow.
-
A puppy keeps peeing on my leg. Fine, you answered my question, so I'll answer yours. You do know, don't you, that I wasn't "lying" about equal protection but merely stating the basis upon which the SCOTUS (in Obergefell ) ruled?
The Obergefell court failed utterly in citing where equal protection had been denied or violated by Michigan, Tennessee, Ohio, and Kentucky marriage laws. Which is why I asked you. Furthermore, your claim of 'equal protection' was in reference to the Constitution itself - not Obergefell. Care to try again?
Okay, here's the basic deal. Bob and Joe get married in Maryland, where same sex marriage is legal. They later move to Ohio, where their marriage isn't recognized. Meanwhile, I get married in Maryland too, and later move to Ohio. Ohio recognizes my marriage.
Maryland recognizes my right to purchase beer on Sunday while Alabama does not. By your reasoning, Alabama's beer law is unconstitutional.
Likewise by your reasoning, let's say Utah decides to legalize polygamy. Then if I marry twins in Utah that then move to Ohio, according to you, Ohio's prohibition against polygamy then becomes unconstitutional.
Ohio, like most states, imposes an inheritance tax, but waives the tax if one gives their wealth to their spouse. Bob and I both die, and leave our estates to our spouses. But Joe, Bob's spouse, is stuck paying an inheritance tax while my spouse pays nothing.
Whoa, wait just a minute here. You make allowance for states having different inheritance laws while at the same time declaring it unconstitutional for them to have different marriage laws.
See, Ohio can't have it both ways.
Yet you have no problem doing so yourself.
It can apply its inheritance tax waiver with respect to all spouses, if it wants as a matter of public policy to provide a break for married couples and their families. Or it can repeal its inheritance tax waiver and force all spouses to pay the tax.
Again, this is based upon Ohio law. Either both laws are allowed or neither is allowed. You don't get to pick and choose, declaring one invalid based solely upon the validity of the other.
But what it can't do is treat Bob's spouse differently than it treats mine.
Bob's 'spouse' isn't a spouse under Ohio law. If Bob wants to live under Maryland law, then he should stay in Maryland. Because there is zero Constitutional basis for imposing Maryland law on any other state. None. Zip. Nada.
That's an arbitrary denial of the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection. That's unConstitutional.
Funny how the reverse isn't true. I mean by your reasoning, isn't it the state of Maryland that is in error here by not enforcing Ohio law? Come to think of it, Massachusetts' bans on firearms is unconstitutional because South Carolina allows them. And Illinois' allowance of third-trimester abortions is unconstitutional because Mississippi bans them. This is your definition of 'Equal protection', right?
In your argument, you cited inheritance laws not being equally applied. But nowhere did you indicate where equal protection was being denied in the marriage law itself.
-
No one here is defending promiscuity. Heck, as I've said before, I support gay marriage because it provides a respectable alternative to promiscuity. You want to push gays back into the shadows, where responsible behavior isn't rewarded or respected, and instant gratification rules. You want gay men to marry straight women, and deny their wives a lifetime of gratification.
Wow. So many false dichotomies, so few words. And, as all relationships have proven, especially in the last few decades, a piece of paper does nothing to guarantee fidelity. The actions of the 'gay community' are not what I would call 'responsible' nor 'respectable', by any metric. While there may be individuals within that group who do behave responsible and respectably, at least in public, there is a conspicuous component which is neither, and glories in that fact.
I wouldn't wish a 'gay' husband on any 'straight' woman. Why would I want her in a relationship doomed to failure and misery from the onset? Again, that would not stop him from buggering around, either, but it might expose her to diseases she wouldn't be likely to catch otherwise (along with over 1.3 million dead people walking, and counting.)
This Christian absolutist condemnation of homosexuality encourages all sorts of pathological behaviors.
I condemn murder, I condemn theft, I condemn child molestation, for a short but not all inclusive (by any means) list of things I condemn. They are condemned in scripture as well, but my condemnation of those things does not make anyone else do them. Put the cart back on the correct end of the horse and quit the ridiculous falsehood.
-
See, folks are who they are. No one chooses to be gay - God does that.
And by your demonic application of logic , no one chooses to be a rapist, or a thief, or a liar, or an adulterer either. Had those been your pet causes as homosexual behavior is, you would be blaming those behaviors on God too. God has no part with evil, yet you - being the Accuser, attributes sinful behavior to God.
How many of the Bible thumpers here have been divorced? Certainly Hoodat and txradioguy. What about you INVAR? Others care to admit the truth about themselves?
Happily married 31 years, never been divorced.
I think the basic Christian idea that all sins are washed clean so long as you repent is a racket.
So you are not a Christian at all then considering the fact you think the blood of Christ poured out for sin is a 'racket'. But, like the liar you are when it comes to deceiving others by insisting you are a Conservative, you lie to the board to suggest you are a Christian as well.
I'm on the good-works side of the fence
No you're not. You are on the promoting of evil and wickedness side of the fence as 'good works', which according to scripture is not gong to earn you salvation. Whatever god it is you worship, it isn't the one revealed in the pages of the Bible, that is for certain.
-
And by your demonic application of logic , no one chooses to be a rapist, or a thief, or a liar, or an adulterer either. Had those been your pet causes as homosexual behavior is, you would be blaming those behaviors on God too. God has no part with evil, yet you - being the Accuser, attributes sinful behavior to God.
You speak of behavior. Behavior isn't the fault of God. But one's sexual orientation - that's inborn. My position is that a person can be faithful, honest, obedient and true - and be married to one's same sex partner. Your position is all that counts for nothing.
Happily married 31 years, never been divorced.
Congratulations. I admire you for that.
So you are not a Christian at all then considering the fact you think the blood of Christ poured out for sin is a 'racket'.
I'm saying that sin being washed clean by prayerful repentance is too easy. You need to have good works too. Walk the walk, not just talk the talk. I know you disagree - I've been having this debate on the internet for years.
Put it another way: Your position is one of hubris - you know without doubt that you are saved. Mine is one of humility - I know without doubt that I am unworthy, and throw myself on His mercy.
-
Isn't genetics inborn or hormones? I believe the latest scientific study is homosexulality are cause by epi markers. I personally believe it it is is caused by a hormonal/chemical regulation problem while in the womb. Most gay people I have known I knew they were different at a very early age . My classmates just discussed the passing of one of our gay classmates (heart attack, not Aids) on FB and we knew he was different/a was a "sissy" in kindergarten.
None of the 4-5 gay people I know well were ever abused.
@driftdiver
Perhaps a small percentage of gays fit this. Others are abused or suffer some kind of traumatic experience. For others its the influence of others during their formative period. Take a weak or vulnerable person and add drugs or alcohol and when another person trys something they are more likely to go with it. Add it that it feels good and they get the positive reinforcement of "social acceptance" and thats how you recruit.
I know several lesbians who switched after a bad marriage or breakup with a guy.
-
Bizarre accusation. I haven't used the word "gay" on this thread because I don't use it.
I'm a choral singer who loves madrigals, and you can't sing half of them because of the hijacking of the word to mean what it doesn't even come close to meaning. The left steals our vocabulary and distorts it, and this is but one example of their theft.
But thanks for getting back on topic and leaving your hijack behind. :beer:
Eh, you would not stand being corrected for mis-characterizing a War's beginnings, so I get back on topic by going after the corruption of a word in the English language that actually has something to do with this thread.
I never said you did it. Where did you read that?
-
My position is that a person can be faithful, honest, obedient and true - and be married to one's same sex partner. Your position is all that counts for nothing.
In theory, you can shoot a .22 bullet into a tin cup at a mile, too. It is highly unlikely, but not beyond the realm of the possible, so a person can be honest, faithful, obedient, and true (even without sexual contact).
But you assume that two people of the same sex can be "married", and there we're back to the definition of 'marriage' and a problem.
When 'marriage' has been defined for millennia as one woman and one man, even in the cases of concurrency in some cultures, that definition still holds. Not one man, one camel, or one man one horse, nor one man and another man, but one woman and one man.
Yet in 20 years the rest of the world is supposed to redefine 'marriage'. Nope. It isn't, any more than the camel or the horse would be.
-
You see, there is a fundamental difference between you and I. I wouldn't claim to know what anyone else was doing if I couldn't see, at a minimum, what they were doing.
You, otoh, are telling me what 77% of christian males surveyed saw.
The issue of defining obscenity has been a problem, and porn would be, too. I don't know what they saw. I guess I'm just not as smart as you. But I am in good company:
Now, I know the definition of what was considered the threshold for 'porn' was a fairly low bar in the sixties and seventies, many movies which have been since shown on television were rated 'X'. I don't know when these alleged 77% viewed what they considered "porn", nor do I pretend to know what they considered "porn" at that time. Sure, there is a level where everyone would generally agree that isn't a film they want to watch with their grandmother, but would what was porn then be porn now, or just a modest ad for ladies underwear?
Way back when, this kid growing up believed opening the Sears catalog to the lingerie section was "porn".
-
Way back when, this kid growing up believed opening the Sears catalog to the lingerie section was "porn".
As did many others... :whistle:
-
Way back when, this kid growing up believed opening the Sears catalog to the lingerie section was "porn".
Heck go to the local mall. Here Victorias Secret has 15 foot tall posters of women in their underwear right on the food court. Much more provocative then Sears ever had.
-
Perhaps a small percentage of gays fit this. Others are abused or suffer some kind of traumatic experience. For others its the influence of others during their formative period. Take a weak or vulnerable person and add drugs or alcohol and when another person trys something they are more likely to go with it. Add it that it feels good and they get the positive reinforcement of "social acceptance" and thats how you recruit.
I know several lesbians who switched after a bad marriage or breakup with a guy.
Wrong. No gays are created by God. They have tried this with many other things also. Its in the genes. Obesity, Alcoholism, drug addiction.
Many public schools have councilors who are gay for just that purpose. To spot the loners. The ones who don't fit in. Boys who may be sensitive or don't like sports. If I child wants to play with girls instead of boys.............etc. Parents who think my child likes to cook instead of throw mud balls, he must be gay!
I was always a tomboy type of girl. Loved to get dirty and play soccer with the boys. I still like to wear guys clothes to work. Big baggy shirts for the warehouse in the winter. They are comfortable. I am not gay.
We all make our own choices when we become old enough to begin sinning. I know that my brother who is gay grew up without his father paying attention to him. I cannot know exactly what put him there. But he wasn't born gay. It was the same for him that it was for me. All of the attention was spent on our older siblings. My father spent a lot of time away from home. My mother was sick.
-
But one's sexual orientation - that's inborn.
Horseshit. That is LEARNED Behavior.
When I was little, I had an orientation to take things that were not mine. That was an inborn desire and impulse. I had to be corrected of that behavior.
You gonna take the side of Pedophiles too, whom will tell you that their 'orientation' of sex with children is inborn? Of course you will. You are a Promoter of Deviancy and wickedness. You simply will not showcase yourself to be in favor of that now - because it is still repugnant to the majority, but once that sickening behavior is 'normalized' via the courts, we fully expect you to be their primary crusader with the same exact garbage excuses and logic that you employ for homosexual behavior.
My position is that a person can be faithful, honest, obedient and true - and be married to one's same sex partner. Your position is all that counts for nothing.
Boy are you in for a surprise on Judgment Day.
I'm saying that sin being washed clean by prayerful repentance is too easy. You need to have good works too. Walk the walk, not just talk the talk. I know you disagree - I've been having this debate on the internet for years.
Yeah, it's called OVERCOMING. Faith without works is dead. But you are promoting DEAD WORKS, SIN as some kind of Godly virtue when it is abhorrent of God and earns you eternal death for practicing and promoting.
Put it another way: Your position is one of hubris - you know without doubt that you are saved. Mine is one of humility - I know without doubt that I am unworthy, and throw myself on His mercy.
That's a start. But if you throw yourself on HIS mercy - why do you refuse to do as HE says, and instead insist you your own way and justify that which He says is wicked?
“So why do you keep calling me ‘Lord, Lord!’ when you don’t do what I say? I will show you what it’s like when someone comes to me, listens to my teaching, and then follows it. It is like a person building a house who digs deep and lays the foundation on solid rock. When the floodwaters rise and break against that house, it stands firm because it is well built. But anyone who hears and doesn’t obey is like a person who builds a house without a foundation. When the floods sweep down against that house, it will collapse into a heap of ruins.” - Luke 6:46-48
“‘This people honors me with their lips but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” - Matthew 15:8-9
-
Perhaps a small percentage of gays fit this. Others are abused or suffer some kind of traumatic experience. For others its the influence of others during their formative period. Take a weak or vulnerable person and add drugs or alcohol and when another person trys something they are more likely to go with it. Add it that it feels good and they get the positive reinforcement of "social acceptance" and thats how you recruit.
I know several lesbians who switched after a bad marriage or breakup with a guy.
I recognized it when they started trying to manipulate us in sex ed classes when I was in middle school. At a time when kids are most insecure and seeking acceptance they told us that all normal boys and girls have homosexual thoughts and feelings. They miscalculated with us. We were rural kids and already pretty secure in who we were so we recognized the lie for what it was.
Interestingly enough, it was around that time that they started with the great witch hunt for child molestation rings in churches (Primarily Baptist). The tiny little town I live in was where one of the biggest cases where some 25 children under 10 years old were taken from their homes to live with foster families. The whole case collapsed when it emerged that the children were being coached to testify against their parents and other church members.
The love of deviancy and a hate for Christianity go hand in hand and we can always spot the progressive infection among us because of that partnership.
-
You are a hoot. You are changing the subject. You said majority of men do not view porn and I showed you stats otherwise. The stats for non Christian men is over 90 percent if I recall.
Where did I say porn wasn't bad. I said up thread many men have problems with it but most who view it don't. Numerous men have said in studies they used porn rather than adultery or divorce. That is a fact.
Speak to a marriage counselor who isn't a feminist and they will tell you what is breaking up marriages and it is not porn. Porn is not even in the top ten reasons for divorce.
@musiclady
You know, @mirraflake - you get your kicks by calling me a liar (when I haven't lied about a single thing), but then you claim I said the majority of men don't view porn when I never said anything of the sort. I said there are many who don't. Your "stats' don't prove me wrong. They actually prove me right.
Your initial argument in your stupid thread was that there weren't any men who didn't view porn. All I have ever said is that there are many men who don't give in to porn (including my husband, whom you vilely accused), who choose NOT to degrade women as you do, and who strive to live Godly lives.
Your defense of the use of porn is a defense of sex trafficking and degradation of women. (They are connected) It is YOU who are ignorant and choose to ignore, or have never even bothered to find out the FACTS about pornography, and the damage it causes to men who use it, to their wives, and to their families........ not to mention the victims of sex slavery who 'star' in many of the porn films you defend.
But do go on and keep your head deep in the sand and defend its use to your heart's delight if it makes you feel superior, or manly, or whatever the heck you do this for.......
@mirraflake
Last post to you.
-
Eh, you would not stand being corrected for mis-characterizing a War's beginnings, so I get back on topic by going after the corruption of a word in the English language that actually has something to do with this thread.
I never said you did it. Where did you read that?
What I "would not stand for" is this thread being turned into a ceaseless argument about a war that took place a hundred and fifty years ago when my ancestors were happily living in Sweden.
That's all I was doing. I have NO idea what you were/are doing......
But I will say this. I'm glad the North won because I wouldn't want all my wonderful southern friends living in a different country than I do.
Peace, Johnny Reb! :patriot:
-
Merely thinking about sex is not adultery. Let's not cheapen the sin, shall we?
Masturbation as an alternative to cheating on one's spouse is not adultery. Let's not cheapen the sin, shall we?
That isn't cheapening the sin. It shows how vile the act is, that the mere thought of it is sin - And that is according to Yeshua. If you think about doing it, you've already done it. And he's right. In your mind, you just degraded some woman, and dishonored your own wife.
As to masturbation, our sex-crazed culture has generated a new malady, where men are so fixated on pleasing themselves and feeding their obsession, that they are incapable of actually performing the act with a real woman anymore.
That isn't what it's for.
-
The truth is that many of the women degraded and abused in the porn (that is supposedly innocent??) have been the sex slaves of evil men and have been forced to be in the movies that some poor fellows need to satisfy their desires.
@musiclady
It isn't always that drastic - there are plenty of women with morals loose enough to partcipate... In just about anything.
But that does not change the fact that the centerfold or that stripper in the bar, is somebody's daughter... Someone's grandchild. She is not only degrading herself.
That is what spoiled all my fun. What I see is somebody's pitiful, misguided daughter. That cannot turn me on.
-
@musiclady
It isn't always that drastic - there are plenty of women with morals loose enough to partcipate... In just about anything.
But that does not change the fact that the centerfold or that stripper in the bar, is somebody's daughter... Someone's grandchild. She is not only degrading herself.
That is what spoiled all my fun. What I see is somebody's pitiful, misguided daughter. That cannot turn me on.
Absolutely. There are women who are immoral enough to do porn on their own, but many, many, many have either been abused as young girls or trafficked and sold (as early as 5 or 6, and sometimes by their families), and when they get older they feel they have no other options.
My point (with which I'm sure you agree) is that pornography degrades women, whether they choose to degrade themselves, or they are trapped and owned by pimps who force them into pornography.
And I fully believe that it diminishes, entraps and emasculates the men who view it.
btw, since this is a thread about NC's wise decision to restore their ban on same-sex "marriage" I will reiterate my support of a state making laws suitable for their particular state without interference from the federal government.
-
Horseshit. That is LEARNED Behavior.
When I was little, I had an orientation to take things that were not mine. That was an inborn desire and impulse. I had to be corrected of that behavior.
You gonna take the side of Pedophiles too, whom will tell you that their 'orientation' of sex with children is inborn? Of course you will. You are a Promoter of Deviancy and wickedness. You simply will not showcase yourself to be in favor of that now - because it is still repugnant to the majority, but once that sickening behavior is 'normalized' via the courts, we fully expect you to be their primary crusader with the same exact garbage excuses and logic that you employ for homosexual behavior.
Boy are you in for a surprise on Judgment Day.
Yeah, it's called OVERCOMING. Faith without works is dead. But you are promoting DEAD WORKS, SIN as some kind of Godly virtue when it is abhorrent of God and earns you eternal death for practicing and promoting.
That's a start. But if you throw yourself on HIS mercy - why do you refuse to do as HE says, and instead insist you your own way and justify that which He says is wicked?
“So why do you keep calling me ‘Lord, Lord!’ when you don’t do what I say? I will show you what it’s like when someone comes to me, listens to my teaching, and then follows it. It is like a person building a house who digs deep and lays the foundation on solid rock. When the floodwaters rise and break against that house, it stands firm because it is well built. But anyone who hears and doesn’t obey is like a person who builds a house without a foundation. When the floods sweep down against that house, it will collapse into a heap of ruins.” - Luke 6:46-48
“‘This people honors me with their lips but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” - Matthew 15:8-9
Exactly these are learned behaviors. Gays are manipulated by many experiences. I know a lesbian who changed her identity after abuse by boyfriend. Boys who were abused or lacked father attention. Bullying at school. It is most likely they seek people who have had the same bad experiences that they had. Schools now look to make children gay. My kids were conditioned in school to think homosexuality is perfectly acceptable and that all forms of sex are good.
-
What I "would not stand for" is this thread being turned into a ceaseless argument about a war that took place a hundred and fifty years ago when my ancestors were happily living in Sweden.
That's all I was doing. I have NO idea what you were/are doing......
But I will say this. I'm glad the North won because I wouldn't want all my wonderful southern friends living in a different country than I do.
Peace, Johnny Reb! :patriot:
what I am doing is ensuring history is properly reflected.
When some like you choose to attempt to change history, I will not stand by idly watching.
It is like the liberal agenda: people who do not agree with it and remain silent allows it to grow, hence this thread to not be silent.
Curious, if your ancestors were happy to live in Sweden, why would they come here, anyway?
-
what I am doing is ensuring history is properly reflected.
When some like you choose to attempt to change history, I will not stand by idly watching.
It is like the liberal agenda: people who do not agree with it and remain silent allows it to grow, hence this thread to not be silent.
Curious, if your ancestors were happy to live in Sweden, why would they come here, anyway?
It was my grandparents who came to America and none of them was alive during the war across the ocean that has many names. It was long over by the time they came in the late 19th and early 20th century.
They came for religious and economic freedom.
Now are we done with this silly hijack? Back on topic, eh?? Done with lectures and all that?? **nononono*
-
It was my grandparents who came to America and none of them was alive during the war across the ocean that has many names. It was long over by the time they came in the late 19th and early 20th century.
They came for religious and economic freedom.
Now are we done with this silly hijack? Back on topic, eh?? Done with lectures and all that?? **nononono*
I can see you missed my point entirely concerning correction of agendas.
-
Absolutely. There are women who are immoral enough to do porn on their own, but many, many, many have either been abused as young girls or trafficked and sold (as early as 5 or 6, and sometimes by their families), and when they get older they feel they have no other options.
@musiclady
It is not my intention to diminish your position - I will largely agree. But lest we venture too terribly far down the 'women as victims' path, I would submit that women can, more often than not, walk away from sin - The weight of it will fall upon them... Just as I could have (really at any given moment) walked away from the party lifestyle, and turn toward Life - The weight of my sins, all the way along, fell upon me, regardless of the circumstances that brought me to that path.
That isn't to deny your position - Women are quite probably led into that life, and kept there by addiction. Some no doubt, have been forced into it. But it is the sad, sad truth that in most cases, all it would take to walk away is an ounce of courage and a new pair of Keds.
Many do figure it out later in life, and do walk away. I know, because they are my kind of folks. :)
My point (with which I'm sure you agree) is that pornography degrades women, whether they choose to degrade themselves, or they are trapped and owned by pimps who force them into pornography.
And I fully believe that it diminishes, entraps and emasculates the men who view it.
I concur. Absolutely, I do.
btw, since this is a thread about NC's wise decision to restore their ban on same-sex "marriage" I will reiterate my support of a state making laws suitable for their particular state without interference from the federal government.
Of course. And it should be praised that they had the wherewithal to do it. Would that it becomes a trend.
But I think not... Doom approaches. Baphomet sits where the 10 Commandments once stood, and the influence is so blatant that those who have fallen feel no shame at all. Barring revival (which is my fervent prayer), liberty will (has) become libertine, as the people bow down to demons.
-
I can see you missed my point entirely concerning correction of agendas.
Sheesh brother...... give it up.
-
@musiclady
It is not my intention to diminish your position - I will largely agree. But lest we venture too terribly far down the 'women as victims' path, I would submit that women can, more often than not, walk away from sin - The weight of it will fall upon them... Just as I could have (really at any given moment) walked away from the party lifestyle, and turn toward Life - The weight of my sins, all the way along, fell upon me, regardless of the circumstances that brought me to that path.
That isn't to deny your position - Women are quite probably led into that life, and kept there by addiction. Some no doubt, have been forced into it. But it is the sad, sad truth that in most cases, all it would take to walk away is an ounce of courage and a new pair of Keds.
Many do figure it out later in life, and do walk away. I know, because they are my kind of folks. :)
I concur. Absolutely, I do.
Of course. And it should be praised that they had the wherewithal to do it. Would that it becomes a trend.
But I think not... Doom approaches. Baphomet sits where the 10 Commandments once stood, and the influence is so blatant that those who have fallen feel no shame at all. Barring revival (which is my fervent prayer), liberty will (has) become libertine, as the people bow down to demons.
I know that it wasn't your point to diminish my position, and I accept your caveat that many women do what they do by choice.
But here's a further thought on that.......... when a man is getting off by watching porn, how does he know whether or not the object of his lust was trafficked at 12 and can't get out at 17 or 18, or has chosen a life of degradation? How does one know if she is a victim or a volunteer?
As you said, it's someone's daughter. And some of them have been forced by men to do things that no human being should ever be forced to do (it happens with boys as well, some of whom may be in those same porn films).
I would think that any man with a decent bone in his body would think it through, as you have, and give it up.
Our daughter is working in a Christian organization with women in their 30's who were trafficked as little girls. We have no idea the burdens they bear, and the shackles they would love to get rid of, but are struggling with decades later.
Fortunately, the Christian community has awakened to the reality of what is happening with trafficking, and are picking up the gauntlet and ministering to many of the victims.
But it's a long, hard slog for these ladies and they need our prayer.
(Sorry for the sermon! I know you're on the right side of things, and I'm glad you 'get it.' ^-^)
-
Heck go to the local mall. Here Victorias Secret has 15 foot tall posters of women in their underwear right on the food court. Much more provocative then Sears ever had.
True, that, but in 1965, that would not have happened.
-
But here's a further thought on that.......... when a man is getting off by watching porn, how does he know whether or not the object of his lust was trafficked at 12 and can't get out at 17 or 18, or has chosen a life of degradation? How does one know if she is a victim or a volunteer?
There is such a thing as ethical porn (http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/life/ethical-porn-474913).
-
There is such a thing as ethical porn (http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/life/ethical-porn-474913).
Is it safe for me to click on that link? :pondering:
-
Sure - I'd not do that to you. No pictures, it's from Marie Claire.
Well there is a haeder image, but it's stock photos level safe.
-
I know that it wasn't your point to diminish my position, and I accept your caveat that many women do what they do by choice.
But here's a further thought on that.......... when a man is getting off by watching porn, how does he know whether or not the object of his lust was trafficked at 12 and can't get out at 17 or 18, or has chosen a life of degradation? How does one know if she is a victim or a volunteer?
As you said, it's someone's daughter. And some of them have been forced by men to do things that no human being should ever be forced to do (it happens with boys as well, some of whom may be in those same porn films).
I would think that any man with a decent bone in his body would think it through, as you have, and give it up.
Our daughter is working in a Christian organization with women in their 30's who were trafficked as little girls. We have no idea the burdens they bear, and the shackles they would love to get rid of, but are struggling with decades later.
Fortunately, the Christian community has awakened to the reality of what is happening with trafficking, and are picking up the gauntlet and ministering to many of the victims.
But it's a long, hard slog for these ladies and they need our prayer.
(Sorry for the sermon! I know you're on the right side of things, and I'm glad you 'get it.' ^-^)
I've read that males in porn face worse emotional degradation than the women. They're simply not as important to the business as the females are throwaways who tend to make a very small fraction of what the women make. You could count the true male porn stars through history on one hand.
Male porn stars tend to land in gay porn because it pays better despite being even more degrading. Most of them declare that they aren't gay despite acting in gay porn but in my eyes that makes it a form of rape.
-
Sure - I'd not do that to you. No pictures, it's from Marie Claire.
Well there is a haeder image, but it's stock photos level safe.
Sorry. No sale.
You still don't know the histories of the women and what kind of abuse led them to such low self image that they sell themselves.
At any rate, the fact that there are young women into porn doesn't help the argument that it's a good thing. It's still degrading. It's still sin. It still diminishes what's real and substitutes God-created pleasure with dirty pictures on a screen.
Porn diminishes us all, no matter what popular, liberal culture proclaims it to be.
Just like they have done with homosexual "marriage" they are engaging in a propaganda campaign to make what is evil good, and what is good, evil.
-
No one here is defending promiscuity. Heck, as I've said before, I support gay marriage because it provides a respectable alternative to promiscuity.
This only tells me that you haven't really looked into how "gay marriage" works out in practice. The norm is that they are "swingers", and it is fully expected from both participants that they will have what they call "sex" with other people. Of the millions of male "gays", only a tiny percentage of them want to get "married." Of that tiny percentage who want to pretend to be "married", it is an even tinier percentage that even attempts to practice "monogamy."
The vast bulk of "gay" marriages are "open" marriages. This "monogamy" stuff is mostly just a fairytale in that community.
Go ask your friends (Individually) if they are completely monogamous, or if they are old, if they used to be monogamous. You may get a surprise.
You want to push gays back into the shadows, where responsible behavior isn't rewarded or respected, and instant gratification rules. You want gay men to marry straight women, and deny their wives a lifetime of gratification.
What I want has no relationship to the motives you have imparted to me. What I want is for "normal" to be Normal, and "sick" to remain sick. I want the war on reality to stop. I want society to do those things which will help to make it stable and prosperous, and tolerating homosexuals, abortion, transgenders, drugs, feminism and assorted other dysfunctional practices and ideas, is the exact opposite of a stable and prosperous society.
-
There is such a thing as ethical porn (http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/life/ethical-porn-474913).
I guess it depends on what ethics you use: (from that site)
Yet for the majority of these women, their main concern isn’t about whether enjoying it without bae is a form of cheating. Instead, it’s whether the women in the clips are being treated well, and whether the porn they’re watching is perpetuating sexual stereotypes – basically, whether it’s ‘ethical’ or not.
The primary concern here is whether actors aren't nonconsensually chained and flogged and whether the social justice bias fits? Consider "bae" is a slang acronym for "before anyone else".
-
I've read that males in porn face worse emotional degradation than the women. They're simply not as important to the business as the females are throwaways who tend to make a very small fraction of what the women make. You could count the true male porn stars through history on one hand.
Male porn stars tend to land in gay porn because it pays better despite being even more degrading. Most of them declare that they aren't gay despite acting in gay porn but in my eyes that makes it a form of rape.
It IS a form of rape, and I would venture to say that men do face at least as great an emotional degradation, or more than women.
Little boys who are raped by men (and a few by women) and grow up with no choices in their lives are no less victims than the girls are.
Sin is ugly.
-
How does one know if she is a victim or a volunteer?
TRUE.
As you said, it's someone's daughter. And some of them have been forced by men to do things that no human being should ever be forced to do (it happens with boys as well, some of whom may be in those same porn films).
I would think that any man with a decent bone in his body would think it through, as you have, and give it up.
You give me too much credit. It was the Spirit that whispered that particular thought to me... At a rather inopportune time... The epiphany which followed was mechanical and automatic - Simple logic. I can make no claim upon it.
Our daughter is working in a Christian organization with women in their 30's who were trafficked as little girls. We have no idea the burdens they bear, and the shackles they would love to get rid of, but are struggling with decades later.
Fortunately, the Christian community has awakened to the reality of what is happening with trafficking, and are picking up the gauntlet and ministering to many of the victims.
But it's a long, hard slog for these ladies and they need our prayer.
That explains your emphasis, and accredits your position with inside-knowledge and experience. My BIL is highly sensitive to addictions, and while his ministry comes right out of his own direct experience, his emphasis is likewise laser-centered on that problem. The stories he can tell would curl your hair.
I apologize if I seem less concerned - I am not - My focus is on that path that I once walked down, and that is where I stand my guard. Why they are on that path is of less concern to me than that they are on that path... I know where it goes. I'll do everything I can to pluck them off of it.
(Sorry for the sermon! I know you're on the right side of things, and I'm glad you 'get it.' ^-^)
Not at all sister! Preach it!
-
This only tells me that you haven't really looked into how "gay marriage" works out in practice. The norm is that they are "swingers", and it is fully expected from both participants that they will have what they call "sex" with other people.
You don't know the "norm" anymore than I do. Projecting such conclusions based on anecdotal evidence is fraught with unreliability.
Go ask your friends (Individually) if they are completely monogamous, or if they are old, if they used to be monogamous. You may get a surprise.
I know, or have known, four same sex couples well enough to have an idea of the answer to your question (three male couples and one female couple). I believe in my heart of hearts that each is/was a monogamous relationship, and each lasted/has lasted over 20 years. In the one case, the partner died a long, slow, excruciating death from cancer and her partner stuck with her to the end. (Probably saved a lot of Christian taxpayers a lot of money, I say bitterly. And, yeah, I am estranged from the Church out of bitterness; bitterness at the sort of arbitrary cruelty practiced by those who think they know the mind of God.)
I want society to do those things which will help to make it stable and prosperous, and tolerating homosexuals . . . and assorted other dysfunctional practices and ideas, is the exact opposite of a stable and prosperous society.
May I respectfully request, if only out of a sense of Christian brotherhood and compassion, that you cease thinking of homosexuals as "sick" and "dysfunctional" people and instead as your neighbors, family members or colleagues.
-
True, that, but in 1965, that would not have happened.
It is truly stunning how far we've gone down the drain in the course of my lifetime.
I pine for Mayberry RFD. How anyone can think we have it better now completely escapes me.
-
There is such a thing as ethical porn (http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/life/ethical-porn-474913).
Wow. **nononono*
That article is insane.
-
It is truly stunning how far we've gone down the drain in the course of my lifetime.
I pine for Mayberry RFD. How anyone can think we have it better now completely escapes me.
There was never any Mayberry RFD. That was a TV show, not real life. My neighbors are good neighbors, willing to help out in a pinch, even though in your eyes they're just freaks who are going to hell.
-
It is truly stunning how far we've gone down the drain in the course of my lifetime.
I pine for Mayberry RFD. How anyone can think we have it better now completely escapes me.
Yeah the Mayberry 1965 where blacks had to ride on the back of the bus, use separate restrooms, sit in the back of the movie theatre.
Women had little job opportunities and rarely could escape the daily grind in most cases and very little help to escape a abused spouse.
Religious dogma was so strict a woman thought she would go to hell if she left her worthless husband
Sexual molestation was covered up and hid away. No help for the abused.
No vested pensions laws yet so companies would fire a worker or workers a week before retirement so they did not have to pay out the pension
No air conditioning.
Very little education opportunities beyond HS unless your family came from means.Smart people stuck in dead end manual labor jobs.
1965 Mayberry was not as great as you make it remember.
@roamer_1
-
There was never any Mayberry RFD. That was a TV show, not real life.
You are stone dead wrong. I grew up in a life very akin to Mayberry. And it's getting harder and harder to find.
My neighbors are good neighbors, willing to help out in a pinch, even though in your eyes they're just freaks who are going to hell.
We are ALL freaks who are deserving, if not going to hell. Why are they any different?
-
You are stone dead wrong. I grew up in a life very akin to Mayberry. And it's getting harder and harder to find.
Murder and violence rates today are at mid or early 60's levels. There was no FB or internet back then and powers to be kept it quiet.Anything to do with sex (assualt, rape etc) was never published and kept behind closed doors
I grew up in a small midwestern town. The male grade school teacher at my Catholic school raped and strangled 2 teenage girls at the local park and the came into the school and arrested him-early 70's
No one even heard of this 40 miles away. Today it would be all over the world, most likely on the Daily Mail etc.
I remember my brother askingmy mom about the next door lady why after her husband leaves for work another guy shows up.
This was all 1960's and early 70's
@roamer_1
-
Yeah the Mayberry 1965 where blacks had to ride on the back of the bus, use separate restrooms, sit in the back of the movie theatre.
Oh baloney.
Women had little job opportunities and rarely could escape the daily grind in most cases and very little help to escape a abused spouse.
More baloney - My great aunt, never married, left a 50 flat apartment building to our greater family which has paid for college for everyone who came after me.
Religious dogma was so strict a woman thought she would go to hell if she left her worthless husband
More baloney. No fault divorce is precisely what wrecked the place. The result? poor single-parent women, poor bastard children, poor men destroyed by alimony and child support, and a burgeoning federal government, taxing the crap out of everybody to pay for ever more poor women, bastard children, and destroyed men.
Sexual molestation was covered up and hid away. No help for the abused.
Like there's less of a sex abuse problem today?
No vested pensions laws yet so companies would fire a worker or workers a week before retirement so they did not have to pay out the pension
Right. Now the companies go broke because no one can sustain a pension system where two are retired for every one working. And the pension fund goes to the lawyers.
No air conditioning.
I have never had air conditioning. I take that back - I have a minivan that has it, but the belt to the compressor has been busted for years.
Very little education opportunities beyond HS unless your family came from means.Smart people stuck in dead end manual labor jobs.
My entire family is only high-school educated, until my Great Aunt died, and established a college fund... My sisters and my brother went to college, as did two of my aunts. One of my sons, and probably both of my daughters too... That's it.
Every one of them from my great-grandfather on down are entrepreneurs, to include me. All of them, every one, is successful at their business, to include me (until illness took it all). All of them made their own retirement, only three in my entire family (somewhere near 50 houses in the Greater House) have become divorced (again, to include me).
Smart people don't get stuck. Smart people DO.
1965 Mayberry was not as great as you make it remember.
yes, in fact, it was.
-
Sheesh brother...... give it up.
Will never give up correcting those who wish to change history.
That is for those silent ones who look the other way.
-
We are ALL freaks who are deserving, if not going to hell. Why are they any different?
Because the rest of us are going to hell, or not, based on the faithfulness of our actions. The attitude of some here is that the homosexual is going to hell merely because of who he or she is. He/she's an abomination. Living an honorable, faithful, obedient and honest life apparently makes no difference. The homosexual has the Dark Mark, unless, I suppose, he/she lives - uniquely - a life of self-denial. Why does God impose such cruelty on the homosexual?
-
Wow. **nononono*
That article is insane.
It is, isn't it. :laugh:
Not exactly my definition of ethical, which is no coercion (either physical or chemical) of the performers - same goes for prostitutes. If that's covered, I no longer care - not my sin, nor my problem.
-
Murder and violence rates today are at mid or early 60's levels. There was no FB or internet back then and powers to be kept it quiet.Anything to do with sex (assualt, rape etc) was never published and kept behind closed doors
Nonsense. I suggest you look at how many go missing every year nowadays.
You think they covered it up then...
-
You are stone dead wrong. I grew up in a life very akin to Mayberry. And it's getting harder and harder to find.
Same here. Counting my sister's grandkids there have been 7 generations of us in one tiny rural Michigan town. We even had an elementary school teacher who had been one of my grandmother's and mother's teachers.
I live in an even smaller town in the same county now.
-
Because the rest of us are going to hell, or not, based on the faithfulness of our actions. The attitude of some here is that the homosexual is going to hell merely because of who he or she is. He/she's an abomination. Living an honorable, faithful, obedient and honest life apparently makes no difference. The homosexual has the Dark Mark, unless, I suppose, he/she lives - uniquely - a life of self-denial. Why does God impose such cruelty on the homosexual?
You made your own case against yourself.
According to God, one does not live an obedient life if one practices homesexuality.
As far as your question, why not address it to God Himself, as how can we understand why?
-
You give me too much credit. It was the Spirit that whispered that particular thought to me... At a rather inopportune time... The epiphany which followed was mechanical and automatic - Simple logic. I can make no claim upon it.
I understand that it was at the Spirit's prompting that you made your choice, but you did choose obedience, and for that you deserve credit. Understanding that all good and perfect gifts come from above, I also understand that it's not always easy to exercise the good and excise the bad. So good for you, anyway! ^-^
That explains your emphasis, and accredits your position with inside-knowledge and experience. My BIL is highly sensitive to addictions, and while his ministry comes right out of his own direct experience, his emphasis is likewise laser-centered on that problem. The stories he can tell would curl your hair.
Yes, contrary to the accusation that people who come down on the side of morality and abstinence (of all evil) have our "heads in the sand," the reality is that the more information one has on the debasement and degradation of culture, and the more details one has on how harmful these supposedly 'innocent' pastimes are, the less likely one is to support them.
It is ignorance that allows people to support pornography, homosexual 'marriage' and other forms of culture rot we are suffering through.
I apologize if I seem less concerned - I am not - My focus is on that path that I once walked down, and that is where I stand my guard. Why they are on that path is of less concern to me than that they are on that path... I know where it goes. I'll do everything I can to pluck them off of it.
Au contraire, sir! You do not seem at all unconcerned, and I salute you for it!
Not at all sister! Preach it!
I think I may just do that! :patriot:
-
Because the rest of us are going to hell, or not, based on the faithfulness of our actions. The attitude of some here is that the homosexual is going to hell merely because of who he or she is. He/she's an abomination. Living an honorable, faithful, obedient and honest life apparently makes no difference. The homosexual has the Dark Mark, unless, I suppose, he/she lives - uniquely - a life of self-denial. Why does God impose such cruelty on the homosexual?
You got it bass ackwards as usual. Sinners impose cruelty on themselves by choosing sin and wickedness as a lifestyle. God does not impose it, we impose that misery upon ourselves by our disobedience to His Laws.
Given your wicked mindset, a person should never deny their impulses - even if they are abhorrent. Doing so is 'denial' and earns the right to curse God for telling us to deny our passions, which is why you hate the God of the bible.
Is it 'cruel' when God says we may not steal and thus cause us to deny our impulses to take what our eyes desire? Even if it belongs to someone else?
Of course. Using your logic, anytime we deny an impulse we are 'born with' - God imposes cruelty. Yet Jesus tells us to crucify the flesh, take up our cross and follow Him daily. Such is a LIFE of denial of the fleshly desires that run contrary to the Law of God. Because those carnal desires earn death everlasting.
But let's answer your rhetorical question anyway - Why does God impose 'cruelty' of denial when it comes to homosexuality?
Because HE did not DESIGN marriage and sex for the purposes it has been perverted. He designed sex between one man and one woman that would become one flesh. That is why He declares that behavior an abomination and those who practice it will earn eternal death.
-
Nonsense. I suggest you look at how many go missing every year nowadays.
You think they covered it up then...
It is the continued deceit of the left that argues that things were no better in the 50's than they are now.
Of course, the main proponents of this tommyrot were not yet born when we, ourselves, lived in a far more innocent era.
We know the truth, and they believe the lies they have been force fed.
I grew up in an innocent small town in northeastern Ohio where one could raise children in purity, and keep them from the vile filth that abounds now. It is literally impossible to protect children now, as we were protected.
And the left is celebrating that fact, as they lie through their evil teeth about the world we KNOW existed.
-
Because the rest of us are going to hell, or not, based on the faithfulness of our actions. The attitude of some here is that the homosexual is going to hell merely because of who he or she is.
And Mussolini made the trains run on time. Good actions do not outweigh or offset bad actions. What matters, ALL that matters is Teshuva. Stop. Turn to YHWH and follow Him. That is what brings peace. All the rest, all of it, is confusion.
Willful iniquity (lawlessness) will not gain heaven.
Wickedness (twisting the Bible to suit your purposes) will not gain heaven.
Better to remain celibate. Or become celibate. Life is not about sex, as much as our society will tell you otherwise.
He/she's an abomination. Living an honorable, faithful, obedient and honest life apparently makes no difference. The homosexual has the Dark Mark, unless, I suppose, he/she lives - uniquely - a life of self-denial.
Well 'obedient' doesn't belong in that sentence, at least in reference to YHWH... Anymore than a serial adulterer can be said to be obedient to YHWH. Willful sin is not obedience.
And celibacy is by no means unique. Not that it is necessary. Repentant homosexuals do find mates, and do marry - so one is not without hope.
Why does God impose such cruelty on the homosexual?
Hey. My entire LIFE was upended in my 40s. I lost EVERYTHING. My body was nothing but screaming pain for years. my business was gone in weeks, my savings gone in a year. And finally, after seven years of pure hell, Just as things were looking up, in the final indignation, my marriage exploded, and my family shattered. Out on my ass, in the snow, in a wheelchair. *everything* gone
Don't tell me about cruelty. Am I blaming God? Nope.
He is who healed me.
He is who kept me through it all.
He is the one who put me in this great little cabin, and who is bringing me new opportunity.
Your blame is misplaced.
-
@musiclady @roamer_1
You both really need to educate on child abductions. More doom and gloom from you both.
Child abductions are down 40% since 1997 and most missing children are family custodial abductions or runaways.
A very percentage is stranger abductions. o.1% is stranger abductions
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-missing-children/2013/05/10/efee398c-b8b4-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html?utm_term=.f801314078dc
Another article
Overall, the number of these reports have fallen by 40 percent since 1997. This is more impressive when you consider that the overall U.S. population has risen by 30 percent over that same time period, meaning that the actual rate of missing person reports for children has fallen faster than 40 percent.
But even these numbers include an awful lot of scenarios that you wouldn't typically worry about when letting your kid walk to the park. For instance, among all missing persons cases (adults and children) in 2014, roughly 96 percent were runaways -- kids or adults deliberately trying to escape a situation at home. In fact, only 0.1 percent of missing persons cases were what we'd think of as a "stereotypical kidnapping" -- where a complete stranger tries to abduct somebody and carry them off by force. These figures comport with a more detailed analysis of child-only abductions carried out by the Justice Department in 2002.
Another article kids had never been safer.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/14/theres-never-been-a-safer-time-to-be-a-kid-in-america/?utm_term=.913bc0f8f209
Child sexual abuse cases down by 60% since 1990
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/rate-of-child-sexual-abuse-on-the-decline.html
-
Same here. Counting my sister's grandkids there have been 7 generations of us in one tiny rural Michigan town. We even had an elementary school teacher who had been one of my grandmother's and mother's teachers.
I live in an even smaller town in the same county now.
I miss it. If my family weren't a concern, I'd be up in Trego, or down in Nirada, or up the Yaak River, where it still is. Even Swan or Seeley Lake... But, the kids need their father, and the grandkids need their Papa. So here I am. :shrug:
The Flathead ain't all that bad. Still a pretty small place... But it ain't Mayberry anymore.
-
I miss it. If my family weren't a concern, I'd be up in Trego, or down in Nirada, or up the Yaak River, where it still is. Even Swan or Seeley Lake... But, the kids need their father, and the grandkids need their Papa. So here I am. :shrug:
The Flathead ain't all that bad. Still a pretty small place... But it ain't Mayberry anymore.
There are 38 houses in my big city. 2 of them are owned by my family since we gave my mom's house to my cousin to keep the house in the family and so he and his family could be in a small town.
-
Divorce rates at record 40 year low per capita.. Marriage rates rising every year since 2009 per capita.
Humpdump Duur gaays are hurting marriage.
http://time.com/4575495/divorce-rate-nearly-40-year-low/
-
Hey. My entire LIFE was upended in my 40s. I lost EVERYTHING. My body was nothing but screaming pain for years. my business was gone in weeks, my savings gone in a year. And finally, after seven years of pure hell, Just as things were looking up, in the final indignation, my marriage exploded, and my family shattered. Out on my ass, in the snow, in a wheelchair. *everything* gone
Oh Lordy lordy...I know who you are now from FR!!!!!!!!!
You are the guy who said 1 old kids who get cancer or other fatal diseases God is punishing the toddlers for their wicked and sinful ways and people who lost kids/grandkids to cancer or disease at that age roasted you.
@roamer_1
@Jazzhead
-
Divorce rates at record 40 year low per capita.. Marriage rates rising every year since 2009 per capita.
Humpdump Duur gaays are hurting marriage.
http://time.com/4575495/divorce-rate-nearly-40-year-low/
Time's data is bogus.
Marriage rates fall to 6.7 per 1,000 people, an historic all-time low. That includes people getting married for the second or third time. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/17/why-parents-should-stop-expecting-their-kids-to-get-married/?utm_term=.338c61cd3b6b)
-
Time's data is bogus.
Marriage rates fall to 6.7 per 1,000 people, an historic all-time low. That includes people getting married for the second or third time. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/17/why-parents-should-stop-expecting-their-kids-to-get-married/?utm_term=.338c61cd3b6b)
Your article is referring to millenials who are delaying marriage. The overall marriage rate is up per capita
-
Your article is referring to millenials who are delaying marriage. The overall marriage rate is up per capita
Marriage rates per-capita overall:
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/05/image-1.png&w=1484)
They are not rising. They are collapsing.
Edited by Mod1 to reduce size of graphic.
-
Oh Lordy lordy...I know who you are now from FR!!!!!!!!!
You are the guy who said 1 old kids who get cancer or other fatal diseases God is punishing the toddlers for their wicked and sinful ways and people who lost kids/grandkids to cancer or disease at that age roasted you.
God is not a micromanager. He has set up a rule structure where the iniquities of our fathers can be passed down to following generations. But He isn't out to punish us.
It is like a parent who tells you not to touch the hot stove or you'll get burnt. So when you touch the stove and get burnt, it isn't because the parent is punishing you.
-
Because the rest of us are going to hell, or not, based on the faithfulness of our actions.
Do you ever look back to read what you post?
The attitude of some here is that the homosexual is going to hell merely because of who he or she is.
Strawman.
Living an honorable, faithful, obedient and honest life apparently makes no difference.
Obedient to Whom?
Why does God impose such cruelty on the homosexual?
Have you ever heard the phrase, "God is doing for us what we could not do for ourselves"? Have you considered that it's the consequences to the choices we make that are cruel and not God?
Read the story of the prodigal son. Each day, the father looked to the distance hoping to see his son returning home. The Father is not the one at fault here. It is the one who decided to step outside the Father's household and do it his own way.
-
@Hoodat @Jazzhead
Obedient? We're all sinners, every single one of us. If you flout Gods law and fail to seek repentance you are not being obedient to him. Who else would you be obedient too?
God doesn't treat homosexuals any different than any other unrepentant sinner. Homosexuality is not a new thing so its not some sudden change in the rules which calls it a sin.
-
There are 38 houses in my big city. 2 of them are owned by my family since we gave my mom's house to my cousin to keep the house in the family and so he and his family could be in a small town.
That's real nice. I'll bet it's a great place to be. Folks are better to each other when everyone knows everyone.
-
Oh Lordy lordy...I know who you are now from FR!!!!!!!!!
You are the guy who said 1 old kids who get cancer or other fatal diseases God is punishing the toddlers for their wicked and sinful ways and people who lost kids/grandkids to cancer or disease at that age roasted you.
@mirraflake
I have absolutely no idea what you are going on about. That sure doesn't sound like something I would say.
-
@mirraflake
I have absolutely no idea what you are going on about. That sure doesn't sound like something I would say.
OK My mistake
-
You both really need to educate on child abductions.
I said nothing about child abductions.
-
That's real nice. I'll bet it's a great place to be. Folks are better to each other when everyone knows everyone.
I agree, and find it stupid to embrace the diversity crap that we are stronger if we are foreign to each other's language, customs, religion, etc.
-
@Hoodat @Jazzhead
Obedient? We're all sinners, every single one of us.
Absolutely.
If you flout Gods law and fail to seek repentance you are not being obedient to him.
I fail to see how being faithful and true to one's spouse/partner is "flouting God's law" Remember, statements in the Bible addressing homosexuality don't represent "God's word" but rather the opinion of individuals speaking within the cultural context of their time. in ancient times, the survival of the tribe was paramount - everyone was expected to reproduce.
Who else would you be obedient too?
Well, one should be obedient to one's spouse, I'd think, or at least be honest, respectful and faithful.
God doesn't treat homosexuals any different than any other unrepentant sinner.
That's what I'd like to think, which is why I interpret the Bible differently than you do. Under your (presumed) interpretation, God condemns the homosexual without regard to whether he/she is monogamous, faithful and respectful to his/her partner. His/her sin lies with who he/she is. That's arbitrary cruelty - the homosexual, created by God, is, according to your interpretation, condemned to never be able to find true happiness and must instead practice self-denial or face damnation. I don't believe God is arbitrarily cruel.
-
Remember, statements in the Bible addressing homosexuality don't represent "God's word" but rather the opinion of individuals speaking within the cultural context of their time.
the books of Moses are not opinion. It is Torah.
-
No one here is defending that crap. Every gay person I know hates it. If you think only gays pee in each other's mouths I have some news for you. The weirdest of gay kooks heads to sf and is not representative of the entire gay world.
@DiogenesLamp
@mirraflake
Yeah, yeah, and some straight people are into anal sex (for reasons I don't understand). That isn't the point.
Most people, if they're honest, respond with strong distaste at the concept of two men having "sex." I use that term lightly because it isn't sex---it's abuse. And that's because it's unnatural on its face in a singularly "wrong" way.
I'm pretty sure there's hardly a straight man out there who doesn't feel that disgust, even if they're too liberal to admit it. In fact, I'm completely sure of it. I've spent enough time in political chats where liberals used slang terms for gay as insults.
-
I said nothing about child abductions.
Ok Missing people. 800k or so in 2015
Most are runaways or family custodial abductions Less than 1% on average each year does a person get kidnapped or abducted by a stranger-the horror story cases we read about. In 2002 it was only 120 people total that fit this category.
1980 150,000 missing people, 2015 800,000 missing but that does not mean anything.
Why?
In the last 10-15 years all police departments are required to report all missing cases to a national database. Very strict reporting requirements. In 1980 most missing people never made the national database as there was no requirement to do so and most authorities just kept the reporting local..... it is not apples versus apples figures.
In todays reporting, one kid who runs away 3 times per year gets counted as 3 missing.
The fact is today's kids are safer than ever before and murder, violence and rape is heading towards early 1960's levels.
(https://mises.org/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/homicide_51yr.JPG?itok=-_z6lBiI)
(http://www.coyoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/raperate1.jpg)
@roamer_1
-
You don't know the "norm" anymore than I do. Projecting such conclusions based on anecdotal evidence is fraught with unreliability.
It is not a conclusion based on anecdotal evidence, it is a conclusion based on theory, (all we people had to get here somehow), biology, chemistry, historical evidence, and reading discussions/articles on the subject.
There are chemical interactions between males and females that do not exist between two males. Bi-lateral Transdermal absorption of complimentary hormones work to make males and females feel at peace after the sex act. This complimentary chemical transfer between sexes simply doesn't exist in same gender pretend sex.
I know, or have known, four same sex couples well enough to have an idea of the answer to your question (three male couples and one female couple). I believe in my heart of hearts that each is/was a monogamous relationship, and each lasted/has lasted over 20 years.
Did you ask any of the males if they had been monogamous? (Females are an entirely different class of homosexual, and for very different reasons.)
May I respectfully request, if only out of a sense of Christian brotherhood and compassion, that you cease thinking of homosexuals as "sick" and "dysfunctional" people and instead as your neighbors, family members or colleagues.
I have known plenty of sick and dysfunctional people who were not homosexual, but they were certainly sick and dysfunctional. They may deserve compassion, but pretending they are normal is not helpful to anyone. Homosexuality is a lot more complicated than most people realize. Those with some knowledge of it may be aware that there are "Pitchers" and "Catchers", but that is as far as most people's knowledge of the subject extends.
There is a lot more "diversity" in these group of people than just that simple set of two categories. There is a wide range of fetishes and sub fetishes that go way beyond just same sex attraction, and many of the people who are *IN* that community are very familiar with the different categories.
To say this collection of fetishes known as "Homosexuality" is dysfunctional and a form of mental illness seems quite reasonable given how far it extends. Indeed it used to be universally recognized as such prior to 1973, and it would have continued being recognized as such but for strong arm intimidation tactics directed at American Psychiatrists by the "gaystapo."
Rather than continue to face the hordes of angry and potentially dangerous gay protestors who would show up at their meetings, their offices and call their home phones to threaten them, these doctors decided to make their own lives easier and remove homosexuality from the list of Psychological disorders.
As I said, they may be deserving of compassion, but I do not comprehend the notion that they do not have some sort of mental illness. It is like asking me to believe that 4=5. It seems contrary to reality from my perspective.
-
@mirraflake
Yeah, yeah, and some straight people are into anal sex (for reasons I don't understand). That isn't the point.
Most people, if they're honest, respond with strong distaste at the concept of two men having "sex." I use that term lightly because it isn't sex---it's abuse. And that's because it's unnatural on its face in a singularly "wrong" way.
I'm pretty sure there's hardly a straight man out there who doesn't feel that disgust, even if they're too liberal to admit it. In fact, I'm completely sure of it. I've spent enough time in political chats where liberals used slang terms for gay as insults.
Really. Hard to imagine anything more beautiful than two attractive women making love. Certainly nothing distasteful about that...and if any man tells you otherwise he's flat out lying.
All this God's law talk is baloney....taking the opinions of biblical authors and adhering them to God is almost always a misreading of the text itself. Paul's thoughts, for example, are Paul's thoughts...likewise for the other Gospel writers. Even Solomon's statements are merely his opinion...which, while there are glimpses of some wisdom, are also steeped in the bigotry and misogyny of his Age. The Old Testament, for the most part, is little more than a collection of mythological events...often wild extrapolations from genuine historical occurrences...expressed through the innate cultural and social bias of the disparate authors of the books in question.
A wise man would follow the "sayings" of Jesus as the closest thing we have to the word of God...though it would also be smart to use scholarly studies like that of the Jesus Seminar to determine what are and are not the GENUINE words of Jesus (and not the additions of later editors and authors). The Old Testament is beautiful icon of ancient culture...not a factual account of events and absolutely not a rational source for God's views on mankind and the world.
-
Ok Missing people. 800k or so in 2015
1980 150,000 missing people, 2015 800,000 missing but that does not mean anything.
Riiiiight.
:boring:
The fact is today's kids are safer than ever before and murder, violence and rape is heading towards early 1960's levels.
I don't know a single parent anywhere that would believe that at all.
-
Riiiiight.
I don't know a single parent anywhere that would believe that at all.
Because today's parents are woosie helicopter parents afraid of every little thing that might hurt little Johnie or Susie. Again get off the internet. 50 years ago you never would have heard about a woman getting raped in India by 5 guys, today you do 3 hours after it happens.
Facts are facts look it up. Down 40% since 1997 while population is up 30%
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/04/child_missing.png&w=480)
-
Really. Hard to imagine anything more beautiful than two attractive women making love. Certainly nothing distasteful about that...and if any man tells you otherwise he's flat out lying.
All this God's law talk is baloney....taking the opinions of biblical authors and adhering them to God is almost always a misreading of the text itself. Paul's thoughts, for example, are Paul's thoughts...likewise for the other Gospel writers. Even Solomon's statements are merely his opinion...which, while there are glimpses of some wisdom, are also steeped in the bigotry and misogyny of his Age. The Old Testament, for the most part, is little more than a collection of mythological events...often wild extrapolations from genuine historical occurrences...expressed through the innate cultural and social bias of the disparate authors of the books in question.
A wise man would follow the "sayings" of Jesus as the closest thing we have to the word of God...though it would also be smart to use scholarly studies like that of the Jesus Seminar to determine what are and are not the GENUINE words of Jesus (and not the additions of later editors and authors). The Old Testament is beautiful icon of ancient culture...not a factual account of events and absolutely not a rational source for God's views on mankind and the world.
Well, at least we know where you are coming from. Thank you for your little manifesto, but I'm not buying. Have a nice day, bless your heart. *****rollingeyes*****
As for something more beautiful, ever hold a baby?
-
I fail to see how being faithful and true to one's spouse/partner is "flouting God's law"
God did not create men to marry men. Marriage is HIS institution - not man's. Male and Female He created them, FOR marriage. Jesus Himself quotes that scripture and asserts it's validity.
Jesus answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? - Matthew 19:4-5
All you deliberately fail to do is recognize God in favor of your own golden calf that you prefer to worship so you can engage in and justify behavior that earns eternal death. Perhaps you will then tell us that we "shall not surely die, but become as God knowing good and evil".
Remember, statements in the Bible addressing homosexuality don't represent "God's word"
Your comments certainly do not represent the God of scripture or the testimony of Jesus at all. Your comments on this subject belong to the god of this world. You reject HIS Word in favor of your own image of how you expect God to be. As I've told you - you worship a god of your own imagination and are hostile to the One Revealed in scripture.
...rather the opinion of individuals speaking within the cultural context of their time. in ancient times, the survival of the tribe was paramount - everyone was expected to reproduce.
And the justification from child molesters/child marriage proponents, Beastiality and other perversions all make the same justification and denouncement of scripture as invalid that you do. In fact, child marriage among Hindus in India provided the same justification that you do, from their myriad fake deities that they claim give men in their 50's the right to marry and have sex with girls under 7.
Moral anarchy exists in much of the rest of the world. The fruits of that behavior are manifest and the consequences are lifelong misery, suffering and death. I find it fascinating how many want the same thing here because they have a pet sexual issue they want the freedom to engage in without a seared conscience or knowledge that people look on their behavior with disgust.
Well, one should be obedient to one's spouse, I'd think, or at least be honest, respectful and faithful.
Why? Because YOU say so? On what Authority do you assert one has to be faithful? You have wholesale invalidated scripture altogether - so I want to know by what Authority do you make that claim? Why does anyone have to be obedient to anyone or anything? Why can't we just do as we damn well please? Have sex with whomever we want, whenever we want? Kill whomever we want whenever we want? Take whatever we want, from whomever we want? Biblical morality is a prison by your own words - so since that morality is out the window in your world and the God of scripture cruel, we should be able to do whatever we want without any conflict of conscience or restraint in behavior. We do not recognize this god of your fantasy - so you have no authority to expect anyone to be obedient or faithful to anyone but themselves. We should be able to do whatever we please and whatever feels good and whatever satisfies any desire we have if we are simply clever and strong enough to simply take it. Poop on your fake god.
It's interesting that your twisted and deviant logic on this subject hands those who practice evil and behaviors anathema to God and our foundations the same arguments you make. They can take those same justifications and declare that they have the right to do those things outside of the fears of a God of Judgment and Vengeance that you would rather pretend is not an attribute or characteristic of God.
That's what I'd like to think, which is why I interpret the Bible differently than you do. Under your (presumed) interpretation, God condemns the homosexual without regard to whether he/she is monogamous, faithful and respectful to his/her partner. His/her sin lies with who he/she is. That's arbitrary cruelty - the homosexual, created by God, is, according to your interpretation, condemned to never be able to find true happiness and must instead practice self-denial or face damnation. I don't believe God is arbitrarily cruel.
What you think or believe is irrelevant AFAIC. You believe in a fairy tale god that only exists within the confines of your imagination - and has no more power or reality than a wood stick that a Hindu would claim is their house god.
What you believe is irrelevant.
What is Written is what will be provided in testimony in that Day of Judgment, and no one is going to have any excuse to plead ignorance.
-
A wise man would follow the "sayings" of Jesus as the closest thing we have to the word of God...though it would also be smart to use scholarly studies like that of the Jesus Seminar to determine what are and are not the GENUINE words of Jesus
So your consistent advice is to Disregard the Bible - and lean on the intellectual declarations of Liberal Humanists, Agnostics and Socialists that vehemently deny the divinity of Jesus.
My advice to any Christian on this board is to treat any words you opine in regards to scripture as SATANIC POISON and to eschew your thoughts and opinions completely.
-
Well, at least we know where you are coming from. Thank you for your little manifesto, but I'm not buying. Have a nice day, bless your heart. *****rollingeyes*****
As for something more beautiful, ever hold a baby?
Yep. I have three beautiful little girls and held each of them as they arrived in the world...and just about every day thereafter when not off in Iraq or some other far flung place trying to make sure they grow up safe and sound.
As for "where I'm coming from", I've never been anything but up front. The words of Jesus and Buddha are my greatest guides in life...and both light my path to a loving god.
-
So your consistent advice is to Disregard the Bible - and lean on the intellectual declarations of Liberal Humanists, Agnostics and Socialists that vehemently deny the divinity of Jesus.
My advice to any Christian on this board is to treat any words you opine in regards to scripture as SATANIC POISON and to eschew your thoughts and opinions completely.
Never disregard. Simply...understand. The Bible is full of wisdom when it is read in context and with an understanding of metaphor. As for divinity, I would never deny the divinity of any human being, as we are all created by and are a part of the Divine being.
As for SATANIC POISON...what gave me away? Was it all my preaching about love and forgiveness, understanding and empathy? Or just that I think God is a loving being who forgives all men for their misdeeds and welcomes them to his/her arms? Yep...just ooozes evil.
-
Kind of a major breakthrough, for such a long and repetitive thread. Religion was previously sort of out-of-bound at this site.
Apparently that has changed, in view of all of the FAHR and BRIM stone exhibited herein.
King James got a Bible named after him, and Charles I got his head removed, over religion.
-
The words of Jesus and Buddha are my greatest guides in life...and both light my path to a loving god.
There is only one Path to Life, and we figured out you were beholden to other gods than the One revealed some time ago.
-
Kind of a major breakthrough, for such a long and repetitive thread. Religion was previously sort of out-of-bound at this site.
Apparently that has changed, in view of all of the FAHR and BRIM stone exhibited herein.
King James got a Bible named after him, and Charles I got his head removed, over religion.
It's been a civil discussion, t_s. Do you have a problem with civil discussions on topics you don't like, or are you just dissing this forum once again.
Tiresome.......
-
Kind of a major breakthrough, for such a long and repetitive thread. Religion was previously sort of out-of-bound at this site.
Apparently that has changed, in view of all of the FAHR and BRIM stone exhibited herein.
King James got a Bible named after him, and Charles I got his head removed, over religion.
Unfortunately, the religion of secular Hedonism is what will wipe out any semblance of liberty as Constitutionally protected. So the discussion of religion in the context of this news article is essential. The Foundations of our entire society, the Declaration and the Constitution are being eroded by alien beliefs asserting their primacy over that which established us.
If you want to ignore it because religion bothers you - we will just end up like Europe at some point in the future.
-
There is only one Path to Life, and we figured out you were beholden to other gods than the One revealed some time ago.
First, do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Second, I worship the one and only God....I just understand her a lot better than you do.
-
Unfortunately, the religion of secular Hedonism is what will wipe out any semblance of liberty as Constitutionally protected. So the discussion of religion in the context of this news article is essential. The Foundations of our entire society, the Declaration and the Constitution are being eroded by alien beliefs asserting their primacy over that which established us.
If you want to ignore it because religion bothers you - we will just end up like Europe at some point in the future.
Watch out, INVAR....the Hedonists are coming to steal your bodily fluids! Yikes!!!!
-
Unfortunately, the religion of secular Hedonism is what will wipe out any semblance of liberty as Constitutionally protected. So the discussion of religion in the context of this news article is essential. The Foundations of our entire society, the Declaration and the Constitution are being eroded by alien beliefs asserting their primacy over that which established us.
If you want to ignore it because religion bothers you - we will just end up like Europe at some point in the future.
You mean we could end up like those hell holes of Monaco, Switzerland and San Marino. Terrifying!
-
we will just end up like Europe at some point in the future.
Yeah.. like Tuesday, maybe...
-
If you want to ignore it because religion bothers you -
There are religions, then there are religions. I am not attracted to William Jennings Bryan, Jim Bakker, or Benny Hinn.
I'm undecided who put on better shows--Tammy Faye Bakker (Messner), Jan Crouch or Benny Hinn?
I do hear Hinn is recruiting stagehands, though. Whatever flouts your boat, as they say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XVy88x63yg
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xMKBV3idL4
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xMKBV3idL4
Could INVAR actually BE Benny Hinn? So close in their ideologies and ranting diatribes in the fundamentalist vein. Hhhmmmmmmm.
-
It is rather difficult to discuss marriage without religion getting more than a passing mention.
So far, a warning hasn't been needed to keep it to biblical points without denomination bashing. Credit to all who have participated.
-
@mirraflake
Most people, if they're honest, respond with strong distaste at the concept of two men having "sex." I use that term lightly because it isn't sex---it's abuse. And that's because it's unnatural on its face in a singularly "wrong" way.
I'm pretty sure there's hardly a straight man out there who doesn't feel that disgust, even if they're too liberal to admit it. In fact, I'm completely sure of it.
Because straight guys are not gay. Gay guys look at other men's bodies like I look at hot women's body and admire it and you look at a hot guy in tight jeans and admire him.
Why some people love chocolate ice cream and others vanilla.
Everyone has their own schtick..what grosses one person out make another quiver. I'm going to get graphic here so close your eyes. Back in my fraternity days this one girl would show up at our house on occasion when we had a party and..um ummmmm you ready for this? Pick out the guys with the cutest butts and toss their salad.. She would do nothing else and nothing done to her. That is what turned her on, tripped her trigger, how she got her jollies. This is my point about gay guys and how straight guys think about them having sex. I'm sure what the girl above would make you wretch thinking about it (or not) but to her it was the cats meow.
Chemical makeup and hormones are very complex and why too much or too little make people to desire certain things..good or bad to various people.
@CatherineofAragon
-
Could INVAR actually BE Benny Hinn? So close in their ideologies and ranting diatribes in the fundamentalist vein. Hhhmmmmmmm.
You go think that.
Hinn's doctrinal positions and mine are so far removed from commonality that each of us most likely regards the other as heretical. But unlike you - at least Hinn states he believes in only one path to Life. That is the only commonality he and I share theologically.
You however, worship a completely different god than Hinn and I do. And I am not interested in anything you have to opine in regards to God, scripture or religion.
-
Unfortunately, the religion of secular Hedonism is what will wipe out any semblance of liberty as Constitutionally protected. So the discussion of religion in the context of this news article is essential. The Foundations of our entire society, the Declaration and the Constitution are being eroded by alien beliefs asserting their primacy over that which established us.
If you want to ignore it because religion bothers you - we will just end up like Europe at some point in the future.
Correct! Without a "Creator" we have no one to endow us with unalienable Rights like Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness... The rest falls apart from there.
-
There are religions, then there are religions. I am not attracted to William Jennings Bryan, Jim Bakker, or Benny Hinn.
I'm undecided who put on better shows--Tammy Faye Bakker (Messner), Jan Crouch or Benny Hinn?
I do hear Hinn is recruiting stagehands, though. Whatever flouts your boat, as they say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XVy88x63yg
Those aren't religions, that there's showbiz. Think Elmer Gantry, early in the movie.
-
Correct! Without a "Creator" we have no one to endow us with unalienable Rights like Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness... The rest falls apart from there.
Careful, you'll end up scoffed, ridiculed and lectured about how wonderful Monaco, Switzerland and San Marino are. Because you know - Eurabia is just a paranoid delusion despite the fact they have been overrun by those who intend to breed their native populations out of existence and impose Sharia upon them.
Once the foundations are gone - whatever is the strongest aberration of force to be employed will replace what currently exists in terms of a society and civilization. But the clueless liberal idiots still pretend that is not possible - despite the news and the stuff being done right in front of them.
-
Because straight guys are not gay. Gay guys look at other men's bodies like I look at hot women's body and admire it and you look at a hot guy in tight jeans and admire him.
Why some people love chocolate ice cream and others vanilla.
Everyone has their own schtick..what grosses one person out make another quiver. I'm going to get graphic here so close your eyes. Back in my fraternity days this one girl would show up at our house on occasion when we had a party and..um ummmmm you ready for this? Pick out the guys with the cutest butts and toss their salad.. She would do nothing else and nothing done to her. That is what turned her on, tripped her trigger, how she got her jollies. This is my point about gay guys and how straight guys think about them having sex. I'm sure what the girl above would make you wretch thinking about it (or not) but to her it was the cats meow.
Chemical makeup and hormones are why we like certain things..good or bad to various people.
@CatherineofAragon
@mirraflake
Nope. Two men having sex or kissing each other or whatever absolutely grosses me out, and I'm not the only woman who feels that way. Like I said, it's unnatural in a way that produces a visceral response, male or female.
-
Those aren't religions, that there's showbiz. Think Elmer Gantry, early in the movie.
@Smokin Joe
Agreed.
And I've never found any explanation for Jan Crouch's pink hair.
-
@mirraflake
Nope. Two men having sex or kissing each other or whatever absolutely grosses me out, and I'm not the only woman who feels that way. Like I said, it's unnatural in a way that produces a visceral response, male or female.
Why do majority of men find two hot women making out very sexy and hot? As @Mesaclone pointed out earlier the ones who say it doesn't are usually lying. It's the #1 porn search by straight males.
Why do women go crazy over Milo Yiounopolis when they know he is gay??
Things are not black and white
@CatherineofAragon
-
@Smokin Joe
And I've never found any explanation for Jan Crouch's pink hair.
Must be genetics. All sorts of aberrations have been explained that way. :nometalk:
-
Why do majority of men find two hot women making out very sexy and hot? As @Mesaclone pointed out earlier the ones who say it doesn't are usually lying. It's the #1 porn search by straight males
@CatherineofAragon
Maybe they envision themselves in the middle. I don't get it, because if they are that into each other, they just might not want a guy in the middle. So I don't find it to be much of a turn on.
-
@mirraflake
Nope. Two men having sex or kissing each other or whatever absolutely grosses me out, and I'm not the only woman who feels that way. Like I said, it's unnatural in a way that produces a visceral response, male or female.
You are thinking like a female..no disrespect. You believe everyone is just like you. Majority of women usually have no interest in looking at naked male pics but men love to look at naked beautiful women.
@CatherineofAragon
-
You go think that.
Hinn's doctrinal positions and mine are so far removed from commonality that each of us most likely regards the other as heretical. But unlike you - at least Hinn states he believes in only one path to Life. That is the only commonality he and I share theologically.
You however, worship a completely different god than Hinn and I do. And I am not interested in anything you have to opine in regards to God, scripture or religion.
I don't really like to opine...its just no fun.
There IS only one path to life, and she created us all...even yourself. So its not possible to worship a completely different god, there is only one and...its a shame you've yet to meet him. Opine on that for a while.
-
There IS only one path to life, and she created us all...even yourself. So its not possible to worship a completely different god, there is only one and...its a shame you've yet to meet him. Opine on that for a while.
No thanks. The god you worship and promote here, I have no interest in contemplating or recognizing as anything but false.
-
You are thinking like a female..no disrespect. You believe everyone is just like you. Majority of women usually have no interest in looking at naked male pics but men love to look at naked beautiful women.
@CatherineofAragon
@mirraflake
Oh, I forgot, you've been around and you've seen it all, and something about a sorority, and let me teach you the way things are. Except you really don't know.
-
Why do majority of men find two hot women making out very sexy and hot?... the ones who say it doesn't are usually lying.
It makes me sick to my stomach. It 'aint sexy or hot. It's sick. Even as a teen in the 70s, lesbian garbage and even the talk of it was a major turn-off. It's as stomach-churning as it is thinking about two men swapping spit. It's sick, no different than deviants who brag about watching women have sex with animals.
Our culture is now so sexually saturated with porn and other crap - it doesn't take much exposure to deviancy to require more absurd and deviant acts to trigger climax in men.
I was never caught up in that crap. Three younger sisters and three daughters may have inoculated me from wanting to ever see women engaging that stuff. Loose women are still sluts in my estimation. I would't touch them with your privates, much less my own.
-
@mirraflake
Nope. Two men having sex or kissing each other or whatever absolutely grosses me out, and I'm not the only woman who feels that way. Like I said, it's unnatural in a way that produces a visceral response, male or female.
It's nauseating. It goes against everything that is natural and good. EVERYthing.
But seeing people here say it's a 'turn on' is proof that the world's a really, really messed up place with some sick people.
(Either that or they're just pretending to be disgusting because they know they're going to get a negative reaction from people who know the difference between right and wrong. Perhaps? Just being jerks??)
-
It's nauseating. It goes against everything that is natural and good. EVERYthing.
But seeing people here say it's a 'turn on' is proof that the world's a really, really messed up place with some sick people.
(Either that or they're just pretending to be disgusting because they know they're going to get a negative reaction from people who know the difference between right and wrong. Perhaps? Just being jerks??)
@musiclady
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/4b/4bcd72dba84ca809d8df3a27fafa40c4812a0d234a5977e3e17755b0ffd3503f.jpg)
-
@musiclady
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/4b/4bcd72dba84ca809d8df3a27fafa40c4812a0d234a5977e3e17755b0ffd3503f.jpg)
LOL! I have a feeling these boys think that they know more about life than we grown ups do.
WRONG. :silly:
We are not impressed with their silly trolling.
-
I'd be interested to know what folks think of Matthew 19:12 which begins -
For there are eunichs who are born this way . . .
and admonish the reader to "accept this".
That seems to endorse pretty clearly that some homosexuals are born that way, and ought not to be cursed with the status of abomination, but rather accepted. The abomination, I think, is the heterosexual who declines his obligation to reproduce - the "euchich made that way by man". Men in the Biblical world were expected to sustain the tribe; it's a cultural thing but Matthew 19:12 says to me God knows full well that some gays are what they are, and He does not intend the He or His flock need be cruel.
-
I'd be interested to know what folks think of Matthew 19:12 which begins -
and admonish the reader to "accept this".
That seems to endorse pretty clearly that some homosexuals are born that way, and ought not to be cursed with the status of abomination but accepted. The abomination, I think, is the heterosexual who declines his obligation to reproduce. Men in the Biblical world were expected to sustain the tribe; it's a cultural thing but Matthew 19:12 says to me God knows full well that some gays are what they are, and He does not intend the He or His flock need be cruel.
If he had meant to say homosexual, he would have said 'homosexual'.
-
I'd be interested to know what folks think of Matthew 19:12 which begins -
[...]
and admonish the reader to "accept this".
So your inference is that eunuchs are necessarily gay?
-
So your inference is that eunuchs are necessarily gay?
A highly faulty inference. Ridiculous, even.
Being a eunuch has absolutely nothing to do with preferring to sleep with men.
-
No thanks. The god you worship and promote here, I have no interest in contemplating or recognizing as anything but false.
You may have no interest in oxygen, nor recognize its importance. Yet still, you must breathe whether you wish or not.
There is but one god, and you can deny her all you wish. You are free to choose, and he will be there for you when your soul has grown in understanding.
-
If he had meant to say homosexual, he would have said 'homosexual'.
No, you're ignoring the context. In those times, it was expected of men to reproduce, to perpetuate the tribe. The word "eunuch" was used to denote a man who was not expected to reproduce; indeed he could not.
So three categories are spelled out - some eunuchs are born that way, some eunuchs are made that way by man, and some are eunuchs for the purpose of glorifying God.
The latter are the priests and religious intelligentisia who either take vows of chastity or dedicate their lives to religious study.
The former are those who are born gay.
The middle group corresponds to those described by the Bible as abominations. Heterosexual men who turn their backs (literally) on their sexuality (and their duty to the tribe).
The passage (Matthew 19:12) seems prescient. The Bible condemns homosexuality - when practiced by non-homosexuals. That fits with the requirements of the tribe, and God as the Giver of Wisdom to the tribe. But to condemn the mere homosexual? God is the Light of this World; His is not the cruel mien of the Bible thumper.
-
I'd be interested to know what folks think of Matthew 19:12
Eunuchs in biblical times were castrated men. Often Eunuchs were servants to royal harems and castrated to make sure they would not mess around with the maidens set aside for ruler's pleasures or for arranged marriages to princes. Advisors to kings were also usually castrated in order to make them more docile and focused on their task than be intrigued by a woman.
At the time of Christ around 30-33 AD - and in the context of the times, Eunuchs in the Greek also referenced those who were celibate and had no sexual desire, those born with birth defects rendering them impotent - or those who castrated to avoid temptation of sexual sin.
Jesus was referencing 3 types: those forced into castration; those who were born impotent or without sex organs and those who castrated or chose celibacy themselves rather than deal with sexual temptation.
The Greek and Hebrew worlds for Eunuch and homosexual or men having sex with other men in scripture are not the same. They are not used interchangeably to reference either Eunuchs or homosexuals. They are two completely different sets of words and phrases used to convey the meaning. Furthermore, Eunuchs are never referred to in Scripture as being in a state of sin, while homosexuality is condemned as sin and abomination in both the Old and New Testaments.
The Bible condemns homosexuality - when practiced by non-homosexuals.
Do you have any idea how STUPID that statement is? I mean REALLY STUPID.
Pray tell what chapter and verse from the Bible did you glean that application - or like everything else, did you just make it up in your own mind and attribute that to scripture?
-
No, you're ignoring the context. In those times, it was expected of men to reproduce, to perpetuate the tribe. The word "eunuch" was used to denote a man who was not expected to reproduce; indeed he could not.
So three categories are spelled out - some eunuchs are born that way, some eunuchs are made that way by man, and some are eunuchs for the purpose of glorifying God.
The latter are the priests and religious intelligentisia who either take vows of chastity or dedicate their lives to religious study.
The former are those who are born gay.
The middle group corresponds to those described by the Bible as abominations. Heterosexual men who turn their backs (literally) on their sexuality (and their duty to the tribe).
The passage (Matthew 19:12) seems prescient. The Bible condemns homosexuality - when practiced by non-homosexuals. That fits with the requirements of the tribe, and God as the Giver of Wisdom to the tribe. But to condemn the mere homosexual? God is the Light of this World; His is not the cruel mien of the Bible thumper.
Wrong, but thanks for playing. Here's the answer, from https://www.gotquestions.org/eunuch-eunuchs.html (https://www.gotquestions.org/eunuch-eunuchs.html) The eunuchs of the Bible were usually castrated males or those incapable of reproduction due to a birth defect. A eunuch could also be someone who performed work typical of eunuchs, although he remained perfectly capable of having sex—i.e., “eunuch” in some cases was simply a title. The purpose of intentional castration was to induce impotence and remove sexuality. It was a common practice in ancient times for rulers to castrate some of their servants and/or advisers in order to subdue and pacify them. It was especially common to castrate men who tended the royal harem. Queen Esther’s eunuchs are mentioned in Esther 4:4.
In Matthew 19:12, Jesus mentions eunuchs in the context of whether it is good to marry. He says, “There are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Jesus identifies three types of “eunuchs” here: natural eunuchs (“born that way”), forced eunuchs (“made eunuchs by others”), and voluntary eunuchs (“those who choose”).
Natural eunuchs include those who are born with a physical defect, but they also comprise those who are born with no real desire for marriage or sex. Forced eunuchs are those who have been castrated for whatever reason. Voluntary eunuchs are those who, in order to better serve the Lord in some capacity, choose to forego marriage. God calls some people to remain single (and therefore celibate). Paul speaks of those who serve the Lord in their unmarried state in 1 Corinthians 7:7—9.
Some gay groups argue that Jesus was referring to homosexuals when He mentioned eunuchs who were “born that way.” However, the Bible never uses the words homosexual and eunuch interchangeably. Furthermore, eunuchs are never referred to in Scripture as being in sin, while homosexuality is universally condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.
-
@mirraflake
Oh, I forgot, you've been around and you've seen it all, and something about a sorority, and let me teach you the way things are. Except you really don't know.
What I said is 100 percent correct. Men are visual and likto look at beautiful naked women while women do not generally like to look at men's genitals in photos and to most it is a turnoff. In the days of print magazines there were dozens of nudie magazines for men but only one for women.
Stop believing that men are like women.Are you a feminist?
@CatherineofAragon
-
LOL! I have a feeling these boys think that they know more about life than we grown ups do.
WRONG. :silly:
We are not impressed with their silly trolling.
I have always taken you for a radical feminist. Stop trying to think you know what males like and prefer and that believe women and men are alike because we are not
@musiclady
-
I'd be interested to know what folks think of Matthew 19:12 which begins -
and admonish the reader to "accept this".
That seems to endorse pretty clearly that some homosexuals are born that way, and ought not to be cursed with the status of abomination, but rather accepted. The abomination, I think, is the heterosexual who declines his obligation to reproduce - the "euchich made that way by man". Men in the Biblical world were expected to sustain the tribe; it's a cultural thing but Matthew 19:12 says to me God knows full well that some gays are what they are, and He does not intend the He or His flock need be cruel.
This is what I think:
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5420/who-are-eunuchs-of-their-mothers-womb
-
Thanks for the responses re Matthew 19:12. It's a fascinating passage.
I'm clearly mistaken about the nature of the second category of eunuchs, those "made by man". These are individuals who have been deliberately castrated for duty as courtiers and servants - an odd thing to modern sensibilities but clearly common enough in biblical times. I should have figured that out myself on the basis of the passage's admonition that all three catagories are to be "accepted". A deliberately castrated eunuch is not the "abomination" mentioned elsewhere in scripture.
But also to be "accepted" is the eunuch "born from the womb" that way. Here's where the explanation in the "hermeneutics" link stretches credulity. According to that link, this category is supposed to consist only of individuals born with no phallus (lacking the physical equipment), not individuals merely born without sexual attraction to the opposite sex. That makes no sense - how many men are born without penises? And limiting the meaning of eunuch in the first category to those without the physical equipment makes no sense in light of the third category - men who've pledged their celibacy out of service to God. Such holy men are equally described as "eunuchs" notwithstanding they retain all their original equipment.
The term "eunuch" in context clearly denotes the three "acceptable" categories of men who are relieved of their tribal duty to reproduce. The issue is marriage and the duty to marry and perpetuate the tribe. Three categories of men are excluded therefrom - castrated courtiers and servants (eunuchs as we use the term in modern parlance), individuals who have taken a vow of celibacy for religious reasons, and persons "born of the womb" without sexual desire for the opposite sex.
So what behavior is "abominable"? Clearly, just what I surmised - heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts. In every place where homosexuality is admonished, the context indicates that the sin involves the deliberate turning of one's back on the duty to reproduce - homosexual acts by non-homosexuals. But Matthew 19:12 indicates that some individuals' inability to have successful sexual relations with the opposite sex is because they are "born of the womb" that way.
That's entirely consistent with the notion of a loving God. Why should a natural homosexual - born of the womb that way - be sentenced to a cruel and empty life of self-denial? One cannot be born an abomination - not unless you accept either that God makes mistakes or is arbitrarily cruel. I reject both those propositions. The homosexual does not bear the dark mark; he/she is judged by God under the same criteria as anyone else. And so - the homosexual who cruises the bathhouses is immoral. The homosexual who stays faithful and true to his/her partner is not.
-
Thanks for the responses re Matthew 19:12. It's a fascinating passage.
I'm clearly mistaken about the nature of the second category of eunuchs, those "made by man". These are individuals who have been deliberately castrated for duty as courtiers and servants - an odd thing to modern sensibilities but clearly common enough in biblical times. I should have figured that out myself on the basis of the passage's admonition that all three catagories are to be "accepted". A deliberately castrated eunuch is not the "abomination" mentioned elsewhere in scripture.
But also to be "accepted" is the eunuch "born from the womb" that way. Here's where the explanation in the "hermeneutics" link stretches credulity. According to that link, this category is supposed to consist only of individuals born with no phallus (lacking the physical equipment), not individuals merely born without sexual attraction to the opposite sex. That makes no sense - how many men are born without penises? And limiting the meaning of eunuch in the first category to those without the physical equipment makes no sense in light of the third category - men who've pledged their celibacy out of service to God. Such holy men are equally described as "eunuchs" notwithstanding they retain all their original equipment.
The term "eunuch" in context clearly denotes the three "acceptable" categories of men who are relieved of their tribal duty to reproduce. The issue is marriage and the duty to marry and perpetuate the tribe. Three categories of men are excluded therefrom - castrated courtiers and servants (eunuchs as we use the term in modern parlance), individuals who have taken a vow of celibacy for religious reasons, and persons "born of the womb" without sexual desire for the opposite sex.
So what behavior is "abominable"? Clearly, just what I surmised - heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts. In every place where homosexuality is admonished, the context indicates that the sin involves the deliberate turning of one's back on the duty to reproduce - homosexual acts by non-homosexuals. But Matthew 19:12 indicates that some individuals' inability to have successful sexual relations with the opposite sex is because they are "born of the womb" that way.
That's entirely consistent with the notion of a loving God. Why should a natural homosexual - born of the womb that way - be sentenced to a cruel and empty life of self-denial? One cannot be born an abomination - not unless you accept either that God makes mistakes or is arbitrarily cruel. I reject both those propositions. The homosexual does not bear the dark mark; he/she is judged by God under the same criteria as anyone else. And so - the homosexual who cruises the bathhouses is immoral. The homosexual who stays faithful and true to his/her partner is not.
Again, you are making the mistake of assuming that someone born without the ability to reproduce will have a sexual attraction for the same sex. That sexual attraction, especially in one who cannot engage in sexual activity, is not normal. Rather, these are people without the equipment, and thus without sex drive of any orientation.
The born eunuch is not a "born homosexual"--the two are not interchangeable terms.
-
But also to be "accepted" is the eunuch "born from the womb" that way. Here's where the explanation in the "hermeneutics" link stretches credulity. According to that link, this category is supposed to consist only of individuals born with no phallus (lacking the physical equipment), not individuals merely born without sexual attraction to the opposite sex. That makes no sense - how many men are born without penises? And limiting the meaning of eunuch in the first category to those without the physical equipment makes no sense in light of the third category - men who've pledged their celibacy out of service to God. Such holy men are equally described as "eunuchs" notwithstanding they retain all their original equipment.
Genitals. Not penis. The balls are part of the package, especially in the light of the word eunuch. So men with undescended testicles (who usually, though not always, have a low sex drive and are highly infertile anyway) would be considered "born eunuchs." Interesting, cryptorchidism has a stong genetic component, tending to run in families. As a recessive trait, it is expressed more in a population with tight breeding conditions - say, for example, the Levite tribe of Israel, who had VERY strict conditions on who could breed with who.
-
I found this discussion (https://wordofawoman.com/2012/03/27/god-and-homsexuality-part-4-eunuchs-who-have-been-so-from-birth/) interesting.
Many commentaries focus on the discussion about divorce and miss the larger point of the passage. But look carefully: Jesus is asked a question about heterosexual marriage and divorce and immediately broadens the conversation to acknowledge three different types of sexual minorities in that culture…That is stunning, especially given that “the eunuch was persona non grata both socially and religiously” in that culture.
It is clear that Jesus did not see humanity as universally heterosexual. Jesus recognized and acknowledged many types of sexual difference–even in a society in which such difference would have been downplayed, hidden, or even punished.
…the text which immediately precedes Jesus’ discussion of eunuchs, Jesus stands up for women. As Boheche observes, “Jesus counsels mutuality between husband and wife, rather than affirming the traditional laws of divorce which favored the husband.” And in the text which immediately follows our text, Jesus blesses the little children, another group who would have been largely ignored at the time.
-
I found this discussion (https://wordofawoman.com/2012/03/27/god-and-homsexuality-part-4-eunuchs-who-have-been-so-from-birth/) interesting.
Again the fallacy is that someone born without the equipment has a sex drive at all, much less a deviant one. The structure of marriage is for procreation and the nurturing of those offspring. Of course, naturally born eunuchs, incapable of procreation, would be in a different group, but that does not mean that in the absence of being able to procreate they would embrace a deviant sexuality instead of simply no sexuality at all (asexual). If the inability to engage in sexual activity or the drive to do so isn't present, it wouldn't be present for either sex.
They would not be wanted to take the place of one capable of producing offspring as the husband of a fertile woman, as that would diminish the tribe.
Still, the assumption fails that a born eunuch would be a homosexual.
-
Again the fallacy is that someone born without the equipment has a sex drive at all, much less a deviant one. The structure of marriage is for procreation and the nurturing of those offspring. Of course, naturally born eunuchs, incapable of procreation, would be in a different group, but that does not mean that in the absence of being able to procreate they would embrace a deviant sexuality instead of simply no sexuality at all (asexual). If the inability to engage in sexual activity or the drive to do so isn't present, it wouldn't be present for either sex.
They would not be wanted to take the place of one capable of producing offspring as the husband of a fertile woman, as that would diminish the tribe.
Still, the assumption fails that a born eunuch would be a homosexual.
It's an absurd assumption on its face. The idea that taking away ones sex drive makes one attracted to the same sex is just stupid.
What I find disturbing in this discussion is the use of Scripture to argue what Scripture doesn't say, by a person who doesn't even believe the words of Jesus Christ, Himself.
Not trying to shut down discussion (I'd never want that to happen), but it is obviously useless to argue logic and truth to those who make up their own rules and defy logic and reason with pretty much every word.
The arguments used here to defend sin would be laughable if it weren't a matter of literal Life, and literal Death....
-
It's an absurd assumption on its face. The idea that taking away ones sex drive makes one attracted to the same sex is just stupid.
What I find disturbing in this discussion is the use of Scripture to argue what Scripture doesn't say, by a person who doesn't even believe the words of Jesus Christ, Himself.
Not trying to shut down discussion (I'd never want that to happen), but it is obviously useless to argue logic and truth to those who make up their own rules and defy logic and reason with pretty much every word.
The arguments used here to defend sin would be laughable if it weren't a matter of literal Life, and literal Death....
I agree on all points save one. Someone has to counter the arguments brought to try to justify abomination. As long as they are propped up, we are obligated to take them down lest someone actually believe them and be decieved.
If someone breaks bottles on your sidewalk, you still have to sweep up the glass or bear responsibility for the cuts on the neighbor kids' feet.
-
My two cents on Matthew 19; Matthew 19 basically refers to divorce and 19:12 is speaking about marriage with reference to eunuchs. I don't see it as having anything to do with homosexuality.
-
It is rather difficult to discuss marriage without religion getting more than a passing mention.
So far, a warning hasn't been needed to keep it to biblical points without denomination bashing. Credit to all who have participated.
After Jazzhead confirmed that there is no Constitutional basis for prohibiting North Carolina from enacting such a law, all that is left to discuss are these moral arguments:
1. The influence of religion on marriage
2. The acceptance of tyranny as a desirable replacement for Constitutional law.
-
What I find disturbing in this discussion is the use of Scripture to argue what Scripture doesn't say, by a person who doesn't even believe the words of Jesus Christ, Himself.
I resent your slander, ML. I may have issues with the Bible (especially the Old Testament to which I ascribe no special authority), but I love Jesus Christ and consider him the preeminent moral philosopher of the age. I take Jesus' words very seriously - and the passage in Matthew 19:12 demands serious analysis and respect. Jesus was courage personified - he rejected the ancient prejudices depicted in the Old Testament and stood up to the "bible-thumpers" of his time.
Jesus preached love and tolerance, empathy and humility. You and I may disagree about the meaning and import of Jesus' words, but cut this crap that I don't "believe" Him. What I don't "believe" is INVAR and his agenda of cruelty.
-
I resent your slander, ML. I may have issues with the Bible (especially the Old Testament to which I ascribe no special authority), but I love Jesus Christ and consider him the preeminent moral philosopher of the age. I take Jesus' words very seriously - and the passage in Matthew 19:12 demands serious analysis and respect. Jesus was courage personified - he rejected the ancient prejudices depicted in the Old Testament and stood up to the "bible-thumpers" of his time.
Jesus preached love and tolerance, empathy and humility. You and I may disagree about the meaning and import of Jesus' words, but cut this crap that I don't "believe" Him. What I don't "believe" is INVAR and his agenda of cruelty.
@Jazzhead
Well its good that you admit that Jesus actually existed. You don't get to pick and choose what parts of the Bible you agree with. Either its true or its all just fiction. Your use of the word 'was' is telling. You speak of a dead philosopher in the past tense.
Jesus is the Son of God and is very much alive. If you were a believer then you would admit to it. I started to use the word 'know' but I suspect you've had this information passed to you before. We are called to submit and accept Jesus as our savior and King. He didn't stand up to the 'bible-thumpers' but the heretics and blasphemers. He didn't refute the words of the Old Testament but his very appearance on the earth confirmed them. His message was simply that all of us have fallen short of Gods laws and only through him can we be saved. Jesus paid the price for each of us that is written in the Old Testament.
-
What I find disturbing in this discussion is the use of Scripture to argue what Scripture doesn't say, by a person who doesn't even believe the words of Jesus Christ, Himself.
We must all be careful of seeing what we desire in Scripture, rather than what it says... That is why most fundamentalist Christians prefer exegetical exposition.
Eisegesis leads to inference, which invariably descends into wickedness.
Wicked -- from the twisting of wicks -- twisting the Word of God to say what it doesn't say. Many try to justify their actions this way. **nononono* *****rollingeyes*****
-
Jesus is the Son of God and is very much alive. If you were a believer then you would admit to it.
That's the easiest admission I've ever had to make. Of course He's the Son of God. And damn right he stood up to the bible-thumpers of His time.
I am estranged from the Church because it promotes the sort of intolerance and cruelty that mocks the wisdom and philosophy of Christ. In my opinion, of course.
-
I resent your slander, ML. I may have issues with the Bible (especially the Old Testament to which I ascribe no special authority), but I love Jesus Christ and consider him the preeminent moral philosopher of the age. I take Jesus' words very seriously
That you do not believe the Bible is the Word of God given to us by Him means you do not believe in his Son, and anything else you say is so much blasphemy.
-
I resent your slander, ML. I may have issues with the Bible (especially the Old Testament to which I ascribe no special authority), but I love Jesus Christ and consider him the preeminent moral philosopher of the age.
There's your problem right there. Yeshua is on every page of the 'old' testament. If you find difference between Yahweh and Yeshua, then you are doing it wrong.
Some use Torah as a cudgel to beat people. Some say Yeshua frees us from Torah and anything is permitted.
both are deadly positions.
I take Jesus' words very seriously - and the passage in Matthew 19:12 demands serious analysis and respect. Jesus was courage personified - he rejected the ancient prejudices depicted in the Old Testament and stood up to the "bible-thumpers" of his time.
No, what Yeshua did was to lead us all in keeping Torah. He is the exact example of what you call 'ancient prejudices'. He is the singular pinnacle of how to keep the Law, the gold standard.
Jesus preached love and tolerance, empathy and humility. You and I may disagree about the meaning and import of Jesus' words, but cut this crap that I don't "believe" Him. What I don't "believe" is INVAR and his agenda of cruelty.
Yeshua preached nothing but Torah. He added no invention, he brought forth no new thing. If you see Yeshua, you see the Father.
-
That you do not believe the Bible is the Word of God given to us by Him means you do not believe in his Son, and anything else you say is so much blasphemy.
Take your blinders off, son.
-
Take your blinders off, son.
I see that the other way around.
-
That's the easiest admission I've ever had to make. Of course He's the Son of God. And damn right he stood up to the bible-thumpers of His time.
I am estranged from the Church because it promotes the sort of intolerance and cruelty that mocks the wisdom and philosophy of Christ. In my opinion, of course.
You're seeing what you want to see. Your use of the term bible thumpers is derogatory to the Word of God. Why don't you say he stood up to people who were misinterpreting the Word of God? Interpreting it to mean what they wanted it to mean instead of what God wants it to mean? Perhaps because that hits too close to home?
The 'Church' is made up of Gods people. We are all fallen and to distance yourself from the Church is to distance your self from God. Jesus died for our sins but they are still sins, and if we don't turn away from them they will result in our destruction. Homosexuality goes against Gods plan for us, and as such it is a destructive force. Just as anything else that is against Gods will.
-
Take your blinders off, son.
So much arrogance, condescension and ignorance packed into so few words.
-
@mirraflake
Why do majority of men find two hot women making out very sexy and hot?
Heck if I know. You'd think they'd rather imagine themselves doing it. Makes no sense, really.
As @Mesaclone pointed out earlier the ones who say it doesn't are usually lying.
So it's either a majority, or all of them, because the ones who deny it are lying. Which is it?
And...nah..
It's the #1 porn search by straight males.
Is it? How do you know?
Why do women go crazy over Milo Yiounopolis when they know he is gay??
Because some women like feminine-looking men...I think they find masculine men threatening somehow, or maybe they're afraid of them. That's the only explanation, because Milo sure as hell isn't anything to look at, and that would be true if he were straight. He's an average looking guy who bought stock in hair bleach.
Things are not black and white
Oh, but quite often, they're just that.
[/quote]
-
Must be genetics. All sorts of aberrations have been explained that way. :nometalk:
@Smokin Joe
LOL
-
What I said is 100 percent correct. Men are visual and likto look at beautiful naked women while women do not generally like to look at men's genitals in photos and to most it is a turnoff. In the days of print magazines there were dozens of nudie magazines for men but only one for women.
Stop believing that men are like women.Are you a feminist?
@CatherineofAragon
@mirraflake
I'm sorry, mirraflake, but I'm sitting here laughing...literally. Keep it up, I'm enjoying it.
I need this edumacashun. No one ever told me about the birds and the bees. I see horizons opening up before me!
-
@mirraflake
Oh, I forgot, you've been around and you've seen it all, and something about a sorority, and let me teach you the way things are. Except you really don't know.
@CatherineofAragon
Conservative Dennis Pagar just backed up 100% of what I said. Oh and the question how do I know lesbo porn is what men view most or want o see? It's well documented through search engines, porn sites who keep track of it, industry tracker etc. It is no secret. They also keep track of what states view the most porn via IP addresses and credit cars and it is Utah and the Southern Bible belt states.
Dennis Pragar:
Every year men spend billions of dollars to look at women with little clothing on -- such as the annual Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue -- or with no clothing on -- such as on Internet sites and in so-called men’s magazines. Women, on the other hand, spend virtually nothing to see unclothed men. Why?
Some say that the reason is that men are socialized into viewing women as sex objects and that women are socialized into not viewing men as sex objects. But if that’s true, how do these people explain gay men? They are as aroused by pictures of naked men as heterosexual men are aroused by pictures of naked women. Obviously, then, it’s not socialization. It’s that men are programmed by nature -- not by society -- to respond sexually to the visual.
This is an area in which men are so different than women it's probably impossible -- no, not probably, just outright impossible -- for a woman to truly understand. Of course women find some men attractive. And of course a woman can have an intense reaction to seeing a very appealing man. But there’s still no comparison.
The visual alone arouses men. It takes far more to arouse a woman than seeing naked men. If that’s all it took, most husbands would walk around the house naked whenever possible -- or at least every time they wanted sex. And the average heterosexual man is excited countless times a day simply by seeing women -- in person, on billboards, in magazines, on television, and even in his imagination.
This is not the case for women. Yes, there are some male strip shows for women. But few women ever go, and the few who do attend them in groups, a “girls’ night out.” And for every one of those shows there are probably ten thousand female strip shows for males, most of whom attend alone, not as a participant in a guys’ night out.
Let's be honest. There is no magazine featuring men's legs for women to look at and get aroused by. But there are websites and magazines of women's legs for men. And are women paying to view topless men? Men pay good money to look at topless women.
Again, that doesn't mean women never get turned on by merely looking at some men. Of course they do. But it’s only some men -- on rare occasion a stranger, and more usually a celebrity. Men get turned on by any sight of female flesh on almost any female.
The effect of the visual in men is so powerful that it even amazes men. A man came over to me after hearing me lecture on male sexuality and said: “I've got a story to tell you. I was in front of a department store and in the window was a seated mannequin. I couldn't believe it, but I found myself looking up her skirt.” Here was a perfectly normal, responsible man -- who found himself looking up a skirt on an inanimate object shaped like a woman. That's how instinctive it is for men to look at female flesh.
It’s perfectly understandable that women cannot fully relate to this. But if a woman wants to understand male sexuality, the first thing she has to understand is the power of the visual. That's why you see ads on billboards, on TV, and in magazines for every sort of product a man might buy accompanied by a scantily clad woman -- or, sometimes, just part of her. I recall a famous liquor ad that showed a woman’s legs and a bottle of tequila. No face, just beautiful legs. Would you ever see an ad showing men's legs? People would laugh; it would be considered absurd. An ad with women's legs is not absurd—it's alluring.
None of this is in any way meant to excuse inappropriate male behavior. Men must always control themselves. But to deny the power of the visual on men is like denying that the earth is round.
I'm Dennis Prager.
-
Men fantasize about women having sex with them
Women fantasize about men cleaning the garage.
-
@mirraflake
You just don't get it. You went to all that trouble to try and prove to me that men are visual, which I never denied in the first place.
-
That's the easiest admission I've ever had to make. Of course He's the Son of God. And damn right he stood up to the bible-thumpers of His time.
That's funny, considering that Jesus was a 'Bible thumper'. Look at his testimony against satan in the wilderness. Instead of arguing, Jesus resorted to scripture every time.
-
No, what Yeshua did was to lead us all in keeping Torah. He is the exact example of what you call 'ancient prejudices'. He is the singular pinnacle of how to keep the Law, the gold standard.
Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
Matthew 5:17 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:17&version=NKJV)
Through Christ who strenghens me, I can do all things. Only through Christ can the law be fulfilled in me.
-
Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
Matthew 5:17 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:17&version=NKJV)
Through Christ who strenghens me, I can do all things. Only through Christ can the law be fulfilled in me.
Precisely right.
888high58888
-
Jesus was courage personified - he rejected the ancient prejudices depicted in the Old Testament and stood up to the "bible-thumpers" of his time.
You are such an ignoramus on basic Christianity as to be laughable. All Jesus did was quote the Old Testament scriptures. IN CONTEXT. He was hated for it, declared a Blasphemer for doing so. Even when hanging, crucified he was quoting the scriptures - because they were about HIM. Jesus did not 'stand up against' "Bible Thumpers" of His day. HE WAS ONE (as your derogatory suggests). As others have provided you the scripture from Matthew 5:17-18 - from His own mouth He says He did not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Until heaven and earth pass away (last I looked they are still here) - not one little mark will pass from the Law, until all is fulfilled and His Kingdom comes down from On High. Contrary to your assertions, He stood up against the Traditions of the Elders, who ADDED their own passages to scripture to make themselves arbiters of who God would accept and what things people must do to be allowed any access to the temple. Jesus took a special effort to denounce them because they KNEW whom HE was, and REJECTED HIM, in favor of their OWN Traditions and especially because Jesus would not submit to THEIR authority or the perversion of scripture they instituted to make themselves as God.
You reject the bible itself as having any authority or being breathed from God, and instead have lofted the god of your imagination as having the only moral authority anyone can consider. IN this way - you are that which you accuse us of being.
Jesus preached love and tolerance, empathy and humility. You and I may disagree about the meaning and import of Jesus' words, but cut this crap that I don't "believe" Him.
Then why do you not do the things which He says? John 1: 1-3, 14 tell us plainly Whom Jesus Was from the beginning. The very Laws you reject, HE WROTE and handed to Moses. If you knew Jesus beyond the 'philosopher', you wouldn't be pushing evil as a good and justifying abomination upon the people here. The truth is, you do NOT believe in Yeshua/Jesus - but instead believe in a Jesus that conforms to your mindset rather than you conforming to His.
Jesus did not preach love and tolerance. Not in the manner you and the Leftists use that phrase. He revealed the Father - whom mankind was cut off from. He was preaching a Gospel of reconciliation with the Father, and likewise with fellow man. He preached the spiritual INTENT of the Law beyond just the physical and revealed the Father's heart towards us all. Jesus Himself states that we must overcome sin, that we must be grafted into Him to put on the mind of Him and the Father. His message was one that leads to LIFE. The message you are preaching is one that will lead to DEATH.
Pushing homosexuality as virtuous is pushing the mindset of Satan and discarding the Word of God and Christ Himself. Eternal Death is the wages earned for such, especially when you have witnesses here showing you the truth that you reject. Truly it will be more tolerable in that Day of Judgment for the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah than it will be for those who are witness to the truth - and reject it in favor of their own gods.
-
That's funny, considering that Jesus was a 'Bible thumper'. Look at his testimony against satan in the wilderness. Instead of arguing, Jesus resorted to scripture every time.
That guy is trying to create his own religion of Bible-hating sodomists.
I have already suggested he go try to find some followers in the Middle East.
He won't have too many followers, as most already follow another guy.
-
Jesus did not preach love and tolerance.
True enough. Here is a guy in colonial America. My gramps, Rev. "Hatevil Nutter."
He saw to the lashing of three Quaker women. That was before the nation's policy against "established" religion, while the puritans still claimed the upper hand, in our faire colonies.
Google Rev. Hatevil Nutter.
https://thompsongenealogy.com/2011/04/hatevil-nutter-was-a-cruel-religious-hypocrite/
-
True enough. Here is a guy in colonial America. My gramps, Rev. "Hatevil Nutter."
He saw to the lashing of three Quaker women. That was before the nation's policy against "established" religion, while the puritans still claimed the upper hand, in our faire colonies.
Google Rev. Hatevil Nutter.
Well, how about you provide us the scripture wherein Jesus preached tolerance for those practicing and promoting sin if you think pointing out the promotion of evil is religious hypocrisy. Do note, that if you are going to cite the woman caught in adultery - do not forget the part about "go and sin no more".
I know, anyone daring to say such a thing is a religious hypocrite. I guess Jesus must have been one too.
-
The truth is, you do NOT believe in Yeshua/Jesus - but instead believe in a Jesus that conforms to your mindset rather than you conforming to His.
(http://www.martinzender.com/new_zender_sheridan/week2_6-10/110612.jpg)
-
True enough. Here is a guy in colonial America. My gramps, Rev. "Hatevil Nutter."
He saw to the lashing of three Quaker women. That was before the nation's policy against "established" religion, while the puritans still claimed the upper hand, in our faire colonies.
Google Rev. Hatevil Nutter.
So what?
-
Hitler on his deathbed repents and accepts Jesus Christ and confesses to God and goes to Heaven.
Two gay men who have believed in God all their lives, loved each other all their lives, did great community service, helped the poor, never spoke bad about anyone, model citizens helping others go to Hell.
-
Hitler on his deathbed repents and accepts Jesus Christ and confesses to God and goes to Heaven.
Two gay men who have believed in God all their lives, loved each other all their lives, did great community service, helped the poor, never spoke bad about anyone, model citizens helping others go to Hell.
Not if they repent and accept Jesus as their Savior.
Same rules apply for all.
-
Not if they repent and accept Jesus as their Savior.
Same rules apply for all.
No it points out the ridiculousness of man's interpreted rules in the Bible.
-
I agree on all points save one. Someone has to counter the arguments brought to try to justify abomination. As long as they are propped up, we are obligated to take them down lest someone actually believe them and be decieved.
If someone breaks bottles on your sidewalk, you still have to sweep up the glass or bear responsibility for the cuts on the neighbor kids' feet.
Point well taken. The lies need to be countered with truth.
@Smokin Joe
-
No it points out the ridiculousness of man's interpreted rules in the Bible.
huh, who else would 'interpret' the Bible? a gerbil?
If you don't want to follow the rule then don't. But dont be a hater.
-
I resent your slander, ML. I may have issues with the Bible (especially the Old Testament to which I ascribe no special authority), but I love Jesus Christ and consider him the preeminent moral philosopher of the age. I take Jesus' words very seriously - and the passage in Matthew 19:12 demands serious analysis and respect. Jesus was courage personified - he rejected the ancient prejudices depicted in the Old Testament and stood up to the "bible-thumpers" of his time.
Jesus preached love and tolerance, empathy and humility. You and I may disagree about the meaning and import of Jesus' words, but cut this crap that I don't "believe" Him. What I don't "believe" is INVAR and his agenda of cruelty.
I didn't "slander" you @Jazzhead . You've said here multiple times on this thread that you don't believe what Jesus Himself said/says. I'm not going to go back and find all the posts where you denied Jesus' words, but you've done in multiple times.
As others have said, and I have said, you don't have the right to make up your own Jesus and then say you love him. To love Him requires obedience to His commandments.
As for the Old Testament, it's been said by others, but Jesus was there from the beginning. He is the I AM, Creator, Giver of Life, who lowered Himself to become flesh so that He could die for us and redeem us from our sin.
What you don't believe is that Jesus meant what He said. You don't believe that the Jesus who loves us is also the God of wrath and justice.
In other words, you don't believe the Christ of the Scripture, and you've said so repeatedly.
No slander.
-
I see that the other way around.
It IS the other way around.
-
@mirraflake
I'm sorry, mirraflake, but I'm sitting here laughing...literally. Keep it up, I'm enjoying it.
I need this edumacashun. No one ever told me about the birds and the bees. I see horizons opening up before me!
Ain't it fun to be educated by a young whippersnapper about all this birds and bees stuff?
If it weren't for flake, I wouldn't know ANYTHING about sex. Good thing he's here to help us out. :silly: :silly:
@CatherineofAragon
-
Not if they repent and accept Jesus as their Savior.
Same rules apply for all.
That's the part that bugs liberals.
They want special treatment, not equal treatment. They want special favors, not justice, or even mercy.
They can't stand the idea that there are absolutes that can't be changed by their wishful thinking and imaginary gods.
-
Well, how about you provide us the scripture wherein Jesus preached tolerance for those practicing and promoting sin if you think pointing out the promotion of evil is religious hypocrisy. Do note, that if you are going to cite the woman caught in adultery - do not forget the part about "go and sin no more".
I know, anyone daring to say such a thing is a religious hypocrite. I guess Jesus must have been one too.
The liberal atheists of the board can't hide their liberalism because they so desperately cling to stereotypes. Portraying the Puritans as religious zealots is an old standby but its also false. The Puritans were quite forward thinking by most European standards of the day. Cotton Mather was an early researcher into cross pollination of crops noting that "we breed stock for better strains, plants may be the same". He even worked with the natives to test his theories because they used hardier strains of crops. He also experimented with early forms of vaccination (Variolation) which did get him into trouble with the church but it passed.
Increase Mather wrote a scathing repudiation of those accusing other of witchcraft during the Salem witch trials. He pointed out that witchcraft isn't real and that the devil had come to Salem town under the guise of those who bear false witness against their neighbors. The church was the only court of the day so they get the blame but they were trying to shut down the greed/lust/envy driven hysteria.
The left behaves as if anywhere from dozens to hundreds of women were killed due to the suspicion of witchcraft. It actually sounds like somewhere between 5 or 10 women died in relation to the witch trials and most look like accidental deaths or deaths due to illness. At least 2 was burned by a lynch mob who burned a cabin where she was being held.
-
Hitler on his deathbed repents and accepts Jesus Christ and confesses to God and goes to Heaven.
Two gay men who have believed in God all their lives, loved each other all their lives, did great community service, helped the poor, never spoke bad about anyone, model citizens helping others go to Hell.
We aren't the judge, nor are we to judge.
2 Corinthians 5:10 "For all of us must appear before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has bee done in the body, whether good or evil".
-
Well, how about you provide us the scripture wherein Jesus preached tolerance for those practicing and promoting sin if you think pointing out the promotion of evil is religious hypocrisy. Do note, that if you are going to cite the woman caught in adultery - do not forget the part about "go and sin no more".
I know, anyone daring to say such a thing is a religious hypocrite. I guess Jesus must have been one too.
The incident had nothing to do with adultery. It had only to do with the Quaker women practicing their religion's beliefs. One such belief held against a professional class of preachers, btw.
The Puritan preacher Nutter had them stripped to the waist, whipped, and paraded from town to town.
The Puritans held the upper hand. Same back in Merrey Olde Englande, for a time, when Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell went to chopping the king's head off.
Later the Founders of our Civil Government, rejected churches so powerful, the would "hold the upper hand."
*Ironically the puritans left Europe, in order to practice their denomination, only to immediately desire to force it upon others.
You can quote Bible verses until the cows come home, but if our Founders intended them to be civil laws, they had the means to make that be so. They did not do so.
-
Hitler on his deathbed repents and accepts Jesus Christ and confesses to God and goes to Heaven.
Two gay men who have believed in God all their lives, loved each other all their lives, did great community service, helped the poor, never spoke bad about anyone, model citizens helping others go to Hell.
That quite the self-serving view of salvation you have there. Have you ever looked at salvation as an opportunity rather than an accomplishment?
I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.
John 10:10 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10:10&version=NKJV)
It all has to do with getting us back to living in the Garden. It isn't about some free ticket into heaven.
-
You're seeing what you want to see. Your use of the term bible thumpers is derogatory to the Word of God. Why don't you say he stood up to people who were misinterpreting the Word of God? Interpreting it to mean what they wanted it to mean instead of what God wants it to mean? Perhaps because that hits too close to home?
The 'Church' is made up of Gods people. We are all fallen and to distance yourself from the Church is to distance your self from God. Jesus died for our sins but they are still sins, and if we don't turn away from them they will result in our destruction. Homosexuality goes against Gods plan for us, and as such it is a destructive force. Just as anything else that is against Gods will.
See the bolded....because those points are correct. Jesus stood up to those exact folks...call them what you will (and bible thumpers is as good a descriptor as any). What Jesus did was brave, smart and wise. Jazz is following exactly in those footsteps, standing up to the modern day versions of Pharissees...what we today call bible thumpers.
-
That quite the self-serving view of salvation you have there. Have you ever looked at salvation as an opportunity rather than an accomplishment?
It all has to do with getting us back to living in the Garden. It isn't about some free ticket into heaven.
I really don't think God is that rigid and I'm quite sure he takes each case differently. If God sends those 2 gay men for Hell for doing good all their lives he is not a God I would respect.
What about the atheist or agnostic who is the same, has done good all his life but God takes him away in an accident before he can repent or accept. God sending him to Hell? I don't think so.
If he did ..God sounds like a vengeful a$$hole but we know he is not.
@Hoodat
-
That quite the self-serving view of salvation you have there. Have you ever looked at salvation as an opportunity rather than an accomplishment?
I really don't think God is that rigid and I'm quite sure he takes each case differently. If God sends those 2 gay men for Hell for doing good all their lives he is not a God I would respect.
What about the atheist or agnostic who is the same, has done good all his life but God takes him away in an accident before he can repent or accept. God sending him to Hell? I don't think so.
If he did ..God is an a$$hole but he is not.
@Hoodat
I guess not.
-
Have you ever looked at salvation as an opportunity rather than an accomplishment?
I guess not.
I would think if a person led a truly righteous life with all the temptations we have God would think that is quite an accomplishment in itself.
@Hoodat
-
See the bolded....because those points are correct. Jesus stood up to those exact folks...call them what you will (and bible thumpers is as good a descriptor as any). What Jesus did was brave, smart and wise. Jazz is following exactly in those footsteps, standing up to the modern day versions of Pharissees...what we today call bible thumpers.
@Mesaclone
So the guy who says parts of the bible are wrong is following in the footsteps of Jesus? No you are misguided.
Homosexuality is a sin. The Bible is very clear on that issue. It is not bible thumping to say so.
Does that mean homosexuals must be treated poorly or hated? Of course not, but to condone the sin is wrong.
-
This mentality that life is some sort of religious/doctrinal test with a pass/fail outcome is absurd...and exactly what Jesus came to fight and end.
God loves in a way that is deeper and more lasting than we can conceive...more than we all love our own children. Not one of us would ever condemn our own child to an eternal suffering...which is pointless and cruel. Yes, we let them face the consequences of their actions, and yes we make them learn to repent and correct their mistakes as they grow and learn. And our love is imperfect. God's love is perfect and unending, and so his mercy is far greater than our own towards our children. God will not suffer those he loves to be forever separated from him...only a human could imagine and create concepts like hellfire and eternal damnation. Our free will, because it is eventually informed by truth, will always lead us back to god.
So in this context, salvation is not a rescue from pain and punishment...it is a returning to god. We leave god because we are ignorant and foolish...childlike...and we return to him when our understanding and maturity grow. This is what god and Jesus call us to...he does not call us back with the threat of punishment, but with the promise of reward.
A deity that would send its own creation to eternal suffering...is not loving or good. He/She would be a truly monstrous evil. Fortunately, that "monstrosity" exists ONLY in human thought, god herself is the diametric opposite of such a concept....a fully loving and kind parent.
Jesus preaching, details aside, was about love and forgiveness...on all levels. Its sad to see that so many have rejected that in favor the path of the Sadducees...that of judgement, punishment, rigidity and hatred. Yet even that cannot last, because truth and god's love will in time overcome these human impediments. We, even the fundamentalist bible thumpers, will all eventually find our way to the true and loving god and to eternal oneness with the divine.
On that note, this conversation has clearly played itself out intellectually. God's love and her blessings to all of you.
-
@Mesaclone
So the guy who says parts of the bible are wrong is following in the footsteps of Jesus? No you are misguided.
Homosexuality is a sin. The Bible is very clear on that issue. It is not bible thumping to say so.
Does that mean homosexuals must be treated poorly or hated? Of course not, but to condone the sin is wrong.
A last quick note to answer this.
It is because parts of it are also right...though often not literally so.
-
See the bolded....because those points are correct. Jesus stood up to those exact folks...call them what you will (and bible thumpers is as good a descriptor as any). What Jesus did was brave, smart and wise. Jazz is following exactly in those footsteps, standing up to the modern day versions of Pharissees...what we today call bible thumpers.
Horse and dog poop mixed.
You and Jazz both are the epitome of what Isaiah 5:20-21 warns us against.
However, since you both worship the unbiblical for your own golden calves, and conform God to your perverted mindsets instead of being conformed to His, your disdain and hatred for the plain Word of God is not surprising - doing that exact thing that you accuse us of doing.
Like the Pharisees, you have crafted God into your own image based on your own desires and based on the scriptures you discard and discount and by what imaginations of God you ascribe. You combine the God of scripture with Buddha as some kind of divine revelation of knowledge.
In short, you come preaching another Jesus - a foreign god not from scripture - but from your own imagination.
This is what god and Jesus call us to...he does not call us back with the threat of punishment, but with the promise of reward.
"The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will weed out of His kingdom every cause of sin and all who practice lawlessness. And they will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth". - Matthew 13:42-43
You are exactly what Jesus warned us about in Matthew 24:26, preaching a Jesus not from God. Preaching yourselves your own intellect rather than Him Crucified. You praise and promote the practitioners of wickedness and abomination as practitioners of virtue and holiness while denouncing those standing on the Word of God itself as an evil.
No biblical Christian on this board should regard anything you have to say in matters pertaining to the bible, Jesus or Yahweh. You are espousing doctrines of demons and preaching a gospel from the prince of the power of the air.
I pray legislatures like South Carolina do follow through on their pledge to serve their state citizens and ban the imposition of homosexual marriage by the feds.
-
See the bolded....because those points are correct. Jesus stood up to those exact folks...call them what you will (and bible thumpers is as good a descriptor as any). What Jesus did was brave, smart and wise. Jazz is following exactly in those footsteps, standing up to the modern day versions of Pharissees...what we today call bible thumpers.
In this you are exactly, and perfectly wrong.
Every single thing Yeshua said and everything Yeshua did, to include the healings he performed were a direct support of Torah and a direct and purposeful contradiction of the Pharisees 'takanot and ma'asim' - the things the Pharisees said and did which were not in Torah.
The argument over the washing of the hands, the dispute over the disciples gleaning on the Sabbath, The healing of the cripple on the Sabbath, even the method with which he healed the blind man at the pool of Siloam.
Every single thing directly, pointedly AGAINST the made up crap the Pharisees served up -That which was *not* to be found in the Law, but which *was* to be found in their additions to Torah (Talmud)
Every single thing perfectly and directly supporting and correcting what is in the Law.
What Christians here are saying IS in the Law, and IS in the Testimony.
What you and @Jazzhead are saying is not.
Your position is formed in ignorance. You are most certainly misinformed.
-
We are all ignorant in some areas. It's a good thing to be exposed to the truth, if we can open our ears to hear and eyes to see.
-
Horse and dog poop mixed.
You and Jazz both are the epitome of what Isaiah 5:20-21 warns us against.
However, since you both worship the unbiblical for your own golden calves, and conform God to your perverted mindsets instead of being conformed to His, your disdain and hatred for the plain Word of God is not surprising - doing that exact thing that you accuse us of doing.
On the contrary, you've made a book your Golden Calf.
The early church existed for centuries without collecting a number of writings into a singular tome and calling it "the book" (Biblos)...having done so, in a very political way, they later declared it innately infallible and perfect. Because they said so. This book, sadly, has become your Golden Idol, you worship it and its words while failing to see God and his love all around you...and yes, in you. A collection of books can be a tool for knowledge, and this is true of the bible to an extent...it can even be a path towards enlightenment if used in a rational way. You have perverted it into an idol, and a rationale for anger, punishment and hate...and that was hardly the message of Jesus.
But you have used "Biblos" to supplant god...to replace him...rather than to grow near to him. You use it as a bludgeon to those who don't adhere to your personal view of the Biblos, and you treat as a pagan does a relic. You counter this charge only by proclaiming it is god's untouchable word...a claim that has no approbation from god himself...in other words, you make it a Golden Calf. But what it is, in actuality, is a collection that men wrote and then very politically assembled together into a tome.
The disciple Thomas knew where god was found...and he said so quite clearly in Thomas 9-21:
"If those pulling you say to you, 'Look, the kingdom is in the sky' the birds of the sky will go before you. Or if they say that it is beneath the ground, the fish of the sea will go in, preceding you. And the kingdom of God is within you and outside you. Whoever knows himself will find this and when you know yourselves you will know that you are children of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you are in poverty and you are the poverty." Gospel of Thomas
Further:
...Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there. Gospel of Thomas
God is not found in a book written by men, he is in you and as Thomas said...when you know yourself you will know that you are children of the living Father. Jesus knew himself, emulate that.
-
I would think if a person led a truly righteous life with all the temptations we have God would think that is quite an accomplishment in itself.
@Hoodat
Clearly, you don't get it. It's not about performance.
I suggest you read the story of the prodigal son and take into consideration the perspective of the third son. Man's original sin was to be independent from God. Christ came so that we could be reconciled with the Father.
-
Clearly, you don't get it. It's not about performance.
I suggest you read the story of the prodigal son and take into consideration the perspective of the third son. Man's original sin was to be independent from God. Christ came so that we could be reconciled with the Father.
The concept of original sin was a creation of Augustine of Hippo...for hundreds of years the church was devoid of this silly and culturally tainted absurdity. It was bunk then, and its bunk now. It was drawn from a misreading of Paul on the topic of sin entering the world through Adam...and even that was just the thoughts of Paul, not of god. Wiser men like Pelagius debunked it at the time, but Augustine's powerful sponsors and political connections won out.
-
On the contrary, you've made a book your Golden Calf.
Exactly what Satan would want people to believe.
Like him, whom you assert does not exist - you transform yourself and your false god into an angel of light.
You are just like talking to the Hindu priests that came storming into the church to denounce our faith. Your religious excuses and explanations for denouncing the scriptures to loft your imaginary deity are nearly identical to theirs.
I know what spirit you speak from, and it is not from anything I worship or consider to be from God.
I would completely ignore you - save for the fact that it is instructive for the Christians here to witness spiritual warfare against wickedness in High Places.
-
The concept of original sin was a creation of Augustine of Hippo...for hundreds of years the church was devoid of this silly and culturally tainted absurdity.
My statement had nothing at all to do with this concept. It was not a statement about transmission, or collective guilt, or anything having to do with our current condition. It only identified the point at which Adam/Eve ventured outside the covering of the Father.
Perhaps you should actually read what others post instead of reading just one or two words and making broad-based assumptions.
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Romans 8:18-21 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8%3A18-21&version=NKJV)
-
On the contrary, you've made a book your Golden Calf.
The early church existed for centuries without collecting a number of writings into a singular tome and calling it "the book" (Biblos)...having done so, in a very political way, they later declared it innately infallible and perfect. Because they said so. This book, sadly, has become your Golden Idol, you worship it and its words while failing to see God and his love all around you...and yes, in you.
What a bunch of hooey. The church is or was a sect of Judaism in it's beginning. It has never been without the Book, because it has always had, from it's start, the Tanakh - Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings.
Again, outright wrong, on it;s face.
A collection of books can be a tool for knowledge, and this is true of the bible to an extent...it can even be a path towards enlightenment if used in a rational way. You have perverted it into an idol, and a rationale for anger, punishment and hate...and that was hardly the message of Jesus.
But you have used "Biblos" to supplant god...to replace him...rather than to grow near to him. You use it as a bludgeon to those who don't adhere to your personal view of the Biblos, and you treat as a pagan does a relic.
I am finding nothing here but projection.
You counter this charge only by proclaiming it is god's untouchable word...a claim that has no approbation from god himself...in other words, you make it a Golden Calf. But what it is, in actuality, is a collection that men wrote and then very politically assembled together into a tome.
Absolutely incorrect. God Himself did indeed make such a claim. TORAH. Unchanging and always. Anyone who says otherwise, anyone who adds to or takes away, anything other than Torah is *not* of Yahweh. That is pretty untouchable. And those words are guarded and guaranteed with forms of encryption that we are just now beginning to understand with the aid of computers. Magnificent.
The disciple Thomas knew where god was found...and he said so quite clearly in Thomas 9-21:
"If those pulling you say to you, 'Look, the kingdom is in the sky' the birds of the sky will go before you. Or if they say that it is beneath the ground, the fish of the sea will go in, preceding you. And the kingdom of God is within you and outside you. Whoever knows himself will find this and when you know yourselves you will know that you are children of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you are in poverty and you are the poverty." Gospel of Thomas
Further:
...Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there. Gospel of Thomas
Meh. More gnostic bullcrap. Gnosis... Knowlege... Do you know another word in the Greek with that meaning? Daimon... Demon.
Be careful who you listen to.
God is not found in a book written by men, he is in you and as Thomas said...when you know yourself you will know that you are children of the living Father. Jesus knew himself, emulate that.
How very convenient it must be to have nothing written in stone... Where what you desire governs what is right and wrong. Where every contradiction between will and conscience can be thrown to the wind. It reminds me of... 'Do as thou wilt', where one is his own judge and god can be just about anything you want. Nothing to please but your own vanity.
Must be nice.
-
What a bunch of hooey. The church is or was a sect of Judaism in it's beginning. It has never been without the Book, because it has always had, from it's start, the Tanakh - Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings.
Again, outright wrong, on it;s face.
I am finding nothing here but projection.
Absolutely incorrect. God Himself did indeed make such a claim. TORAH. Unchanging and always. Anyone who says otherwise, anyone who adds to or takes away, anything other than Torah is *not* of Yahweh. That is pretty untouchable. And those words are guarded and guaranteed with forms of encryption that we are just now beginning to understand with the aid of computers. Magnificent.
Meh. More gnostic bullcrap. Gnosis... Knowlege... Do you know another word in the Greek with that meaning? Daimon... Demon.
Be careful who you listen to.
How very convenient it must be to have nothing written in stone... Where what you desire governs what is right and wrong. Where every contradiction between will and conscience can be thrown to the wind. It reminds me of... 'Do as thou wilt', where one is his own judge and god can be just about anything you want. Nothing to please but your own vanity.
Must be nice.
It has never been without the Book.
Yes, it has. Without a bible at least. It had the Jewish writings of the Old Testament, and absolutely nothing of the New...as it was either unwritten at the time or simply one of many early writings that various groups adhered to across the Mediterranean. So what you wrote is total baloney.
TORAH. Unchanging and always.
Torah is not the "biblos" that was assembled in the 3rd and 4th centuries...it was a small part of the larger work. Further, if a text "says" god says its infallible and can't be changed....that's still just a man writing what he believes god thinks/wants. Men wrote the books, not god, and their use of god to validate what they wrote is as unsurprising as it is non-credible. Again, you write MORE baloney. Try knowing your own "books" history for a change.
I am finding nothing here but projection.
You are finding what you brought with you to the discussion. Not uncommon, but rather foolish.
Gnosis... Knowlege... Do you know another word in the Greek with that meaning? Daimon... Demon.
Clearly, you are not an etymologist. The word Daimon is a Greek term referencing "spirit" or a "moving force", it does not mean knowledge nor does it refer to either a good or evil motive. Gnosis on the other hand, is simply a word for "knowledge" or "to know" or even "knowing". It is not related to Daimon, which is a truncation of Eudaimonia which means good "spiritedness". Christians saw pagans worshipping "good spirited forces" and used the word as a negative in referring to Pagan daemon. So you've taken two entirely unrelated things and sought to combine for effect...but you've failed because...well...you simply are incorrect in your understanding of both words.
How very convenient it must be to have nothing written in stone...
God doesn't write in stone, or ink. Men do. God writes in our hearts and in the very air around us. It can be convenient, but its also trying because men often blind themselves to the god who is in and all around them. As for god's love, that is...metaphorically...written in stone and stamped on every atom. So its has a permanence that no book or doctrine can ever compete with.
Be careful who you listen to.
Good advice for all. Could not agree more. That includes of course, men who wrote books that were later collected into a "biblos", now called a bible. These fellows of the 2nd and 3rd centuries were plagued by the same failings, inadequacies, biases and foolishness as we are today. Worshipping their collection is idol worship....literally. The only one you should listen to is the voice of God in your heart and in the world around you...that is the true bible.
-
How very convenient it must be to have nothing written in stone... Where what you desire governs what is right and wrong. Where every contradiction between will and conscience can be thrown to the wind. It reminds me of... 'Do as thou wilt', where one is his own judge and god can be just about anything you want. Nothing to please but your own vanity.
Must be nice.
No. It's not nice.
Look around - the consequences of that Gnostic/Daimon is everywhere in the world. Misery. Suffering. Confusion. Deviancy. The vilest oppressions and genocides being perpetrated by similar 'superior' intellects that loft the human passions and reasonings as the be-all, end-all pursuit of utopia. The devolution of our own culture is a direct result of the gnostic/Hindu/Humanist/Buddhist/Atheist mindset whereby they pick and choose and decide that they are of themselves god and determine their own morality based on their passions and views. The results being the stupidity that is being protected in law that now decree that people can determine their own gender regardless of what plumbing they are born with.
Mescalone will tell us to follow the god of our own heart, but you and I know that is of Satan - for it is Written: "The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it?" - Jer. 17:9
-
No. It's not nice.
Look around - the consequences of that Gnostic/Daimon is everywhere in the world. Misery. Suffering. Confusion. Deviancy. The vilest oppressions and genocides being perpetrated by similar 'superior' intellects that loft the human passions and reasonings as the be-all, end-all pursuit of utopia. The devolution of our own culture is a direct result of the gnostic/Hindu/Humanist/Buddhist/Atheist mindset whereby they pick and choose and decide that they are of themselves god and determine their own morality based on their passions and views. The results being the stupidity that is being protected in law that now decree that people can determine their own gender regardless of what plumbing they are born with.
Mescalone will tell us to follow the god of our own heart, but you and I know that is of Satan - for it is Written: "The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it?" - Jer. 17:9
The vast majority of horrors in this world have been committed by religious fanatics...those who claim only they know the will of god through their "holy book". Sound familiar.
Gnostic christians are a miniscule minority...perhaps only Unitarians could aptly fit their belief system. Though it IS true that Gnosticism and other early Christian beliefs such as Arianism were the prevalent doctrines in early Christianity. But that was long ago, and was violently crushed and its followers slaughtered by the benevolent fundamentalists of their age. Only a genuinely ill informed person could see them as a serious factor in the evolution of modern western culture. Likewise, Buddhism has little or no influence in the West or in the Islamic world.
No...terror in this modern age has come from the religious fundamentalists of the planet...men who KNOW they worship the god the RIGHT way, and believe their views should be imposed on everyone else. Kinda like you want your views enshrined in our governance....a milder strain, no doubt, of the kind of fanaticism that has cost so many lives this past century.
-
The vast majority of horrors in this world have been committed by religious fanatics...of the kind of fanaticism that has cost so many lives this past century.
Exactly what we always hear Liberal agnostic/Atheist Socialists tell us (as well as Jihadists). CHRISTIANITY is the problem.
Except of course it's the secular /Secular/Agnostic Atheists that have killed more human beings this last century than all the crusades and wars of the last 500 years combined.
-
Exactly what we always hear Liberal agnostic/Atheist Socialists tell us (as well as Jihadists). CHRISTIANITY is the problem.
Except of course it's the secular /Secular/Agnostic Atheists that have killed more human beings this last century than all the crusades and wars of the last 500 years combined.
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hirohito, Mao.
-
I would think if a person led a truly righteous life with all the temptations we have God would think that is quite an accomplishment in itself.
@mirraflake
Not possible. God is perfect, so to be granted heaven you would have to achieve perfection---in life----on your own. That means not one single negative/wrong thought or action during your lifetime.
Human nature being what it is, it can't be done. Look at us here; every one of us has blown true righteousness on this thread alone.
-
Exactly what we always hear Liberal agnostic/Atheist Socialists tell us (as well as Jihadists). CHRISTIANITY is the problem.
Except of course it's the secular /Secular/Agnostic Atheists that have killed more human beings this last century than all the crusades and wars of the last 500 years combined.
First, I said Religious Fundamentalists...not Christians.
Second, while I would not argue that Hitler was religious....Hitler and the Nazi party promoted "Positive Christianity", a movement which rejected most traditional Christian doctrines such as the Apostles' Creed, as well as Jewish elements such as the Old Testament. However, Hitler claimed that he continued to believe in an active Deity, and to hold Jesus in high esteem as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against Jewry. ...he used religion as a weapon of propaganda and militaristic motivation. He was a baptized and confirmed Roman catholic by upbringing. Even in Mein Kampf and later writings, he claimed to be a Christian.
As for communism in general, it became religion in the sense of its fervor for "rightness" and its proclamation of having the only access to "truth". Again, its just another side of the coin of fundamentalism and a part of the slaughter and death wrought by these forces. As an advocate for belief in the true mission of Jesus, I condemn that fundamentalism in all its forms...religious and pseudo-religious alike.
-
First, I said Religious Fundamentalists...not Christians.
Second, while I would not argue that Hitler was religious....Hitler and the Nazi party promoted "Positive Christianity", a movement which rejected most traditional Christian doctrines such as the Apostles' Creed, as well as Jewish elements such as the Old Testament. However, Hitler claimed that he continued to believe in an active Deity, and to hold Jesus in high esteem as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against Jewry. ...he used religion as a weapon of propaganda and militaristic motivation. He was a baptized and confirmed Roman catholic by upbringing. Even in Mein Kampf and later writings, he claimed to be a Christian.
As for communism in general, it became religion in the sense of its fervor for "rightness" and its proclamation of having the only access to "truth". Again, its just another side of the coin of fundamentalism and a part of the slaughter and death wrought by these forces. As an advocate for belief in the true mission of Jesus, I condemn that fundamentalism in all its forms...religious and pseudo-religious alike.
I think you are talking about fanatics, more than fundamentalists. A fundamentalist is one who goes back to basics--fundamentals--and there are many who will claim the title but few actually are. However, history is rife with fanatics of every stripe, who believe they have the only answer, that they alone can solve the problems of the age, and who will slaughter all who stand in their way. Then, you have people who are just murderous bastards regardless of what or who (if anything) they claim to worship.
-
I think you are talking about fanatics, more than fundamentalists. A fundamentalist is one who goes back to basics--fundamentals--and there are many who will claim the title but few actually are. However, history is rife with fanatics of every stripe, who believe they have the only answer, that they alone can solve the problems of the age, and who will slaughter all who stand in their way. Then, you have people who are just murderous bastards regardless of what or who (if anything) they claim to worship.
Can't argue with any of that. Fanatics it is...and the hallmark of that trait is a certainty of rightness and a fervor to make others agree. That can, as you say, apply to both religious and secular persons.
-
As an advocate for belief in the true mission of Jesus, I condemn that fundamentalism in all its forms...religious and pseudo-religious alike.
You have absolutely no understanding of the true mission of Yeshua/Jesus. None.
You have condemned Him and His Fundamentalism to His Truth from His Word right here on this thread, and declared openly that the parts of the bible you do not like - are bogus.
-
You have absolutely no understanding of the true mission of Yeshua/Jesus. None.
You have condemned Him and His Fundamentalism to His Truth from His Word right here on this thread, and declared openly that the parts of the bible you do not like - are bogus.
What I understand is that the truth of god is in us and all around us...not in any book. If that makes me devil spawn in your eyes, I am sad for you...you have a very long journey ahead of you, though I've no doubt that in the end you will find your way to god. While I'm sad you are so angry and far from her now, it brings me joy to know we will meet in him one day.
See, just what I wouldn't do...is condemn. Especially not Jesus. Like Buddha and other wise men, he spoke truth...of love and forgiveness, the only real path to god. He was a man of wisdom and practicality...even humor. As for what I proclaim bogus, its rather simple...that which paints god and Jesus as anything other than pure love, pure forgiveness, rationality and the absence of judgement. Further, I look to biblical scholars like Crossan, Bawer, Funk and others of the Jesus Seminar and like philosophy...and their textual analysis (a scientific method applied ancient texts of all kinds to separate original material from edits and late editions).
Further, men like Archbishop Shelby Spong, a friend and mentor from whom I have learned much...guides my thoughts on the true nature of Jesus and the bible itself. You may disagree, but your eagerness to proclaim those who view Jesus in their own way as agents of "Satan" says everything anyone needs to know about your intellectual talents and knowledge of the subject matter.
-
What I understand is that the truth of god is in us and all around us...not in any book.
As I said many times now - you worship a god of your imagination, based on whatever your eyes choose to see. The One you claim to follow tells us that we are to not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the Mouth of Yahweh - which has been Θεόπνευστη into the scriptures and the letters of the Testimony of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and His Christ. A book you reject as bogus depending on the parts you do not like in favor of your own desires and impressions you choose to see as God. I would not be a bit surprised if you worship the creation as well as that which you claim.
I find it amusing you quote from a book of Thomas that also is quoted in Hindu writings and belief systems that tell them that their deities are found under rocks and in everything the eye sees.
If that makes me devil spawn in your eyes, I am sad for you...
Don't feign sadness for me in the effort to make yourself appear magnanimous and pious to others that read this thread. You come preaching another gospel from the god of this Age and not from Him in whom you claim to follow. You are not from the God you claim to worship - and you come with all manner of clever beguiling and human reasoning to deceive, if possible - the Elect of the Lord. This is why we biblical Christians stand against what you state on this thread with the Sword of Truth that you have openly rejected.
You and your compatriot in this thread come preaching love and tolerance for the practice of evil and wickedness as a virtuous and good thing. That alone condemns your own claims of whom you say you are from and whom you claim to worship.
"And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve." - II Corinthians 11:12-15
That describes you in my estimation based on what you write here.
And as for what you write here in regards to God and religion, I'm not interested in all the 'knowledge' and 'wisdom' you ascribe for yourself. I abhor it as easily as I do all pagans and their beliefs, and the Muslims and theirs. I desire to only know Christ and Him crucified and you do not represent Him. I am not impressed by all the knowledge and authors you claim to have gleaned wisdom for yourself, because in my estimation - thinking yourself wise - you have proven yourself a fool. (Romans 1:21-22)
-
You have absolutely no understanding of the true mission of Yeshua/Jesus. None.
You have condemned Him and His Fundamentalism to His Truth from His Word right here on this thread, and declared openly that the parts of the bible you do not like - are bogus.
The words of the fanatic, colored by hubris. Mesaclone's right - this is the attitude that leads man to slaughter his brother, in the name of God or a secular equivalent.
What has been proposed on this thread is that Jesus preached a gospel of love and compassion, and that God cannot possibly, if He is indeed all-knowing, be arbitrarily cruel. To the fanatic, these notions must be denounced as satanic, and the Bible twisted into a manual for the perpetuation of ancient prejudices, its words frozen and unyielding.
But Jesus lives, and enters the hearts of those who listen. Jesus is the antidote to fanaticism.
-
The words of the fanatic, colored by hubris. Mesaclone's right - this is the attitude that leads man to slaughter his brother, in the name of God or a secular equivalent.
What has been proposed on this thread is that Jesus preached a gospel of love and compassion, and that God cannot possibly, if He is indeed all-knowing, be arbitrarily cruel. To the fanatic, these notions must be denounced as satanic, and the Bible twisted into a manual for the perpetuation of ancient prejudices, its words frozen and unyielding.
But Jesus lives, and enters the hearts of those who listen. Jesus is the antidote to fanaticism.
You call someone a fanatic for reading what is there, but won't wear the label for insisting your baseless interpretation of things is correct, against centuries of conventional interpretation? That you have the 'right' answer, but no one else does?
Point one finger, and you have three pointing back at you.
You are fanatical in your defense of government putting its stamp of approval on institutionalizing practices known in scripture as an 'abomination' and the stated reason for the removal of two cities from the face of the Earth. There are a host of medical reasons for opposing the practice as well, yet you proclaim it no different from using the human body as designed. The brothers doing the slaughter started it in a bath house and fanatically resisted intervention on their behalf to stop it. One million, three hundred thousand and counting.
-
The words of the fanatic, colored by hubris. Mesaclone's right - this is the attitude that leads man to slaughter his brother,
The thing that leads to slaughter is when one faction imposes its moral code on the majority - not by allowing everyone a voice in choosing to use that morality to shape society, but instead by imposing that morality in tyrannical fashion upon the majority at the point of a gun.
You are repeatedly on record supporting the latter.
What has been proposed on this thread is that Jesus preached a gospel of love and compassion, and that God cannot possibly, if He is indeed all-knowing, be arbitrarily cruel.
I have yet to see anyone on this board suggest otherwise.
To the fanatic, these notions must be denounced as satanic, and the Bible twisted into a manual for the perpetuation of ancient prejudices, its words frozen and unyielding.
Strawman. No one here is suggesting that those notions are satanic. However, we do have one poster suggesting that the Old Testament account of God portrays Him as being cruel. That would be the very poster you are defending. Meanwhile, most of the remainder have challenged this premise - a recorded fact that you conveniently ignore.
-
The words of the fanatic, colored by hubris. Mesaclone's right - this is the attitude that leads man to slaughter his brother, in the name of God or a secular equivalent.
What has been proposed on this thread is that Jesus preached a gospel of love and compassion, and that God cannot possibly, if He is indeed all-knowing, be arbitrarily cruel. To the fanatic, these notions must be denounced as satanic, and the Bible twisted into a manual for the perpetuation of ancient prejudices, its words frozen and unyielding.
You have taken Projection and turned it into an Art Form, truly.
-
The thing that leads to slaughter is when one faction imposes its moral code on the majority - not by allowing everyone a voice in choosing to use that morality to shape society, but instead by imposing that morality in tyrannical fashion upon the majority at the point of a gun.
You are repeatedly on record supporting the latter. No where on this thread has Jazz suggested such a thing.
I have yet to see anyone on this board suggest otherwise. Sure they have, some have asserted that god sends people to hell for eternity and other such nonsense. That is arbitrary and cruel, essentially the opposite of loving and rational. What we are really arguing about here, is INVAR's Brutal and Angry god vs a Loving and Rational deity. In both cases, men have imagined a god that falls within their understanding of a divine creator....as they are free to do...but choosing to believe in the evil/arbitrary deity defines the believer, not the deity.
Strawman. No one here is suggesting that those notions are satanic. However, we do have one poster suggesting that the Old Testament account of God portrays Him as being cruel. That would be the very poster you are defending. Meanwhile, most of the remainder have challenged this premise - a recorded fact that you conveniently ignore.
Wrong again, INVAR has warned other Christians IN THIS THREAD from hearing my "Satanic" words...you know words like "love", "forgiveness", and "kindness". As for the god of the Old Testament, the OT god is by any objective measure, savagely cruel...killing babies and children (Sodom/Gomorrah) and ordering the slaughter of the same in other places (Jericho/Against the Philistines), testing faith by ordering men to kill their own children, etcetera ad infinitum. Jazz has NOT ignored those challenges as you suggest, rather he has simply pointed out the rather deep intellectual inconsistencies in them.
-
The thing that leads to slaughter is when one faction imposes its moral code on the majority - not by allowing everyone a voice in choosing to use that morality to shape society, but instead by imposing that morality in tyrannical fashion upon the majority at the point of a gun. You are repeatedly on record supporting the latter.
No where on this thread has Jazz suggested such a thing.
Yes, he did. In post 545 - Jazz says that Maryland marriage law should be imposed upon Ohio, but not the other way around. And he supports doing it - not by legislature, but by the tyrannical fiat of five people in black robes.
The irony here is that he uses the catch phrase "equal protection" to defends his support of tyranny, even though the only part here violating equal protection is the very outcome he champions.
I have yet to see anyone on this board suggest otherwise.
Sure they have, some have asserted that god sends people to hell for eternity and other such nonsense. That is arbitrary and cruel, essentially the opposite of loving and rational. What we are really arguing about here, is INVAR's Brutal and Angry god vs a Loving and Rational deity. In both cases, men have imagined a god that falls within their understanding of a divine creator....as they are free to do...but choosing to believe in the evil/arbitrary deity defines the believer, not the deity.
Uh, no. YOU were the one who brought it up. YOU were the one offering the premise that God sends us to hell (just as you did here). And several posters including myself challenged that premise.
Wrong again, INVAR has warned other Christians from hearing my Satanic words. And clearly, the OT god is cruel...killing babies and children (Sodom/Gomorrah) and ordering the slaughter of the same in other places (Jericho/Against the Philistines).
And here you are offering up that same premise once again.
Jazz has NOT ignored those challenges, he has simply pointed out the rather deep intellectual inconsistencies in them. [/b]
That's nice, but it has ZERO relevance to what I said.
-
Wrong again, INVAR has warned other Christians IN THIS THREAD from hearing my "Satanic" words...you know words like "love", "forgiveness", and "kindness".
Why do you have to lie and misconstrue what I said? To create the impression that I consider words like 'love', 'forgiveness' and 'kindness' to be Satanic??? I said specifically: "No biblical Christian on this board should regard anything you have to say in matters pertaining to the bible, Jesus or Yahweh. You are espousing doctrines of demons and preaching a gospel from the prince of the power of the air."
I consider the manner and way you pervert the truth of scripture to denounce God as Revealed in His Word and ascribe to Him evil, as Satanic. Meanwhile you use the words of 'love', 'tolerance', 'forgiveness' and 'kindness' to promote and champion deviant, wicked and abominable behavior as good and virtuous thing. As I said - you, like your father - transform yourself into an angel of light to declare good to be evil and to promote the evil as good.
Case-in-point:
As for the god of the Old Testament, the OT god is by any objective measure, savagely cruel...killing babies and children (Sodom/Gomorrah) and ordering the slaughter of the same in other places (Jericho/Against the Philistines), testing faith by ordering men to kill their own children, etcetera ad infinitum.
You have declared Elohim, Yahweh to be evil and cruel by your own measure and estimation, which simply proves the point made that you and most of the world HATE the God revealed in scripture. Indeed it is why men sought to kill Yeshua to begin with and why much of the world will gather together to kill Him again when He returns and splits the Mount of Olives in two.
Given the mindset you so clearly display in this thread, you would gladly be at the head of the 200 million man army to call for His head.
-
It has never been without the Book.
Yes, it has. Without a bible at least. It had the Jewish writings of the Old Testament, and absolutely nothing of the New...as it was either unwritten at the time or simply one of many early writings that various groups adhered to across the Mediterranean. So what you wrote is total baloney.
TORAH. Unchanging and always.
Torah is not the "biblos" that was assembled in the 3rd and 4th centuries...it was a small part of the larger work. Further, if a text "says" god says its infallible and can't be changed....that's still just a man writing what he believes god thinks/wants. Men wrote the books, not god, and their use of god to validate what they wrote is as unsurprising as it is non-credible. Again, you write MORE baloney. Try knowing your own "books" history for a change.
I am finding nothing here but projection.
You are finding what you brought with you to the discussion. Not uncommon, but rather foolish.
Gnosis... Knowlege... Do you know another word in the Greek with that meaning? Daimon... Demon.
Clearly, you are not an etymologist. The word Daimon is a Greek term referencing "spirit" or a "moving force", it does not mean knowledge nor does it refer to either a good or evil motive. Gnosis on the other hand, is simply a word for "knowledge" or "to know" or even "knowing". It is not related to Daimon, which is a truncation of Eudaimonia which means good "spiritedness". Christians saw pagans worshipping "good spirited forces" and used the word as a negative in referring to Pagan daemon. So you've taken two entirely unrelated things and sought to combine for effect...but you've failed because...well...you simply are incorrect in your understanding of both words.
How very convenient it must be to have nothing written in stone...
God doesn't write in stone, or ink. Men do. God writes in our hearts and in the very air around us. It can be convenient, but its also trying because men often blind themselves to the god who is in and all around them. As for god's love, that is...metaphorically...written in stone and stamped on every atom. So its has a permanence that no book or doctrine can ever compete with.
Be careful who you listen to.
Good advice for all. Could not agree more. That includes of course, men who wrote books that were later collected into a "biblos", now called a bible. These fellows of the 2nd and 3rd centuries were plagued by the same failings, inadequacies, biases and foolishness as we are today. Worshipping their collection is idol worship....literally. The only one you should listen to is the voice of God in your heart and in the world around you...that is the true bible.
I will answer you (and everything past your post ) tomorrow
Shabbat Shalom.
-
No where on this thread has Jazz suggested such a thing.
Yes, he did. In post 545 - Jazz says that Maryland marriage law should be imposed upon Ohio, but not the other way around. And he supports doing it - not by legislature, but by the tyrannical fiat of five people in black robes.
The irony here is that he uses the catch phrase "equal protection" to defends his support of tyranny, even though the only part here violating equal protection is the very outcome he champions.
Its not tyrannical in a Republic, for states to respect the laws of other states, nor to have a judiciary determine what is and is not established law. In fact, not doing so would be tyrannical, as we would be determining the significance of law in an arbitrary and power-centric fashion.
Sure they have, some have asserted that god sends people to hell for eternity and other such nonsense. That is arbitrary and cruel, essentially the opposite of loving and rational. What we are really arguing about here, is INVAR's Brutal and Angry god vs a Loving and Rational deity. In both cases, men have imagined a god that falls within their understanding of a divine creator....as they are free to do...but choosing to believe in the evil/arbitrary deity defines the believer, not the deity.
Uh, no. YOU were the one who brought it up. YOU were the one offering the premise that God sends us to hell (just as you did here). And several posters including myself challenged that premise.
Keep it simple...just ask INVAR if hell is a real place. That will settle our disagreement on this issue.
And here you are offering up that same premise once again.
That's nice, but it has ZERO relevance to what I said.
-
Why do you have to lie and misconstrue what I said? To create the impression that I consider words like 'love', 'forgiveness' and 'kindness' to be Satanic??? I said specifically: 1. "No biblical Christian on this board should regard anything you have to say in matters pertaining to the bible, Jesus or Yahweh. You are espousing doctrines of demons and preaching a gospel from the prince of the power of the air."
I consider the manner and way you pervert the truth of scripture to denounce God as Revealed in His Word and ascribe to Him evil, as Satanic. Meanwhile you use the words of 'love', 'tolerance', 'forgiveness' and 'kindness' to promote and champion deviant, wicked and abominable behavior as good and virtuous thing. As I said - you, like your father - transform yourself into an angel of light to declare good to be evil and to promote the evil as good.
Case-in-point:
You have declared Elohim, Yahweh to be evil and cruel by your own measure and estimation, which simply proves the point made that you and most of the world HATE the God revealed in scripture. 2. Indeed it is why men sought to kill Yeshua to begin with and why much of the world will gather together to kill Him again when He returns and splits the Mount of Olives in two.
3. Given the mindset you so clearly display in this thread, you would gladly be at the head of the 200 million man army to call for His head.
1. I espoused a loving, forgiving and kind deity...you proclaimed that to be a demonic doctrine that Christians should avoid. Seems pretty clear.
2. No, I've declared that your absurd version of Yahweh is that of an evil, capricious and arbitrary god. Since that is purely from your imagination and the imagination of some ancient writers...and thus not real...my only criticism is of a fake deity conjured up by the minds of men. Nor can I lead an army against your fictional creation...and the real deity, the loving and rational god, needs no opposition nor would such opposition be effective. Silly notion altogether.
3. Your imaginary deity is quite theatrical...and absurd. Thank goodness the reality of god is rational, loving and forgiving....not the maniacal egomaniac you paint him to be.
-
Lost all trust in the Lord being rational the first time I got kneed in the crotch. No rational being would have designed us (or let us evolve) like that.
-
Lost all trust in the Lord being rational the first time I got kneed in the crotch. No rational being would have designed us (or let us evolve) like that.
Next time he's putting them on your chin.
-
Its not tyrannical in a Republic, for states to respect the laws of other states, nor to have a judiciary determine what is and is not established law.
Even if there is no Constitutional basis for it? Because without basis, it's called 'tyranny'.
In fact, not doing so would be tyrannical, as we would be determining the significance of law in an arbitrary and power-centric fashion.
Interesting. So according to you, if Oregon and Vermont do not respect California law by declaring all same-sex couples 'unmarried', then that's tyranny. Likewise, if New York does not respect New Jersey law against pumping your own gas, then that's tyranny. And if Massachusetts does not respect Texas law regarding open carry, then that's tyranny.
Interesting view of tyranny you have there. But at least you have shown that the whole 'equal protection' spiel is complete crap since those supporting tyranny (e.g. Jazzhead) also want to be the arbiters of which state law gets imposed on which state and which state laws never get imposed.
Better yet, find me anywhere in the Constitution where the Federal judiciary gets to rule on any matter between a state and a citizen of that state.
-
1. I espoused a loving, forgiving and kind deity...you proclaimed that to be a demonic doctrine that Christians should avoid. Seems pretty clear.
You espouse licentiousness for license and lawlessness as virtue and wickedness as kindness, love and forgiveness. You preach what is contrary to scripture, having denounced scripture itself and instead push the morality from the god of this age.
2. No, I've declared that your absurd version of Yahweh is that of an evil, capricious and arbitrary god.
Which is why I said no biblical Christian should regard anything you have to say in regards to the bible, God or Jesus. You claim to be Christian and refer to other gods and paths to God which are antithetical to the scriptures and heretical to the faith once delivered. You preach a gospel contrary to The Word and push what Satan teaches while disguising yourself as an angel of light.
As I said, your words reveal what spirit you are from. Suffice it to conclude that you and I do not worship the same God, and my issue with you is that you come claiming Christ - and have revealed yourself to be anything but what you claim. You claim Jesus is over there under the rock - over here in the inner room - over there inside your heart - and Jesus already answered such claims and to beware of people like you in Matthew 24:23-26
-
Mesaclone: I did not read your views closely, I would, without mentioning names, say most of those being critical of you, spoke down Trump, claim to have not voted for Trump from what I recollect and so they sought to further the abortion/Democrat agenda even though I know they'd deny this and it being inadvertent. I think you were supportive of Trump.
I know there is that quote in the Bible where Jesus says "I did not know you".
-
Mesaclone: I did not read your views closely, I would, without mentioning names, say most of those being critical of you, spoke down Trump, claim to have not voted for Trump from what I recollect and so they sought to further the abortion/Democrat agenda even though I know they'd deny this and it being inadvertent. I think you were supportive of Trump.
I know there is that quote in the Bible where Jesus says "I did not know you".
Tom: you didn't read what was said,you won't mention names, BUT
You are trying to make this about an individual instead of a viewpoint
And you are trying to Strawman this into a Trump/nevertrump thing.
Troll much?
-
It has never been without the Book.
Yes, it has. Without a bible at least. It had the Jewish writings of the Old Testament, and absolutely nothing of the New...as it was either unwritten at the time or simply one of many early writings that various groups adhered to across the Mediterranean. So what you wrote is total baloney.
Exactly wrong - You will note that the Tanakh was declared by Yeshua to be all about Him. And it is. Necessarily, Christianity can work out of the Tanakh (OT) just fine. That means, Jewish Bible, or the Protestant one, the message is the same.
As to your supposition that the Bible was a later assemblage in Christianity, such a notion is largely rubbish - Again, you must abuse the church fathers to make such a claim, as nearly the entirety of the Bible can be assembled from their quotes. Was there some contention? were there some places that had more than others? To be sure. That is simply the nature of something growing by way of distribution. And contention is the method of debate for a free people.
What makes your comments ludicrous is actually the adversity - Marcion was early on (c.150), and in order for him to reject the books he did, the books had to have been in widespread good standing, or there would have been no reason to reject them. The same with Montanism.
And while your contention necessarily stands upon Marcion, You can field no argument whatsoever to defend him, or the Gospel of Thomas, by any means other than what appears to be it's appeal in your eyes. It has *no* inter-connectivity with the four accepted gospels (which the four do have, in spades), in fact it stands outside of them entirely. It carries forward no themes from the Tanakh. in fact, it again, stands independent from those themes, and lastly, and PROFOUNDLY, it stands against Torah - The touchstone of authority.
TORAH. Unchanging and always.
Torah is not the "biblos" that was assembled in the 3rd and 4th centuries...it was a small part of the larger work. Further, if a text "says" god says its infallible and can't be changed....that's still just a man writing what he believes god thinks/wants. Men wrote the books, not god, and their use of god to validate what they wrote is as unsurprising as it is non-credible. Again, you write MORE baloney. Try knowing your own "books" history for a change.
Oh but I DO know His Book. It is an oddity that I must rise to defend canon, because I extend beyond canon myself, with good reason. But defend it I will, as the Protestant Bible particularly has stood the test of time and every sort of assault. There is *no* book in history with more attribution, more claim on authenticity. If anything is to be agreed upon, particularly as the work of a god, it is those books. To defy the continuity across millenia, often carried by it's opposition in contention, often assaulted beyond all measure, only to survive again and again, is simply put, beyond incredulous.
And as to your claim that a mere man wrote them, particularly Torah, I would invite you to examine the forms of encryption present in the text which guard it (literally to the letter in Torah), and explain to me how such an ingenious thing could be created by scribes of antiquity, not to mention created at all. Even computers fail at subliminal encryption while keeping the text above not only readable and contextual, but actually beautiful and prosaic. It is extraordinary mathematics beyond all hope of explanation this side of the supernatural.
In my attempts to prove against the Bible, I have read the works of every religion possible, to include the oracles and prophets of every god I could get my hands upon. I have gone deep into occult knowledge (enochian, hermetic, druidic), gnostic knowledge (Jewish, Greek, and Roman), and have become familiar with every sort of esoteric literature. I have never seen encryption like in kind, or of ANY kind, in any other book. Nor have I ever seen such brilliant continuity.
There is no doubt in my mind that Torah is supernaturally inspired. Proven.
And it does not end with Torah (albeit more so therewith). The whole of the Bible contains such things. Study the heptatic structures within the NT and show me the like of it anywhere else.
Gnosis... Knowlege... Do you know another word in the Greek with that meaning? Daimon... Demon.
Clearly, you are not an etymologist. The word Daimon is a Greek term referencing "spirit" or a "moving force", it does not mean knowledge nor does it refer to either a good or evil motive. Gnosis on the other hand, is simply a word for "knowledge" or "to know" or even "knowing". It is not related to Daimon, which is a truncation of Eudaimonia which means good "spiritedness". Christians saw pagans worshipping "good spirited forces" and used the word as a negative in referring to Pagan daemon. So you've taken two entirely unrelated things and sought to combine for effect...but you've failed because...well...you simply are incorrect in your understanding of both words.
demon (n.) Look up demon at Dictionary.com
c. 1200, from Latin daemon "spirit," from Greek daimon "deity, divine power; lesser god; guiding spirit, tutelary deity" (sometimes including souls of the dead); "one's genius, lot, or fortune;" from PIE *dai-mon- "divider, provider" (of fortunes or destinies), from root *da- "to divide" (see tide (n.)).
Used (with daimonion) in Christian Greek translations and Vulgate for "god of the heathen" and "unclean spirit." Jewish authors earlier had employed the Greek word in this sense, using it to render shedim "lords, idols" in the Septuagint, and Matthew viii.31 has daimones, translated as deofol in Old English, feend or deuil in Middle English. Another Old English word for this was hellcniht, literally "hell-knight."
The original mythological sense is sometimes written daemon for purposes of distinction. The Demon of Socrates was a daimonion, a "divine principle or inward oracle." His accusers, and later the Church Fathers, however, represented this otherwise. The Demon Star (1895) is Algol.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=demon
In fact, it does also refer to one's genius. To the inner voice. Knowledge by epiphany. In the occultic sense, knowledge and the demon that gives it, are intertwined.
How very convenient it must be to have nothing written in stone...
God doesn't write in stone, or ink. Men do. God writes in our hearts and in the very air around us. It can be convenient, but its also trying because men often blind themselves to the god who is in and all around them. As for god's love, that is...metaphorically...written in stone and stamped on every atom. So its has a permanence that no book or doctrine can ever compete with.
Alright. PROVE IT. Define it.
You can't, because in this case, there is no guideline, no establishment, no literal communication to be referred. Again, how convenient. It is so polymorphous that it can be anything to anyone. So what you really seem to define is again, 'Do as thou wilt'.
Be careful who you listen to.
Good advice for all. Could not agree more. That includes of course, men who wrote books that were later collected into a "biblos", now called a bible. These fellows of the 2nd and 3rd centuries were plagued by the same failings, inadequacies, biases and foolishness as we are today. Worshipping their collection is idol worship....literally. The only one you should listen to is the voice of God in your heart and in the world around you...that is the true bible.
What you say would be true except in your case, truth is whatever YOU say it is.
We don't worship the Bible. We worship the God who wrote it.
A provable God.
A definable God.
A god so sure of himself that he wrote it all down. What he says will be WILL BE. And he told us all, from the beginning.
Legitimate, proven, and unchanging.
-
No. It's not nice.
Look around - the consequences of that Gnostic/Daimon is everywhere in the world. Misery. Suffering. Confusion. Deviancy. The vilest oppressions and genocides being perpetrated by similar 'superior' intellects that loft the human passions and reasonings as the be-all, end-all pursuit of utopia. The devolution of our own culture is a direct result of the gnostic/Hindu/Humanist/Buddhist/Atheist mindset whereby they pick and choose and decide that they are of themselves god and determine their own morality based on their passions and views. The results being the stupidity that is being protected in law that now decree that people can determine their own gender regardless of what plumbing they are born with.
Mescalone will tell us to follow the god of our own heart, but you and I know that is of Satan - for it is Written: "The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it?" - Jer. 17:9
Brilliantly stated - I couldn't agree more!
Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (KJV)
-
The vast majority of horrors in this world have been committed by religious fanatics...those who claim only they know the will of god through their "holy book". Sound familiar.
False. Men who corrupt religion to realize power will just as easily corrupt government, or philosophy, or business, or any other means to their end. And they have.
No...terror in this modern age has come from the religious fundamentalists of the planet...men who KNOW they worship the god the RIGHT way, and believe their views should be imposed on everyone else. Kinda like you want your views enshrined in our governance....a milder strain, no doubt, of the kind of fanaticism that has cost so many lives this past century.
Funny that you would mention the last century particularly, where the godless have held sway. Countless millions trodden under the foot of communism, and countless millions more killed in the womb by the progressives in the west.
Look to your own house.
-
Tom: you didn't read what was said,you won't mention names, BUT
You are trying to make this about an individual instead of a viewpoint
And you are trying to Strawman this into a Trump/nevertrump thing.
Troll much?
Ditto.
And for the record, Jesus' comment about not knowing someone was made to people who were utilizing the anointing (i.e. prophesy, deliverance, healing). They got B through Z, but didn't get A. I hate it when people take this out of context.
Seek first the kingdom of God . . .
-
Exactly wrong - You will note that the Tanakh was declared by Yeshua to be all about Him. And it is. Necessarily, Christianity can work out of the Tanakh (OT) just fine. That means, Jewish Bible, or the Protestant one, the message is the same.
As to your supposition that the Bible was a later assemblage in Christianity, such a notion is largely rubbish - Again, you must abuse the church fathers to make such a claim, as nearly the entirety of the Bible can be assembled from their quotes. Was there some contention? were there some places that had more than others? To be sure. That is simply the nature of something growing by way of distribution. And contention is the method of debate for a free people.
What makes your comments ludicrous is actually the adversity - Marcion was early on (c.150), and in order for him to reject the books he did, the books had to have been in widespread good standing, or there would have been no reason to reject them. The same with Montanism.
And while your contention necessarily stands upon Marcion, You can field no argument whatsoever to defend him, or the Gospel of Thomas, by any means other than what appears to be it's appeal in your eyes. It has *no* inter-connectivity with the four accepted gospels (which the four do have, in spades), in fact it stands outside of them entirely. It carries forward no themes from the Tanakh. in fact, it again, stands independent from those themes, and lastly, and PROFOUNDLY, it stands against Torah - The touchstone of authority.
Oh but I DO know His Book. It is an oddity that I must rise to defend canon, because I extend beyond canon myself, with good reason. But defend it I will, as the Protestant Bible particularly has stood the test of time and every sort of assault. There is *no* book in history with more attribution, more claim on authenticity. If anything is to be agreed upon, particularly as the work of a god, it is those books. To defy the continuity across millenia, often carried by it's opposition in contention, often assaulted beyond all measure, only to survive again and again, is simply put, beyond incredulous.
And as to your claim that a mere man wrote them, particularly Torah, I would invite you to examine the forms of encryption present in the text which guard it (literally to the letter in Torah), and explain to me how such an ingenious thing could be created by scribes of antiquity, not to mention created at all. Even computers fail at subliminal encryption while keeping the text above not only readable and contextual, but actually beautiful and prosaic. It is extraordinary mathematics beyond all hope of explanation this side of the supernatural.
In my attempts to prove against the Bible, I have read the works of every religion possible, to include the oracles and prophets of every god I could get my hands upon. I have gone deep into occult knowledge (enochian, hermetic, druidic), gnostic knowledge (Jewish, Greek, and Roman), and have become familiar with every sort of esoteric literature. I have never seen encryption like in kind, or of ANY kind, in any other book. Nor have I ever seen such brilliant continuity.
There is no doubt in my mind that Torah is supernaturally inspired. Proven.
And it does not end with Torah (albeit more so therewith). The whole of the Bible contains such things. Study the heptatic structures within the NT and show me the like of it anywhere else.
demon (n.) Look up demon at Dictionary.com
c. 1200, from Latin daemon "spirit," from Greek daimon "deity, divine power; lesser god; guiding spirit, tutelary deity" (sometimes including souls of the dead); "one's genius, lot, or fortune;" from PIE *dai-mon- "divider, provider" (of fortunes or destinies), from root *da- "to divide" (see tide (n.)).
Used (with daimonion) in Christian Greek translations and Vulgate for "god of the heathen" and "unclean spirit." Jewish authors earlier had employed the Greek word in this sense, using it to render shedim "lords, idols" in the Septuagint, and Matthew viii.31 has daimones, translated as deofol in Old English, feend or deuil in Middle English. Another Old English word for this was hellcniht, literally "hell-knight."
The original mythological sense is sometimes written daemon for purposes of distinction. The Demon of Socrates was a daimonion, a "divine principle or inward oracle." His accusers, and later the Church Fathers, however, represented this otherwise. The Demon Star (1895) is Algol.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=demon
In fact, it does also refer to one's genius. To the inner voice. Knowledge by epiphany. In the occultic sense, knowledge and the demon that gives it, are intertwined.
Alright. PROVE IT. Define it.
You can't, because in this case, there is no guideline, no establishment, no literal communication to be referred. Again, how convenient. It is so polymorphous that it can be anything to anyone. So what you really seem to define is again, 'Do as thou wilt'.
What you say would be true except in your case, truth is whatever YOU say it is.
We don't worship the Bible. We worship the God who wrote it.
A provable God.
A definable God.
A god so sure of himself that he wrote it all down. What he says will be WILL BE. And he told us all, from the beginning.
Legitimate, proven, and unchanging.
That was amazing. I expect all of that will be waved off and attempted to be debunked by him who worships another god and pushes that as the one and only true God - but do know that your brilliant defense against his charges was of benefit to those of us who believe the scriptures are God-Breathed and identify Him. As you rightfully and eloquently noted - scripture contains spiritual principles that do NOT come from the mind of man. As a former Atheist, it was my silly attempt to prove scripture bogus that led me to see the truth of God's Spirit having inspired it to be written. And as Jesus prayed in the Garden for us in John 15 - we can clearly see that His prayer for us who would be called by the Testimony of the Apostles and the Scriptures has indeed been answered just as Paul told the Corinthians:
Rather, as it is written: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no heart has imagined, what God has prepared for those who love Him.” But God has revealed it to us by the Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.…" I Corinthians 2:9-10
It has been revealed to us in His Word, through His Spirit, those deep things of God. Not from rocks, trees or philosophers of men.
-
As you rightfully and eloquently noted - scripture contains spiritual principles that do NOT come from the mind of man. As a former Atheist, it was my silly attempt to prove scripture bogus that led me to see the truth of God's Spirit having inspired it to be written. And as Jesus prayed in the Garden for us in John 15 - we can clearly see that His prayer for us who would be called by the Testimony of the Apostles and the Scriptures has indeed been answered just as Paul told the Corinthians:
Rather, as it is written: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no heart has imagined, what God has prepared for those who love Him.” But God has revealed it to us by the Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.…" I Corinthians 2:9-10
It has been revealed to us in His Word, through His Spirit, those deep things of God. Not from rocks, trees or philosophers of men.
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Jeremiah 31:33 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+31:33&version=NKJV)
-
2. No, I've declared that your absurd version of Yahweh is that of an evil, capricious and arbitrary god.
Quite to the contrary. The capricious god is the ephemeral one. The lawless one.
YHWH is anything but capricious. Every single thing is defined and established.
-
Tom: you didn't read what was said,you won't mention names, BUT
You are trying to make this about an individual instead of a viewpoint
And you are trying to Strawman this into a Trump/nevertrump thing.
Troll much?
One thing I can say, I don't say nasty vulgar things to people just because I have a disagreement with them.
Troll much, No. But that's your style. And a step up from the nastiness in the past; but I guess anyone can say anything behind a keyboard.
No, Christianity and what is Christian is on-topic here.
-
@roamer_1
That reply, my friend, was a thing of beauty. :beer:
-
@roamer_1
That reply, my friend, was a thing of beauty. :beer:
Amen and AMEN!!!
Praise the LORD!
@roamer_1
-
That was amazing.
@INVAR
Thank you for your kind reply.
As a former Atheist, it was my silly attempt to prove scripture bogus that led me to see the truth of God's Spirit having inspired it to be written.
I too had the occasion to shake my fist at YHWH and demand he prove himself. He graciously put it in my heart to prove him myself. It ended with me truly on my knees before the Cross. There is no other. All the rest are Fallen Ones, pretenders to the Throne.
-
@roamer_1
That reply, my friend, was a thing of beauty. :beer:
Amen and AMEN!!!
Praise the LORD!
@roamer_1
thx :)
-
These gay thread have been beaten to death. Everyone knows each others stance and will not convince others.
My last parting comment..everyone should make one and just let it go.
Go on nearly any conservative site and the anti gay/anti gay marriage threads are about 15 to 1 over adultery and fornication...maybe even higher
For 2% of the population there sure is a lot of hand wringing among Christians
Adultery and sex out of wedlock has hurt marriage and this country more than gays or gay marriage ever will just as gluttony(obesity) which is a mortal sin have hurt this country more than Aids ever will. Seen to many anti gay conservatives who are on their 2nd or 3rd marriage.
I'm done we all know each others views.
-
These gay thread have been beaten to death. Everyone knows each others stance and will not convince others.
My last parting comment..everyone should make one and just let it go.
Go on nearly any conservative site and the anti gay/anti gay marriage threads are about 15 to 1 over adultery and fornication...maybe even higher
For 2% of the population there sure is a lot of hand wringing among Christians
Adultery and sex out of wedlock has hurt marriage and this country more than gays or gay marriage ever will just as gluttony(obesity) which is a mortal sin have hurt this country more than Aids ever will.
I'm done we all know each others views.
Adulterers and fornicators are not suing Christian businesses out of existence because they will not accept their behavior or partake in acknowledging and participating in it. Adulterers and fornicators are not demanding "equality" and "civil rights" to have their behavior established as a Constitutional right. Adulterers and fornicators are not engaged in programs to indoctrinate children to accept and practice their behavior.
While fornication and adultery have hurt marriages and families, they have not deconstructed the institution of marriage and made a mockery of it's existence and purpose. And while fornication and adultery produce their own consequences of misery, pain and brokenness, they do not infringe on the conscience of everyone else or punish their religious beliefs when they reject that behavior as repugnant and unacceptable.
It has to do with the liberty that the homosexual agenda seeks to abolish in the name of equality and rights while forcing acceptance and their behavior upon all, while destroying the very institution of Holy Matrimony itself.
-
Adulterers and fornicators are not suing Christian businesses out of existence because they will not accept their behavior or partake in acknowledging and participating in it. Adulterers and fornicators are not demanding "equality" and "civil rights" to have their behavior established as a Constitutional right. Adulterers and fornicators are not engaged in programs to indoctrinate children to accept and practice their behavior.
While fornication and adultery have hurt marriages and families, they have not deconstructed the institution of marriage and made a mockery of it's existence and purpose. And while fornication and adultery produce their own consequences of misery, pain and brokenness, they do not infringe on the conscience of everyone else or punish their religious beliefs when they reject that behavior as repugnant and unacceptable.
It has to do with the liberty that the homosexual agenda seeks to abolish in the name of equality and rights while forcing acceptance and their behavior upon all, while destroying the very institution of Holy Matrimony itself.
Yes, I was going to point that out. The fact that we even use the words "gay agenda" says it all.
-
These gay thread have been beaten to death. Everyone knows each others stance and will not convince others.
@mirraflake
It wasn't a 'gay' thread until Jazzhead decided to make it one in post #4. When confronted with the inability to discuss the North Carolina bill on its Constitutional merit, emotion took over.
-
It wasn't a 'gay' thread until Jazzhead decided to make it one in post #4. When confronted with the inability to discuss the North Carolina bill on its Constitutional merit, emotion took over.
Well.... actually if you look at the article in the OP - the entire premise of this thread is about homosexuality considering the article the instigated the discussions and arguments is centered around the state of North Carolina introducing a bill to restore the ban on homosexual marriage in their state.
All it did is bring the pro-homosexual and anti-homosexual protagonists into the arena to battle our positions.
-
Well.... actually if you look at the article in the OP - the entire premise of this thread is about homosexuality considering the article the instigated the discussions and arguments is centered around the state of North Carolina introducing a bill to restore the ban on homosexual marriage in their state.
Uh, no. It is a ban on same-sex marriage. Marriage is not the same as having sex. Marriage is a restriction placed upon individuals by the state regardless of whom those individuals desire to have sex with. It is applied equally to all without regard to sexual preference.