Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 24KT on April 29, 2007, 12:58:50 AM
-
US Church backs same-sex marriage
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40165000/jpg/_40165015_rainbow_b203_ap.jpg)
Massachusetts is currently the only
state to allow same-sex marriages
The million-strong United Church of Christ (UCC) has become the first major US Christian denomination to come out in support of gay marriage.
The UCC's general synod passed a resolution affirming "equal rights for couples regardless of gender".
The decision is not binding and will not require pastors to marry same-sex couples, though some already do.
Several other Churches have endorsed gay civil partnerships but have not given them the status of marriage.
The Episcopal Church (the US branch of the Anglican Communion) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church permit same-sex unions, while the Presbyterian Church is seeking to resolve severe disagreements over the issue.
US conservatives are seeking to amend the country's constitution to ban same-sex marriage, which is currently legal only in the state of Massachusetts.
Vermont allows same-sex civil unions, giving gay couples the same benefits as married couples on matters such as life insurance, health care and child custody.
Neighbouring Canada's lower house of parliament passed a law allowing gay marriages last week, which is expected to come into force in July.
'Courageous'
Around 80% of the UCC's 884-member synod voted in favour of the resolution on Monday.
Rev John Thomas, the UCC president and general minister, noted the significance of passing the resolution on US Independence Day.
"On this July 4, the United Church of Christ has courageously acted to declare freedom, affirming marriage equality, affirming the civil rights of gay... couples to have their relationships recognised as marriages by the state, and encouraging our local churches celebrate those marriages," he said at a news conference after the vote.
UCC churches are autonomous, and the synod cannot dictate policy to individual congregations.
Nevertheless, opponents of the resolution said it could cause a split.
"I would like to see us stay in the denomination and network for positive change, said Rev Brett Brecker, who represents a conservative group in the Church.
"However, many of my members have expressed very clearly that this decision would cause great consternation and that, if this happened, they would want to see us leave."
The UCC, which is strong in New England, an area traditionally more tolerant of same-sex unions than other parts of the country, became the first major denomination to ordain an openly gay minister in the early 1970s.
It declared itself to be "open and affirming" of gays and lesbians 20 years ago.
The Church has almost 6,000 congregations and 1.3 million members.
****************
'cause I gotta post something Beach will be eager to read... Don't want the poor guy feeling left out :D
-
I keep thinking beach bum is a woman. Perhaps it is the screen name that gave me the impression, and it's extrmely hard to visualise him as a male ??? Talk about a lasting first impression
-
I keep thinking beach bum is a woman. Perhaps it is the screen name that gave me the impression, and it's extrmely hard to visualise him as a male ??? Talk about a lasting first impression
He reminds me of the guy from the Swiss Chalet commercials renegotiating curfew with his daughter
-
I wonder what version of the Bible this church uses?
-
I love it.
There are probably thousands of uptight neotaint Catholics punching the wall because of this situation.
Ouch, it's got to hurt when all your hate isn't adopted by everyone that follows your religion.
Perhaps all the parishioners and all the clergy of this particular church are going to burn in eternal hellfire. ;D
-
I love it.
There are probably thousands of uptight neotaint Catholics punching the wall because of this situation.
Ouch, it's got to hurt when all your hate isn't adopted by everyone that follows your religion.
Perhaps all the parishioners and all the clergy of this particular church are going to burn in eternal hellfire. ;D
The Catholic church accepts that there are gays and says gay thoughts can happen but ACTING on them is wrong. Plus this church is not even that big compared to others.
Lighten up. ;D
-
The Catholic church accepts that there are gays and says gay thoughts can happen but ACTING on them is wrong. Plus this church is not even that big compared to others.
Lighten up. ;D
Hey neo, this stuff cracks me up. I couldn't get more lightened up when laughing at uptight neotaints.
By the way, a neotaint that wants to control the way everyone else lives telling someone else to lighten up is hilarious if not a tad ironic.
-
Hey neo, this stuff cracks me up. I couldn't get more lightened up when laughing at uptight neotaints.
By the way, a neotaint that wants to control the way everyone else lives telling someone else to lighten up is hilarious if not a tad ironic.
Does it affect your life or are you the crusader of all things anti-conservative? Or are you gay? Honestly because I'm telling you to lighten up because of this does not affect your life then who are you to attack people who legitimately believe that marriage is for a man and woman.
-
I wonder what version of the Bible this church uses?
Probably the same version as you
What's your point?
-
US Church backs same-sex marriage
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40165000/jpg/_40165015_rainbow_b203_ap.jpg)
Massachusetts is currently the only
state to allow same-sex marriages
The million-strong United Church of Christ (UCC) has become the first major US Christian denomination to come out in support of gay marriage.
The UCC's general synod passed a resolution affirming "equal rights for couples regardless of gender".
The decision is not binding and will not require pastors to marry same-sex couples, though some already do.
Several other Churches have endorsed gay civil partnerships but have not given them the status of marriage.
The Episcopal Church (the US branch of the Anglican Communion) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church permit same-sex unions, while the Presbyterian Church is seeking to resolve severe disagreements over the issue.
US conservatives are seeking to amend the country's constitution to ban same-sex marriage, which is currently legal only in the state of Massachusetts.
Vermont allows same-sex civil unions, giving gay couples the same benefits as married couples on matters such as life insurance, health care and child custody.
Neighbouring Canada's lower house of parliament passed a law allowing gay marriages last week, which is expected to come into force in July.
'Courageous'
Around 80% of the UCC's 884-member synod voted in favour of the resolution on Monday.
Rev John Thomas, the UCC president and general minister, noted the significance of passing the resolution on US Independence Day.
"On this July 4, the United Church of Christ has courageously acted to declare freedom, affirming marriage equality, affirming the civil rights of gay... couples to have their relationships recognised as marriages by the state, and encouraging our local churches celebrate those marriages," he said at a news conference after the vote.
UCC churches are autonomous, and the synod cannot dictate policy to individual congregations.
Nevertheless, opponents of the resolution said it could cause a split.
"I would like to see us stay in the denomination and network for positive change, said Rev Brett Brecker, who represents a conservative group in the Church.
"However, many of my members have expressed very clearly that this decision would cause great consternation and that, if this happened, they would want to see us leave."
The UCC, which is strong in New England, an area traditionally more tolerant of same-sex unions than other parts of the country, became the first major denomination to ordain an openly gay minister in the early 1970s.
It declared itself to be "open and affirming" of gays and lesbians 20 years ago.
The Church has almost 6,000 congregations and 1.3 million members.
****************
'cause I gotta post something Beach will be eager to read... Don't want the poor guy feeling left out :D
Proof that MOST Liberals cannot be Christians!
-
Does it affect your life or are you the crusader of all things anti-conservative? Or are you gay? Honestly because I'm telling you to lighten up because of this does not affect your life then who are you to attack people who legitimately believe that marriage is for a man and woman.
NEWSFLASH, it doesn't effect any of our lives, unless you're a homosexual.
This is the thing that cracks me up most about you neotaints. You want to control everyone and what others do that is none of your business somehow effects you. ::)
NEWSFLASH II, I legitimately believe marriage between two homosexuals is none of yours or my business. I have every right to believe that just as you have every right to believe the opposite.
I love how you completely ignore that concept, as if only your belief is valid.
I applaud your dislike for homosexuals but I find appalling your desire to control how everyone else lives.
-
Proof that MOST Liberals cannot be Christians!
OMG - you get dumber every day
-
OMG - you get dumber every day
Really, how can someone be a true Christian and back something that scripture is VERY clear on?
-
Really, how can someone be a true Christian and back something that scripture is VERY clear on?
okay - you can quote me the scripture and then we can have that discussion but first tell me what this has to do with LIBS and how they can't be Christian?
-
NEWSFLASH, it doesn't effect any of our lives, unless you're a homosexual.
This is the thing that cracks me up most about you neotaints. You want to control everyone and what others do that is none of your business somehow effects you. ::)
NEWSFLASH II, I legitimately believe marriage between two homosexuals is none of yours or my business. I have every right to believe that just as you have every right to believe the opposite.
I love how you completely ignore that concept, as if only your belief is valid.
I applaud your dislike for homosexuals but I find appalling your desire to control how everyone else lives.
Lol...you obviously 1.) cannot read and 2.) do not know anything about Church doctrine on homosexuality. The Church recognizes that people will have homosexual tendencies but to ACT on them is not in line with doctrine. It sounds like you have a problem with the Church. BTW, the institution of marriage has been around MUCH longer than any US political party and it is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Homosexuals are not new. Greeks had gay sex but they did not marry. Go cry to Achilles.
-
Lol...you obviously 1.) cannot read and 2.) do not know anything about Church doctrine on homosexuality. The Church recognizes that people will have homosexual tendencies but to ACT on them is not in line with doctrine. It sounds like you have a problem with the Church. BTW, the institution of marriage has been around MUCH longer than any US political party and it is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Homosexuals are not new. Greeks had gay sex but they did not marry. Go cry to Achilles.
LOL, I like the Achilles line.
You skipped over the part about what two people do being none of yours or my business. And no offense but I grew up in Boston, the Church has a long and storied history of allowing and propagating not only homosexuality but also pedophilia. So your point "ACT on them" doesn't really hold much merit.
Again, hypocrites trying to control what others do while not controlling what they themselves do. My favorite Religious Conservative trait.
-
LOL, I like the Achilles line.
You skipped over the part about what two people do being none of yours or my business. And no offense but I grew up in Boston, the Church has a long and storied history of allowing and propagating not only homosexuality but also pedophilia. So your point "ACT on them" doesn't really hold much merit.
Again, hypocrites trying to control what others do while not controlling what they themselves do. My favorite Religious Conservative trait.
Are you Catholic? If you don't mind answering...
Most conservative religious institutions teach that homosexuality is a chosen, addictive behavior. However, the Roman Catholic church accepts the findings of almost all human sexuality researchers and mental health therapists that a minority of humans have a homosexual orientation. This is not something that they choose; rather they discover it after puberty. In other matters related to homosexuality, the Church agrees with other conservative religious groups. They regard homosexual orientation to be “objectively disordered” and view homosexual practices as very serious “sins gravely contrary to chastity”. 3
These beliefs are grounded in their concept of natural law. The church once taught that the sole purpose of sex -- and marriage -- was procreation. They have modified this stance in recent decades by admitting that also has a unitive function; it bonds married couples closer together and strengthens their relationship. But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any sexual act must be open to conception in order to be ethical. On this basis, they forbid the use of artificial methods of birth control, and consider any sexual behavior other than intercourse between a husband and wife to be a grave moral sin. Forbidden practices include masturbation, pre-marital sex, post-marital sex, extra-marital sex and all same-sex behaviors.
They teach that
"...men and women with homosexual tendencies 'must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided'. " 3
However, they believe that there are other forms of discrimination against gays and lesbians which are just. Access to marriage and the formation of sexually active committed non-marital relationships are not options that they consider open to gays and lesbians. The church teaches that persons with a homosexual orientation "are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity," and a life of loneliness and lack of sexual intimacy.
-
Yes, I was raised Catholic although I am not a true practicing Catholic anymore but my gf/fiance is. Although I did attend Novina very recently.
Very interesting piece you quoted, a few points stand out.
The church considers all sex that is not intercourse to be a grave sin? So no oral sex or anal sex or hand sex (for lack of a better term) even if it's with your spouse? That seems unbelievably constrictive. It's almost as if they deny that sex is a natural human function.
Also, the portion regarding "homosexuals not being discriminated against except in marriage" was rather amusing. The Church finds no issue with railing against homosexuality but doesn't expect any discrimination other than not being able to marry? LOL
There has been more absurd and violent discrimination perpetrated on homosexuals in the name of the Church than perhaps any other source.
All in all a very interesting piece, thanks for posting it. I enjoyed reading it.
-
okay - you can quote me the scripture and then we can have that discussion but first tell me what this has to do with LIBS and how they can't be Christian?
"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
—Genesis 1:27 (NKJV)
"And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.' Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
—Genesis 2:18-25 (NKJV)
Most Liberals go against this, abortion, etc, yet they call themselves CHRISTIANS, although we I know and realize that we are all sinners, true Christians show repent for their sins, MOST of the Liberals I have seen and heard actually advocate these actions that go against God's word.
-
NEWSFLASH, it doesn't effect any of our lives, unless you're a homosexual.
This is the thing that cracks me up most about you neotaints. You want to control everyone and what others do that is none of your business somehow effects you. ::)
NEWSFLASH II, I legitimately believe marriage between two homosexuals is none of yours or my business. I have every right to believe that just as you have every right to believe the opposite.
I love how you completely ignore that concept, as if only your belief is valid.
I applaud your dislike for homosexuals but I find appalling your desire to control how everyone else lives.
I'm starting to like you!
-
Most Liberals go against this, abortion, etc, yet they call themselves CHRISTIANS, although we I know and realize that we are all sinners, true Christians show repent for their sins, MOST of the Liberals I have seen and heard actually advocate these actions that go against God's word.
What is God's word on pre-emptively killing a man because he MIGHT try to harm you SOMEDAY?
-
NEWSFLASH, it doesn't effect any of our lives, unless you're a homosexual.
This is the thing that cracks me up most about you neotaints. You want to control everyone and what others do that is none of your business somehow effects you. ::)
NEWSFLASH II, I legitimately believe marriage between two homosexuals is none of yours or my business. I have every right to believe that just as you have every right to believe the opposite.
I love how you completely ignore that concept, as if only your belief is valid.
I applaud your dislike for homosexuals but I find appalling your desire to control how everyone else lives.
You don't have kids do you?
-
What is God's word on pre-emptively killing a man because he MIGHT try to harm you SOMEDAY?
Don't tell me you think the war was pre-emptive!!!
-
You don't have kids do you?
I have a child. I sure as hell don't want him growing up in a world where men hold hands and women get married. I don't want that, not one bit. it's disgusting to me, personally.
However, I know that in this world, you cannot control what others do or feel. I also know that I'm more concerned with paying the mortgage (and therefore issues with the economy and oil) than I am with wondering whether the men living next door have a piece of paper or not (gay marriage issues).
-
Don't tell me you think the war was pre-emptive!!!
Bush told us it was pre-emptive. The Bush doctrine is VERY clear - we will attack nations with military force when we perceive them to be a potential threat. If they have the means (proven or suspected) and we believe their intentions are unpure (proven or suspected) we will attack with any means including nuclear.
In light of this, I ask you again:
What is God's word on pre-emptively killing a man because he MIGHT try to harm you SOMEDAY?
-
I have a child. I sure as hell don't want him growing up in a world where men hold hands and women get married. I don't want that, not one bit. it's disgusting to me, personally.
However, I know that in this world, you cannot control what others do or feel. I also know that I'm more concerned with paying the mortgage (and therefore issues with the economy and oil) than I am with wondering whether the men living next door have a piece of paper or not (gay marriage issues).
Hey, I realize you cannot control how people think and feel, but when it becomes publically addressed on TV, Radio and the Net then it becomes a problem, I am FAR from being a homophobe but just don't push it on our kids and when you have blatantly put on the public airways for all to see, thats not a good thing IMO, I have gay friends and clients who are awesome people, but are not flamboyant and don't push they're sexuality on anyone.
-
Bush told us it was pre-emptive. The Bush doctrine is VERY clear - we will attack nations with military force when we perceive them to be a potential threat. If they have the means (proven or suspected) and we believe their intentions are unpure (proven or suspected) we will attack with any means including nuclear.
In light of this, I ask you again:
What is God's word on pre-emptively killing a man because he MIGHT try to harm you SOMEDAY?
Show me where he said it was pre-emptive.
-
Homosexuality is a strange issue.
I don't know if you can "choose" to be turned on by one gender or another. Since I was little, I get aroused by females. Like most of us men here, I'm sure :) I've never been aroused by a man. Like most of us here again, I'm sure. I am built, genetically, to get hard around women. Like most of us.
From what I've seen on the subject, homosexuals *do* get turned on by those of the same sex, and not the opposite. IMO that isn't a choice, it's just how they're wired. We can't know. Cause we're not in their shoes.
I would never want to deny another human being that which turns him/her on (between consenting adults). If John Doe gets off with vanilla sex with his wife, so be it. If Jane Doe gets off 69ing with her hot lesbian girlfriend, so be it. We're all carbon based miracles, and we all check out unexpectedly. Why not let people enjoy moments of pleasure and bliss as their bodies determine fit?
-
Hey, I realize you cannot control how people think and feel, but when it becomes publically addressed on TV, Radio and the Net then it becomes a problem, I am FAR from being a homophobe but just don't push it on our kids and when you have blatantly put on the public airways for all to see, thats not a good thing IMO, I have gay friends and clients who are awesome people, but are not flamboyant and don't push they're sexuality on anyone.
I agree, but if it's on TV, it's because enouigh people watch to make it viable with the ratings. I turn it off, but aparrently, many people do not.
-
Hey, I realize you cannot control how people think and feel, but when it becomes publically addressed on TV, Radio and the Net then it becomes a problem, I am FAR from being a homophobe but just don't push it on our kids and when you have blatantly put on the public airways for all to see, thats not a good thing IMO, I have gay friends and clients who are awesome people, but are not flamboyant and don't push they're sexuality on anyone.
I'm curious why everyone is so afraid of children being exposed to homosexuality. Are you afraid that they will want to be homosexuals or that homosexuals will try and abuse them? What is the harm in children seeing that there are homosexuals in the world? This argument seems filled with hate to me, as if keeping children sheltered from reality will save you from having a homosexual child.
In answer to your earlier question, I do not have children. I do have a woman in my life whose biological clock is ticking like a time bomb though so that won't be the case for long. I also have two God Children and 7 nephews that I am very close to. I realize that is not the same as having my own children. Although my siblings (who have children) all feel the same way I do. It's none of our business and we really couldn't care less if two men or two women want to get married. And my brother can't stand "pickle smokers and pillow biters" LOL, curiously he's also a Republican. ;D
-
I agree, but if it's on TV, it's because enouigh people watch to make it viable with the ratings. I turn it off, but aparrently, many people do not.
But Rob, It's on TV, the news, the newspaper, on magazine covers in magazine racks, they are teaching it in schools (public) soon it will be damn near impossible to get away from.
-
But Rob, It's on TV, the news, the newspaper, on magazine covers in magazine racks, they are teaching it in schools (public) soon it will be damn near impossible to get away from.
I don't like it. I change the channel. But the problem is, the MAJORITY OF PEOPLE watch it when it's on their television. Ratings show this - the majority don't turn the channel. They watch and complain - but they watch.
Which leads us to an interesting question: If the majority (51% of more) of people will watch it - what right do the other 49% (the minority) to tell the majority what to do/watch?
-
I'm curious why everyone is so afraid of children being exposed to homosexuality. Are you afraid that they will want to be homosexuals or that homosexuals will try and abuse them? What is the harm in children seeing that there are homosexuals in the world? This argument seems filled with hate to me, as if keeping children sheltered from reality will save you from having a homosexual child.
In answer to your earlier question, I do not have children. I do have a woman in my life whose biological clock is ticking like a time bomb though so that won't be the case for long. I also have two God Children and 7 nephews that I am very close to. I realize that is not the same as having my own children. Although my siblings (who have children) all feel the same way I do. It's none of our business and we really couldn't care less if two men or two women want to get married. And my brother can't stand "pickle smokers and pillow biters" LOL, curiously he's also a Republican. ;D
Personally I have no problem with gay people, it's their perogitive, the problem I have is when they push it on our children like it's a normal part life to have sex with the same gender, to be blunt, it's not normal nor did God create an anal hole to be entered by another man.
Plus as a Christian, it's not right.
-
I don't like it. I change the channel. But the problem is, the MAJORITY OF PEOPLE watch it when it's on their television. Ratings show this - the majority don't turn the channel. They watch and complain - but they watch.
Which leads us to an interesting question: If the majority (51% of more) of people will watch it - what right do the other 49% (the minority) to tell the majority what to do/watch?
I'm not only talking about TV.
-
Show me where he said it was pre-emptive.
National Security Council said it on 9/20/2001:
The Bush Doctrine argues for a policy of pre-emptive war in cases where the US or its allies be threatened by terrorists or by rogue states that are engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction. The policy of pre-emption represents a rejection of deterrence and containment as the principal foundations of U.S. foreign policy because, it is argued, terrorists cannot be deterred in the same way as states.
In light of this, I ask you again:
What is God's word on pre-emptively killing a man because he MIGHT try to harm you SOMEDAY?
-
Personally I have no problem with gay people, it's their perogitive, the problem I have is when they push it on our children like it's a normal part life to have sex with the same gender, to be blunt, it's not normal nor did God create an anal hole to be entered by another man.
Plus as a Christian, it's not right.
You didn't really answer my question though. Why are you so afraid of children knowing homosexuality exists?
-
What is God's word on pre-emptively killing a man because he MIGHT try to harm you SOMEDAY?
-Just cause. War is permissible only to confront "a real and certain danger," i.e., to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human existence and to secure basic human rights.
-Probability of success. This is a difficult criterion to apply, but its purpose is to prevent irrational resort to force or hopeless resistance when the outcome of either will clearly be disproportionate or futile.
-Proportionality. This means that the damage to be inflicted and the costs incurred by war must be proportionate to the good expected by taking up arms.
I think we went into the war with these things in mind.
-
You didn't really answer my question though. Why are you so or other so afraid of children knowing homosexuality exists?
I'm can't be afraid of something I can't avoid, he knows it exists!
-
Mr I,
you're not gonna answer that one, are you? ;)
-
-Just cause. War is permissible only to confront "a real and certain danger," i.e., to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human existence and to secure basic human rights.
-Probability of success. This is a difficult criterion to apply, but its purpose is to prevent irrational resort to force or hopeless resistance when the outcome of either will clearly be disproportionate or futile.
-Proportionality. This means that the damage to be inflicted and the costs incurred by war must be proportionate to the good expected by taking up arms.
I think we went into the war with these things in mind.
These are the LEGAL and practical reasons we went into war.
Guess what - Abortion is legal. is it MORALLY RIGHT? Most say NO.
I want to know... where in the bible the Lord tells us that it is okay to pre-emptively kill a man (or groups of men) for sins they have not yet committed.
-
Mr I,
you're not gonna answer that one, are you? ;)
Which one, I'm all over the place.......ADD you know :-\!
-
Which one, I'm all over the place.......ADD you know :-\!
the one i keep asking:
National Security Council said it on 9/20/2001:
The Bush Doctrine argues for a policy of pre-emptive war in cases where the US or its allies be threatened by terrorists or by rogue states that are engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction. The policy of pre-emption represents a rejection of deterrence and containment as the principal foundations of U.S. foreign policy because, it is argued, terrorists cannot be deterred in the same way as states.
In light of this, I ask you again:
What is God's word on pre-emptively killing a man because he MIGHT try to harm you SOMEDAY?
-
These are the LEGAL and practical reasons we went into war.
Guess what - Abortion is legal. is it MORALLY RIGHT? Most say NO.
I want to know... where in the bible the Lord tells us that it is okay to pre-emptively kill a man (or groups of men) for sins they have not yet committed.
That's actually part of the Just War theory.
-
I want to hear Mr I - who has said that liberals cannot be christian - to tell us all (and the Lord listening), that God endorses killing a human being who has not committed any sin against you.
I want him to stand before his Lord and state for everyone that it is morally RIGHT to slit a man's throat or put a bullet in his head for something he might do in 5, 10,15 years, or never.
I ask this because I do not believe he will. And when he won't take this position, he will begin to see the conflict that exists between the basic tenets of his religion and his party, to which both he shows great loyalty. One he sees that, he might just come around.
Simply put, I will stand before my God and my fmaily, and state that pre-emptively killing a man for crimes uncommitted is wrong. Will he?
-
I want to hear Mr I - who has said that liberals cannot be christian - to tell us all (and the Lord listening), that God endorses killing a human being who has not committed any sin against you.
I want him to stand before his Lord and state for everyone that it is morally RIGHT to slit a man's throat or put a bullet in his head for something he might do in 5, 10,15 years, or never.
I ask this because I do not believe he will. And when he won't take this position, he will begin to see the conflict that exists between the basic tenets of his religion and his party, to which both he shows great loyalty. One he sees that, he might just come around.
Simply put, I will stand before my God and my fmaily, and state that pre-emptively killing a man for crimes uncommitted is wrong. Will he?
Gotta think about this, it's a tough one...........but one thing, are you saying that we attacked an innocent Government?
-
Probably the same version as you
What's your point?
I thought you didn't discuss and/or debate religion? No . . . wait. . . Never mind.
My point is obvious. There are black, white, and gray areas in the Bible. Condemnation of homosexuality falls into the black and white area. It's a no brainer. I can't understand for the life of me why homosexual marriage would even be debated in a church that follows the Bible.
-
Gotta think about this, it's a tough one...........but one thing, are you saying that we attacked an innocent Government?
I respect this answer.
It's not just iraq - it's any nation. Bush Doctrine says he could decide to hit targets in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria any morning if he wants. Many believe iit is the reason many repubs ran from the party - because it violates their religious beliefs.
-
I love it.
There are probably thousands of uptight neotaint Catholics punching the wall because of this situation.
Ouch, it's got to hurt when all your hate isn't adopted by everyone that follows your religion.
Perhaps all the parishioners and all the clergy of this particular church are going to burn in eternal hellfire. ;D
They will be judged someday. I know myself, I don't care what 2 people do, I just don't want future generations to believe that being homosexual is natural. As soon as 2 men/women find a way to procreate I will be the first in line to say I was wrong.
-
"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
—Genesis 1:27 (NKJV)
"And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.' Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
—Genesis 2:18-25 (NKJV)
Most Liberals go against this, abortion, etc, yet they call themselves CHRISTIANS, although we I know and realize that we are all sinners, true Christians show repent for their sins, MOST of the Liberals I have seen and heard actually advocate these actions that go against God's word.
There's nothing in either of those quotes that explicitly admonishes against homosexuality.
IO - Do you take the bible literally? If not, how do you decide what things to ignore?
-
They will be judged someday. I know myself, I don't care what 2 people do, I just don't want future generations to believe that being homosexual is natural. As soon as 2 men/women find a way to procreate I will be the first in line to say I was wrong.
Unless you believe homosexuality is a choice then nature created homosexuals. If nature created them how are they not natural?
If you truly didn't care what two men/women do then you wouldn't care if "future generations" believe their existence is natural or not. Overall though I'm glad to see the tone of your post is mellow. As I've said a hundred times I respect and applaud anyone's right to dislike and voice displeasure with homosexuality. It's the desire to control how they can live that I question.
-
Unless you believe homosexuality is a choice then nature created homosexuals. If nature created them how are they not natural?
If you truly didn't care what two men/women do then you wouldn't care if "future generations" believe their existence is natural or not. Overall though I'm glad to see the tone of your post is mellow. As I've said a hundred times I respect and applaud anyone's right to dislike and voice displeasure with homosexuality. It's the desire to control how they can live that I question.
I think you asked me this the other day. While I do think a small majority of people are born "with the wires crossed" the majority of homosexuals choose to be that way (that is what I think). I truly don't care what they do in their own time, but I don't like seeing the moral fiber of our country going by the wayside. 85% of the people in America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
claim a religion that dissaproves of homosexuality. I find it odd that such a country would adopt a stance that homosexuality is "right". Your thoughts?
-
I thought you didn't discuss and/or debate religion? No . . . wait. . . Never mind.
My point is obvious. There are black, white, and gray areas in the Bible. Condemnation of homosexuality falls into the black and white area. It's a no brainer. I can't understand for the life of me why homosexual marriage would even be debated in a church that follows the Bible.
Who says?
You?
If not you then who is the "authority" who get's to decide the black and white from the gray?
Is the part where it gives instructions on how to sell your daughter into slavery a gray area? How about the part where your daughter is stoned to death if she's not a virgin on her wedding night, and on and on....
BTW - just to be clear - IMO - the bible is nothing more than a collection of stories written by a bunch of guys, chosen (by a bunch of other guys) from a much larger group of stories, translated, mistranslated, redacted, etc.... I couldn't give a shit about any of it. That's why you won't see me posting on the religion board.
-
Who says?
You?
If not you then who is the "authority" who get's to decide the black and white from the gray?
Is the part where it gives instructions on how to sell your daughter into slavery a gray area? How about the part where your daughter is stoned to death if she's not a virgin on her wedding night, and on and on....
BTW - just to be clear - IMO - the bible is nothing more than a collection of stories written by a bunch of guys, chosen (by a bunch of other guys) from a much larger group of stories, translated, mistranslated, redacted, etc.... I couldn't give a shit about any of it. That's why you won't see me posting on the religion board.
You don't care about it, yet you keep talking about it. Why don't you quote chapter and verse again?
Being literate and having common sense says the Bible condemns homosexuality. Any church that bases its religion on traditional Bibles (e.g., the King James Version) cannot endorse homosexual marriage without ignoring both the Old and New Testament. They all say the same thing: homosexuality is wrong. This isn't an unclear part of the Bible.
And it doesn't matter what you think about the Bible. The issue is whether a church that supposedly follows the Bible can endorse homosexual marriage without ignoring and/or rewriting the very book that forms the foundation of their beliefs.
-
You don't care about it, yet you keep talking about it. Why don't you quote chapter and verse again?
Being literate and having common sense says the Bible condemns homosexuality. Any church that bases its religion on traditional Bibles (e.g., the King James Version) cannot endorse homosexual marriage without ignoring both the Old and New Testament. They all say the same thing: homosexuality is wrong. This isn't an unclear part of the Bible.
And it doesn't matter what you think about the Bible. The issue is whether a church that supposedly follows the Bible can endorse homosexual marriage without ignoring and/or rewriting the very book that forms the foundation of their beliefs.
That's part of the problem with Christianity. The religion is based on the bible... rather than on the Christ.
That may seem like cryptic gibberish to you, ...but that's ok, ...when you're ready to understand it, ...you will. :)
-
That's part of the problem with Christianity. The religion is based on the bible... rather than on the Christ.
That may seem like cryptic gibberish to you, ...but that's ok, ...when you're ready to understand it, ...you will. :)
Not true. Part of the problem with Christianity is Christians who don't consistently follow Christian teachings and principles, like a church that endorses homosexual marriage. Just mind-boggling. And one of the primary ways many people find Christ is through the Bible.
-
Not true. Part of the problem with Christianity is Christians who don't consistently follow Christian teachings and principles, like a church that endorses homosexual marriage. Just mind-boggling. And one of the primary ways many people find Christ is through the Bible.
No, ...they find it through other Christians who lead them to the bible. Don't put the cart in front of the horse.
-
No, ...they find it through other Christians who lead them to the bible. Don't put the cart in front of the horse.
That's what is called a distinction without a difference.
-
That's what is called a distinction without a difference.
When you find Christ within yourself, ...you'll both see and understand the difference. :)
-
When you find Christ within yourself, ...you'll both see and understand the difference. :)
Um. . . O.K. ::)
-
When you find Christ within yourself, ...you'll both see and understand the difference. :)
::)
-
Whoa, I know my Baptist church will never back same sex marriage, its against gods will.
Sorry, my belief is same sex lovers will burn in hell for eternity.
-
You don't care about it, yet you keep talking about it. Why don't you quote chapter and verse again?
Being literate and having common sense says the Bible condemns homosexuality. Any church that bases its religion on traditional Bibles (e.g., the King James Version) cannot endorse homosexual marriage without ignoring both the Old and New Testament. They all say the same thing: homosexuality is wrong. This isn't an unclear part of the Bible.
And it doesn't matter what you think about the Bible. The issue is whether a church that supposedly follows the Bible can endorse homosexual marriage without ignoring and/or rewriting the very book that forms the foundation of their beliefs.
I'm not talking about it other than responding to you in a thread where it is the subject.
Why do you always divert rather than responding to me?
If this point (homsexuality) is so clear then why does a church with a million member's not see it?
I understand that YOU think that the bible is CLEAR on homosexuality but you also say that some areas are GRAY
I asked you: Who's the authority on the GRAY from the BLACK and WHITE?
Why did you not answer - this is the crux of the problem (who is THE DECIDER) and I'm looking to you to explain it to me
This passage from Deuteronomy Chapter 22 seems pretty clear to me:
"But if ... evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..." (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)
That seems pretty clear to me - Do you agree?
If that's too difficult then let's start with a less inflammatory subject than your daughter being stoned to death by your neighbors.
"Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering." (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)
How long does a woman's hair have to be or conversely what is too short?
I don't get it. Why does God care about the length of a womans hair?
How about a couple more from from Deuteronomy
22:10. Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together.
22:11. Thou shalt not wear a garment that is woven of woollen and linen together
Are these gray areas? Again - why does God carea about these things?
I'm confused - since these things are so clear to you I'm appealing to you to help me understand
-
I'm not talking about it other than responding to you in a thread where it is the subject.
Why do you always divert rather than responding to me?
If this point (homsexuality) is so clear then why does a church with a million member's not see it?
I understand that YOU think that the bible is CLEAR on homosexuality but you also say that some areas are GRAY
I asked you: Who's the authority on the GRAY from the BLACK and WHITE?
Why did you not answer - this is the crux of the problem (who is THE DECIDER) and I'm looking to you to explain it to me
This passage from Deuteronomy Chapter 22 seems pretty clear to me:
"But if ... evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..." (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)
That seems pretty clear to me - Do you agree?
If that's too difficult then let's start with a less inflammatory subject than your daughter being stoned to death by your neighbors.
"Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering." (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)
How long does a woman's hair have to be or conversely what is too short?
I don't get it. Why does God care about the length of a womans hair?
How about a couple more from from Deuteronomy
22:10. Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together.
22:11. Thou shalt not wear a garment that is woven of woollen and linen together
Are these gray areas? Again - why does God carea about these things?
I'm confused - since these things are so clear to you I'm appealing to you to help me understand
quote author=Straw Man link=topic=142774.msg2023333#msg2023333 date=1177262640]
I never debate religion and I've never post on the religion board (I've only looked at it once or twice)
In my opinion it's pointless to debate with someone who holds a position without evidence or in contrary to evidence.
Besides, my personal belief is anyone who holds a fundamentalist belief in any religion is mentally ill (for real) which again makes for a pointless discussion
::)
Your doublespeak notwithstanding, once again you are all over the map. The issue is whether a church that follows the Bible can endorse homosexual marriage without ignoring the crystal clear admonitions against homosexuality. The answer is obviously "no."
As I've said, the fact that this is even debated in a church is mind-boggling.
Since you have shown a proclivity for quoting the Bible, why don't you quote the numerous passages in the Old and New Testament that condemn homosexuality?
-
::)
Your doublespeak notwithstanding, once again you are all over the map. The issue is whether a church that follows the Bible can endorse homosexual marriage without ignoring the crystal clear admonitions against homosexuality. The answer is obviously "no."
As I've said, the fact that this is even debated in a church is mind-boggling.
Since you have shown a proclivity for quoting the Bible, why don't you quote the numerous passages in the Old and New Testament that condemn homosexuality?
I'm aware that these types of questions are clear to you and that's why I'm asking you to help me understand these other issues.
Why do you constantly avoid additional questions
Plain and Simple -
1. who get's to decided between black and white vs. gray
2. Do you agree that it's acceptable, in fact required, that your daughter be stoned to death on your front porch if it is discovered she is not a virgin on her wedding night - YES or NO
-
If I decide to start a cult following and I don't want to allow ginger haired people in; I'm within my rights and no one should be able to question me.
If the faith specifically condemns homosexuality then you can't start up some politically correct nonsense and say you're being discriminated against. Religion is a private thing and as long as a church doesn't recieve public funding it should be okay from them to discriminate.
-
I'm aware that these types of questions are clear to you and that's why I'm asking you to help me understand these other issues.
Why do you constantly avoid additional questions
Plain and Simple -
1. who get's to decided between black and white vs. gray
2. Do you agree that it's acceptable, in fact required, that your daughter be stoned to death on your front porch if it is discovered she is not a virgin on her wedding night - YES or NO
1. "Being literate and having common sense says the Bible condemns homosexuality. Any church that bases its religion on traditional Bibles (e.g., the King James Version) cannot endorse homosexual marriage without ignoring both the Old and New Testament. They all say the same thing: homosexuality is wrong. This isn't an unclear part of the Bible."
2. What the heck are you talking about? The issue is a church's endorsement of homosexual marriage. So, you don't get a "yes" or "no" answer to your completely irrelevant and dumb question. :)
3. Quote the passages of the Bible that condemn homosexuality.
-
If I decide to start a cult following and I don't want to allow ginger haired people in; I'm within my rights and no one should be able to question me.
If the faith specifically condemns homosexuality then you can't start up some politically correct nonsense and say you're being discriminated against. Religion is a private thing and as long as a church doesn't recieve public funding it should be okay from them to discriminate.
Ding ding ding! :) That's the right answer.
-
Ding ding ding! :) That's the right answer.
We actually agree on something!
-
We actually agree on something!
Stop the presses! :D Next thing you know Jag will agree with me. :)
-
1. "Being literate and having common sense says the Bible condemns homosexuality. Any church that bases its religion on traditional Bibles (e.g., the King James Version) cannot endorse homosexual marriage without ignoring both the Old and New Testament. They all say the same thing: homosexuality is wrong. This isn't an unclear part of the Bible."
2. What the heck are you talking about? The issue is a church's endorsement of homosexual marriage. So, you don't get a "yes" or "no" answer to your completely irrelevant and dumb question. :)
3. Quote the passages of the Bible that condemn homosexuality.
Gee what a suprise - another response without answering my questions.
Why do I get the feeling that I'm talking to a child at the end of this computer
Don't you see that I'm really trying hard to understand your point of view
The Bible condemns seems to condemns MANY things so please help me understand how I should decide what stuff is Black and White (such as homosexuality) and what is stuff is Gray
-
Stop the presses! :D Next thing you know Jag will agree with me. :)
Then 240! Damn I went too far. :-X
-
We actually agree on something!
I'm fine with that and assume you're also agreeing that Christianity is a cult
How does one then interpret the sacred text of said religion - it seems like you take some stuff literally but then you ignore other stuff in part or in whole.
as I've asked from the beginning - who decides and What are the criteria?
Why are you incapable of answering this question???????
-
Gee what a suprise - another response without answering my questions.
Why do I get the feeling that I'm talking to a child at the end of this computer
Don't you see that I'm really trying hard to understand your point of view
The Bible condemns seems to condemns MANY things so please help me understand how I should decide what stuff is Black and White (such as homosexuality) and what is stuff is Gray
Aw. Is Straw Man frustrated because I won't answer his dumb, irrelevant question? :'(
Why exactly do you need to understand something you don't even talk about or think about? When I read things like this:
Quote
quote author=Straw Man
I never debate religion and I've never post on the religion board (I've only looked at it once or twice)
In my opinion it's pointless to debate with someone who holds a position without evidence or in contrary to evidence.
Besides, my personal belief is anyone who holds a fundamentalist belief in any religion is mentally ill (for real) which again makes for a pointless discussion
I become very cynical of any questions you ask. I don't believe you are truly interested in discussing issues. You simply try and find contradictions, "hypocrisy," etc. That explains why, even though you "never debate religion," ::) you quote chapter and verse when you think it supports whatever point you're trying to make. It also explains why you refuse to quote the passages in the Bible, Old and New Testament, that condemn homosexuality.
You are disingenuous. That's why I'm cynical of most of the questions you ask me.
Hope this heps. :)
-
Then 240! Damn I went too far. :-X
Hey anything is possible. :)
-
I thought you didn't discuss and/or debate religion? No . . . wait. . . Never mind.
My point is obvious. There are black, white, and gray areas in the Bible. Condemnation of homosexuality falls into the black and white area. It's a no brainer. I can't understand for the life of me why homosexual marriage would even be debated in a church that follows the Bible.
BB - I was responding to your comment above that some areas are black and white and some are gray
Why are you incapable of explaining this comment. I've given you easy examples. You should be able to apply your logic to more than the topic of homosexuality
Why are you incapable of extending your OBVIOUS point to another subject within the bible???
-
BB - I was responding to your comment above that some areas are black and white and some are gray
Why are you incapable of explaining this comment. I've given you easy examples. You should be able to apply your logic to more than the topic of homosexuality
Why are you incapable of extending your OBVIOUS point to another subject within the bible???
YAWN. See prior responses to repeated questions. ::)
Straw Man philosophy: "I never debate religion . . ." "In my opinion it's pointless to debate with someone who holds a position without evidence or in contrary to evidence."
"Besides, my personal belief is anyone who holds a fundamentalist belief in any religion is mentally ill (for real) which again makes for a pointless discussion."
-
when man finds a way to procreate with another man without adoption or serrogate mother's I will say homosexuality is "right". Science is on my side religion be damned
-
YAWN. See prior responses to repeated questions. ::)
Straw Man philosophy: "I never debate religion . . ." "In my opinion it's pointless to debate with someone who holds a position without evidence or in contrary to evidence."
"Besides, my personal belief is anyone who holds a fundamentalist belief in any religion is mentally ill (for real) which again makes for a pointless discussion."
Yes you've posted this at least 3 times now.
so what
will this be your excuse for being incapable of supporting your own statements.
how about I retract my statements - will you then be able to answer my question?
All I've asked you is to simply expand on your own statement so that I can understand it.
What's the problem?
-
I'm fine with that and assume you're also agreeing that Christianity is a cult
How does one then interpret the sacred text of said religion - it seems like you take some stuff literally but then you ignore other stuff in part or in whole.
as I've asked from the beginning - who decides and What are the criteria?
Why are you incapable of answering this question???????
I thinks all faiths are cults.
It's not for us to decide who takes what literally, rather it's up to the followers of the faith in question. If christians don't want to stone women for pre-marital sex, but at the same time discriminate against homosexuals based on what's written in their holy texts, then its their business.
It's like many moderate muslims choose not to prance around like Darth Vader, but choose not to eat pork. Call it stupidity, but they have the right to cherry pick what they like and don't like from their book of fairy tales.
-
Yes you've posted this at least 3 times now.
so what
will this be your excuse for being incapable of supporting your own statements.
how about I retract my statements - will you then be able to answer my question?
All I've asked you is to simply expand on your own statement so that I can understand it.
What's the problem?
"I become very cynical of any questions you ask. I don't believe you are truly interested in discussing issues. You simply try and find contradictions, "hypocrisy," etc. That explains why, even though you "never debate religion," you quote chapter and verse when you think it supports whatever point you're trying to make. It also explains why you refuse to quote the passages in the Bible, Old and New Testament, that condemn homosexuality.
You are disingenuous. That's why I'm cynical of most of the questions you ask me."
Cutting and pasting is pretty easy. :)
-
I thinks all faiths are cults.
It's not for us to decide who takes what literally, rather it's up to the followers of the faith in question. If christians don't want to stone women for pre-marital sex, but at the same time discriminate against homosexuals based on what's written in their holy texts, then its their business.
This thread started with a story about a US Church that supports same sex marriage.
If it's their business then what's the problem with this particular sect of this particular cult deciding to ignore the condemnation of gays too?
How about they switch it up and ignore the gay hating but enforce the stoning of non-virgins (is there another word for that?)
BTW - I'm against stoning non-virgins and I couldn't care less if two women or two men want to get married but I do think it's wrong to plough with an ox and an ass together
-
"I become very cynical of any questions you ask. I don't believe you are truly interested in discussing issues. You simply try and find contradictions, "hypocrisy," etc. That explains why, even though you "never debate religion," you quote chapter and verse when you think it supports whatever point you're trying to make. It also explains why you refuse to quote the passages in the Bible, Old and New Testament, that condemn homosexuality.
You are disingenuous. That's why I'm cynical of most of the questions you ask me."
Cutting and pasting is pretty easy. :)
Why don't you have some patience with me and help me understand your point of view.
I'm being sincere with my questions. I don't understand how to differentiate between the black and white and the gray. You seem to be able to do it so I'm asking you to help me out.
the only "cut and paste" parts are the quotes from the bible which I have referenced as such.
This is the same bible you use to support your (obvious) belief about homosexuality
How can you possibly have a problem with me asking you to explain other quotes from the same book?
-
"I become very cynical of any questions you ask. I don't believe you are truly interested in discussing issues. You simply try and find contradictions, "hypocrisy," etc. That explains why, even though you "never debate religion," you quote chapter and verse when you think it supports whatever point you're trying to make. It also explains why you refuse to quote the passages in the Bible, Old and New Testament, that condemn homosexuality.
You are disingenuous. That's why I'm cynical of most of the questions you ask me."
Cutting and pasting is pretty easy. :)
I haven't refused - I didn't see this question
If I find these sections and post them will you then explain how I should decide what quotes to take literally and which quotes I can ignore....and also how one goes about making this distinction? I truly am having a problem understanding this and it seems like you're really skilled in this area and could help me out.
Is that a fair exchange?
-
I haven't refused - I didn't see this question
If I find these sections and post them will you then explain how I should decide what quotes to take literally and which quotes I can ignore....and also how one goes about making this distiction? I truly am having a problem understanding this and it seems like you're really skilled in this area and could help me out.
Is that a fair exchange?
Actually, I'll do you one better. When I get home tonight, and after watching my Lakers get drubbed by the Suns, American Idol, and Lost, I will quote them for you. And we can discuss. Perhaps you will have a different opinion and I'm perfectly willing to discuss, debate, or whatever. And I'll discuss your stoning question too.
Straw I have no trouble exchanging ideas, discussing, debating, etc. When I believe someone is just jerking my chain (which I admittedly do), I don't take the discussion seriously. But sounds like you're sincere. We may not agree, and we don't have to, but I'm always willing to discuss.
-
Actually, I'll do you one better. When I get home tonight, and after watching American Idol and Lost, I will quote them for you. And we can discuss. Perhaps you will have a different opinion and I'm perfectly willing to discuss, debate, or whatever. And I'll discuss your stoning question too.
Straw I have no trouble exchanging ideas, discussing, debating, etc. When I believe someone is just jerking my chain (which I admittedly do), I don't take the discussion seriously. But sounds like you're sincere. We may not agree, and we don't have to, but I'm always willing to discuss.
BB - I swear I'm not trying to "jerk your chain" (that sounds kind of gay to me).
Yes - there are sections in the bible (some clear and some not so clear) that condemn homosexuality. I'm agreeing with you on this so there is no need to debate it. Just to be clear I'm agreeing that these quotes exist. I'm not saying that I think they are valid.
The same goes for the quote about the stoning your unchaste daughter on her wedding night. It exists and it is quite clear but I certainly don't agree with it. Both these issues relate to sex so it is a relevent comparison. In the case of one's daughter the sanctions are quite clear and draconian.
There are also plenty of other things that are condemed in the bible from farming techniques to clothing choices.
This list is long and ridiculous (IMO)
How does one choose what to follow and what to ignore and who get's to make that decision?
That's all I've been asking you this entire time
It seems this stuff is obvious to you but it's not that obvious to me and I'm asking you to help me out.
-
BB - I swear I'm not trying to "jerk your chain" (that sounds kind of gay to me).
Yes - there are sections in the bible (some clear and some not so clear) that condemn homosexuality. I'm agreeing with you on this so there is no need to debate it. Just to be clear I'm agreeing that these quotes exist. I'm not saying that I think they are valid.
The same goes for the quote about the stoning your unchaste daughter on her wedding night. It exists and it is quite clear but I certainly don't agree with it. Both these issues relate to sex so it is a relevent comparison. In the case of one's daughter the sanctions are quite clear and draconian.
There are also plenty of other things that are condemed in the bible from farming techniques to clothing choices.
This list is long and ridiculous (IMO)
How does one choose what to follow and what to ignore and who get's to make that decision?
That's all I've been asking you this entire time
It seems this stuff is obvious to you but it's not that obvious to me and I'm asking you to help me out.
This has morphed in into a purely religious discussion. I'm going to start a thread on the Religion board with some references to homosexuality and we discuss there how a church can accept those passages and endorse homosexual marriage.
-
This has morphed in into a purely religious discussion. I'm going to start a thread on the Religion board with some references to homosexuality and we discuss there how a church can accept those passages and endorse homosexual marriage.
are you kidding?
I've conceded that homosexualty is condemned in the bible - along with many many other things.
please address, as you agreed two posts up, the bibles instruction that your daughter be stoned to death on your front porch if she's not a virgin on her weddding night?
If you're unwilling or unable to do that then why don't you just explain your own comment which I've asked (and you've avoided) for the last two pages
I've asked you repeatedy to elaborate on your statement that some parts of the bible are black and white and some are gray. I've given you examples that puzzle me and I've asked for your help.
If you can't explain and support your own posititon (the black and white vs. gray statement) then just say so and I'll stop asking
Thanks
Actually, I'll do you one better. When I get home tonight, and after watching my Lakers get drubbed by the Suns, American Idol, and Lost, I will quote them for you. And we can discuss. Perhaps you will have a different opinion and I'm perfectly willing to discuss, debate, or whatever. And I'll discuss your stoning question too.
-
are you kidding?
I've conceded that homosexualty is condemned in the bible - along with many many other things.
please address, as you agreed two posts up, the bibles instruction that your daughter be stoned to death on your front porch if she's not a virgin on her weddding night?
If you're unwilling or unable to do that then why don't you just explain your own comment which I've asked (and you've avoided) for the last two pages
I've asked you repeatedy to elaborate on your statement that some parts of the bible are black and white and some are gray. I've given you examples that puzzle me and I've asked for your help.
If you can't explain and support your own posititon (the black and white vs. gray statement) then just say so and I'll stop asking
Thanks
In response to your question, after much thoughtful deliberation, I have decided I would not support my daughter being stoned to death on my front porch. Based on my understanding of the Bible, these ceremonial laws, rules, ordinances, etc. given to the Jews do not apply to us today. If you'd like to discuss this further, please start a thread on the Religion Board.
You are also free to express your opinions on a church endorsing homosexuality on the Religion board (I started a thread): http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=146466.0
-
In response to your question, after much thoughtful deliberation, I have decided I would not support my daughter being stoned to death on my front porch. Based on my understanding of the Bible, these ceremonial laws, rules, ordinances, etc. given to the Jews do not apply to us today. If you'd like to discuss this further, please start a thread on the Religion Board.
You are also free to express your opinions on a church endorsing homosexuality on the Religion board (I started a thread): http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=146466.0
you really had to deliberate on that question? Is that why it's taken you three days to answer
How about going back even earlier in this thread and responding to my question about YOUR STATEMENT - that some parts of the bible are black and white (such as homosexuality - in your opinion) and some parts are gray.
I've been asking you repeatedly to help me understand your statement
1. What are the Gray Areas?
2. Who get's to make that decision?
How many days of deliberation will it take this time?
BTW - thanks for pointing out the obvious. I'm aware that I can post my opinions on other boards. I've already stated my opinion about homosexuality, the bible and religion in general and you've been kind enough to repost them more than once.
My only purpose in this particular thread is trying to understand you, your statements and your point of view.
-
you really had to deliberate on that question? Is that why it's taken you three days to answer
How about going back even earlier in this thread and responding to my question about YOUR STATEMENT - that some parts of the bible are black and white (such as homosexuality - in your opinion) and some parts are gray.
I've been asking you repeatedly to help me understand your statement
1. What are the Gray Areas?
2. Who get's to make that decision?
How many days of deliberation will it take this time?
BTW - thanks for pointing out the obvious. I'm aware that I can post my opinions on other boards. I've already stated my opinion about homosexuality, the bible and religion in general and you've been kind enough to repost them more than once.
My only purpose in this particular thread is trying to understand you, your statements and your point of view.
I was being sarcastic. It was a dumb question. ::) I usually don't answer dumb questions, but this one was apparently very important to you.
And it didn't take me three days to answer. I'm not on anyone's timetable. I post when I have time. I could care less if you don't like the "timeliness" of my responses to a dumb question.
If you'd like to discuss further issues (gray areas, etc.) take it to the Religion board. This is no longer a political discussion.
-
I was being sarcastic. It was a dumb question. ::) I usually don't answer dumb questions, but this one was apparently very important to you.
And it didn't take me three days to answer. I'm not on anyone's timetable. I post when I have time. I could care less if you don't like the "timeliness" of my responses to a dumb question.
If you'd like to discuss further issues (gray areas, etc.) take it to the Religion board. This is no longer a political discussion.
Actually, I'll do you one better. When I get home tonight.....And I'll discuss your stoning question too.
Bum - you were the one who said you would answer 3 days ago.
How could you consider any question about a rule given by God in the GOOD BOOK to be a dumb question?
Are you saying parts of this book are dumb or is it just dumb to question parts of it?
How do you decide that one thing in this book is dumb yet something else is clearly black and white and a "no brainer" as you put it. You seem to understand this stuff very well and all I've been doing is appealing to your vast wisdom on this subject.
Let's face it - god is quite clear on the issue of virginity. If you're not a virgin on your wedding night (this seems to apply only to women) then you must be stoned to death.
It seems impossible to have an actual dialogue with you. You repeatedly ignore request for futher explaination of your own statements. I guess I should just assume that anything in the bible that confirms your pre-conceived prejudice is one of those obvious black and white areas and anything that you think it DUMB is must be one of those gray areas.
-
::) Just so we're clear on where you stand, please review the Beach Bum priority list:
1. Faith
2. Family
3. Profession
4. Call Mom and sister
5. Drive iron
6. Volunteer work
7. Eat
8. Hammock
9. Read
10. Teach
. . . .
50. Wash car
. . .
150. Trim toe nails
. . .
999. Respond to dumb questions on internet
1000. Pick up feminine products for wife at Safeway
-
::) Just so we're clear on where you stand, please review the Beach Bum priority list:
1. Faith
2. Family
3. Profession
4. Call Mom and sister
5. Drive iron
6. Volunteer work
7. Eat
8. Hammock
9. Read
10. Teach
. . . .
50. Wash car
. . .
150. Trim toe nails
. . .
999. Respond to dumb questions on internet
1000. Pick up feminine products for wife at Safeway
is this really your list?
-
::) Just so we're clear on where you stand, please review the Beach Bum priority list:
1. Faith
2. Family
3. Profession
4. Call Mom and sister
5. Drive iron
6. Volunteer work
7. Eat
8. Hammock
9. Read
10. Teach
. . . .
50. Wash car
. . .
150. Trim toe nails
. . .
999. Respond to dumb questions on internet
1000. Pick up feminine products for wife at Safeway
is this really your list?
seriously
your list seems totally normal
I just have one question
-
when man finds a way to procreate with another man without adoption or serrogate mother's I will say homosexuality is "right". Science is on my side religion be damned
by your argument sex for pleasure between a man and a woman would be wrong too
-
by your argument sex for pleasure between a man and a woman would be wrong too
If it wasn't for religion we wouldn't even have marriage. People originaly got married because casual sex was wrong in the lords eyes. Now they do it fir the tax breaks. I know you probably aren't religious so I don't expect you to understand.