It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Roberts Warns Churches Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status For Opposing Gay Marriage

page: 10
14
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Seamrog


Yeah sounds like the "lazy, fat, deviant, piece of crap society" we ALREADY had in this country well before....wait hold on...LAST WEEK

And maybe just maybe it's finally being championed because bigotry is slowly, painfully and finally easing aside and people started to understand that us frightening LGBTers aren't frightening and deserve...you know...that word the bible talks about

tolerance! I knew I had it somewhere in my head.

So homosexual behavior is why Rome fell? Wow I am getting my popcorn out for this one




posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: rnaa
one of the kings of Isreal had a party and while he was entertaining his male guests his Queen was entertaining the female guests in another area of the palace or whatever they were in. The king wanted to show off his beautiful wife to all his guests and sent for her. She was having too much fun entertaining her own guests and refused to come to him. He was so angry with her he banished her from his kingdom and made it a law of the land that all the wives in his kingdom were to obey their husbands!
If you look into the church doctrines for many of the mainstream religions they have somewhere in them something about wives obeying their husbands, it's one of the reasons why I stopped going to church. I wouldn't have a problem if it said love, but sometimes love does require you to say no, I won't do it to your husband! so, well, what can I say..
there was what seemed to be an agenda going on online a decade or two ago trying to convince women that they should go back to this type of "traditonal marriage" but then well the gov't started focusing on Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran and they decided to use the way the women were treated as a way to demonize the Islamic world, so well, it kind of postponed that part of the christian agenda. but I am sure they will get back to it eventually!


Thank you, the sad thing is I was the first to star this post... cycles are cycles because they repeat, life as a straight line when infinity is curved might be the biggest pyramid scheme in history... you know how when some battles are fought, a monument is erected? Catechism and we are left to scratch our once very hairy bodies over it for however long. Still a mystery? Perhaps to some that cannot see beyond the human condition that lives cradle to grave on a mostly rote frame work and actually call that living and a life.

Define your own purpose or reason for being beyond the prescribed realities with "you are what you eat mentality" and I am pretty sure people are going to start spitting out a lot of things other than food. That's just the physical food, what about the mental food? One pill be a machine's slave another be a human slave... while nature sits like native people going "what?" we have no voice. So asleep what do you dream? So awake what do you dream? Awake in both? Uh oh... spaghetti-o if we can re-assimilate in some way to further our own agenda... and continuity then the delusional realities encompassing greed, hate, and teaching ignorance to propagate them can continue. Indeed, tis so... but only if there is fertile ground into which to plant such garbage... remember in logic GIGO(garbage in garbage out) this is the first rule of computer programming... now imagine if AI said garbage in and garbage out? as a judgement on humanity and started taking out the trash?

Since reality is many things to many people because the true framework that all this runs on is unseen, until it is experienced.

To whom I have quoted, my apologies if I am preaching to the choir, I thought I was just singing along too... if I took such a position to begin with... in some peoples mind? I have, in others oh no pure gold, in others no task that trash out of here. Sigh.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Its apparent that some folk are arguing for the Biblical view of marriage to be considered as the only just marriage and the only marriage system that 'true' Christians should tolerate and allow for anyone, whether Christian, Jew, Atheist, or whatever. It is also apparent that these people don't have the beginning of a clue about what the Bible says about marriage.

In order to bring everyone up to speed on the Bible idea of marriage, and to reduce the risk of these folks continuing on down the path of abject hypocrisy ( and we all know what the Bible says about hypocrisy don't we?), I offer this handy little study guide:



(You have to scroll the image left and right and up and down to get it all).

By the way, I've got a "No Hypocrites Allowed" in my shop window. It's against my religion to serve hypocrites.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa


But it was all heterosexual at any rate.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Interesting...

Churches use government to keep gays from getting married before the eyes of the Lord.

Gays return favor by having government threaten to tax money meant for the Lord if they don't allow marriage.

This is basically a separation of church and state argument. How? Look at the Texas situation. Clerks are told not to issue marriage licenses if it violates their religious beliefs. Think about that for a second. Religious influence of government employees to keep them from doing their jobs properly for the benefit of all. Insidious isn't it.

This isn't the Middle East... or is it?



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You mean when they redefined what "Traditional Marriage" was?



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

So basically you are indeed ok with a rape victim being made to marry her rapist and polygamy...just as long as us boys don't ever cross



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

everything harnessing pure energy or that can harness it, has the potential to be a slave so blinded by other containers inputs and outputs it forgets the source, forgetting the source is easy when our polarities are changed stuck and trapped in a container. many people are confused because they operate either left side or right side in their brains, politics, beliefs, the whole gamut, making them mono-polar, some bounce between them making them bi-polar or able to see both sides but cannot judge properly without personal experience and examination, some have no polarity or alignment though they do have affinities this is freedom while still in the container.

Autism isn't an illness to cure, it is a spectrum meaning like a rainbow, in night or day we all have it to some degree... black and white operate in one brain hemisphere only they cannot see the other side without mediation, bipolar experiencing such just can't align to either, because they will eventually join both polarities together into a single whole over an indeterminate amount of time. Splitting the brain? or polarizing AI is the danger.

ever wonder why you feel so good after an mri if you've had one? it frees all energy trapped in the body stuck to a particular alignment.
edit on 4-7-2015 by BigBrotherDarkness because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Uh, no. No it wasn't.

The Bible describes marriage as a 'Holy Covenant' and David and Jonathon had such a covenant. That is how David became King. When King Saul and his sons, including his eldest son Jonathon, were all killed in battle, the crown passed to David.

At the eulogy, David said of Jonathon: "Jonathan is slain on your high places. I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful Than the love of women. How have the mighty fallen, And the weapons of war perished!"

The 'safe' interpretation (from the orthodox view) is that David and Jonathon's love for each other was that merely of friends and comrades. However, other verses make it clear that it was more than that. David moved into Jonathon's house so they could be closer together. Saul attempted to put a wedge between them saying 'today you have a second chance to become my son-in-law' when he offered David his daughter. The attempt failed.

There are other stories:


Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
(source)

The relationship of Daniel and Ashpenaz is less clear. Both were post-puberty eunuchs, which means that they could certainly have carried on active sexual relationships, but there is no Biblical certainty. The Hebrew words that describe their relationship can be translated to read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy" or that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel. I leave it to you to decide which phrase makes more sense.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

What is traditional marriage? Who says what is 'traditional'?


One man and one woman, joined in matrimony. Societies through history.


originally posted by: rnaa
Is it what is described in the Bible? That means polygamy. It means homosexuality. What have you got against the Bible?


Wrong. The Bible addressed what was a common practice of the time, but what is promoted as right is one man, one woman.


originally posted by: rnaa
Or do you mean a marriage where the wife was considered the husbands chattel and could not, by law made to enforce male dominance 'tradition', own anything or have any opinion in her own name. Nothing. Not the clothes she wore and not the functions of her body.


That refers to old man-made laws, not to true marriage.


originally posted by: rnaa
Or do you mean the kind of marriage represented by the flag you fly in your signature line, the flag of treason and tyranny? The kind of marriage that speaks of fidelity and honor in public while behind closed doors rape and degradation are to be hidden and pretended to be non-existent by the wife and feared and expected by the slave?


Well, that didn't take long. That is a battle flag, representative of actual rights for states, as opposed to an overblown federal government, but buy into whatever revisionist history makes you happy. Nothing you posted there has any basis in reality.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You mean when they redefined what "Traditional Marriage" was?


Perhaps if you quoted whatever statement of mine to which you refer, I could respond. Until then, I have no idea to what portion of my comment you refer, and am unable to do so.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


Benefits are offered because traditional marriage is good for society.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
Its apparent that some folk are arguing for the Biblical view of marriage to be considered as the only just marriage and the only marriage system that 'true' Christians should tolerate and allow for anyone, whether Christian, Jew, Atheist, or whatever. It is also apparent that these people don't have the beginning of a clue about what the Bible says about marriage.

In order to bring everyone up to speed on the Bible idea of marriage, and to reduce the risk of these folks continuing on down the path of abject hypocrisy ( and we all know what the Bible says about hypocrisy don't we?), I offer this handy little study guide:



(You have to scroll the image left and right and up and down to get it all).

By the way, I've got a "No Hypocrites Allowed" in my shop window. It's against my religion to serve hypocrites.




left is a slice, right is a hook... wait you weren't talking golf? Well, it look's like it... no matter the ball color it's still 18 holes, no matter how many balls you lose or bank going putt putt Bogey. Basic genetic bloodwork engineering at it's finest, does not have to take place in the laboratory, as it's results can be on the labor table, any given sunday.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes



Well, that didn't take long. That is a battle flag, representative of actual rights for states, as opposed to an overblown federal government, but buy into whatever revisionist history makes you happy. Nothing you posted there has any basis in reality.


It is a flag that represents treason, rebellion, tyranny, and degradation, nothing more.

To fly it anywhere other than in a museum implies military occupation by the Army of Northern Virginia. I'm sure that every "Sovereign Citizen" enthusiast that argues against the decorative fringe on some United States flags would violently agree with that statement.

Any concept of "States Rights" that it may have once represented is specifically the concept of the right to hold human being in slavery - as was EXPLICITLY stated in the secession justification documents of EVERY state that committed that treason.

Believe what you want about it, just be aware of what your choice tell everyone about your beliefs and don't try to pretend that your belief is an innocent one.
edit on 6/7/2015 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes



Wrong. The Bible addressed what was a common practice of the time, but what is promoted as right is one man, one woman.


So you are saying that the laws written in the Old Testament which describe and regulate at least SEVEN different marriage structures are lies? Solomon had 700 wives. Is this not just as abhorrent to God as David and Jonathon's relationship? And we are told that David has 'many' wives as well. The mind boggles at the combinations that are possible there. Why did God tolerate that situation, and who are you suggest that God got it wrong - haven't you read Job?

You cannot show one example where a loving homosexual relationship was condemned in the Bible. NOT ONE. But there are many examples where marriage relationships other than 'one man - one woman' are, if not celebrated are at least acknowledged as lawful. Again I ask: who the heck are you to suggest that the written word of God is wrong on this topic.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes



Wrong. The Bible addressed what was a common practice of the time, but what is promoted as right is one man, one woman.


Does that not make it more fitting of the term 'traditional' that the 'Ozzie and Harriet' concept that didn't come into vogue until the second half of the 20th century? 'Ozzie and Harriet' is new fangled, radical, even feminist. How on earth is that 'traditional' after 1000 years of 'Me Tarzan, You Jane'?

I watched an old "I Love Lucy" episode the other day. Lucy wanted to try cutting her hair short, in the 'new' Italian style. When she put the idea to Ricky he said "absolutely not". Not "I don't think that would look good on you" or "try it, if its no good you can wear a wig till it grows out" or anything like that. He is the husband, she is the wife. He is the boss, and she will wear her hair the way he wants it, end of story. Shoot, even Harriet would tell Ozzie where he could put that idea.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Try reading some history books.

The information is all over the place.


I've read plenty of history books, and the picture I get from that declaration is that it is just anecdotal evidence cherry-picked form civilizations that fell due to falling into decadence. There are COUNTLESS examples of civilizations that had slipping morals and survived for some time.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes



Well, that didn't take long. That is a battle flag, representative of actual rights for states, as opposed to an overblown federal government, but buy into whatever revisionist history makes you happy. Nothing you posted there has any basis in reality.


It is a flag that represents treason, rebellion, tyranny, and degradation, nothing more.


Wrong! That no-popular point of view has already been thoroughly debunked in another thread, and is completely without merit. The OP here - thread - made the same claims that you make, and several others corrected that misconception quite soundly. Go read and learn. I am not repeating it all here.


originally posted by: rnaa
To fly it anywhere other than in a museum implies military occupation by the Army of Northern Virginia. I'm sure that every "Sovereign Citizen" enthusiast that argues against the decorative fringe on some United States flags would violently agree with that statement.


Nonsense. The flag has historical significance, and flying it in a place where that is the case simply recognizes the history. To claim that flying it implies occupation by a military force not in existence is, frankly, ridiculous.


originally posted by: rnaa
Any concept of "States Rights" that it may have once represented is specifically the concept of the right to hold human being in slavery - as was EXPLICITLY stated in the secession justification documents of EVERY state that committed that treason.


Again, go read in the other thread, learn some actual history, and find yourself corrected.


originally posted by: rnaa
Believe what you want about it, just be aware of what your choice tell everyone about your beliefs and don't try to pretend that your belief is an innocent one.


Believe what you want, but be aware that ignoring actual history and making unfounded claims shows everyone what you believe, and reveals your bias against an entire region of the country, so don't pretend that your belief is an innocent one.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You DO know that the "Confederate" flag in your signature isn't really the TRUE Confederate Flag right? The only reason that design is used is because the KKK resurrected it to speak against Segregation in the 60's, but they picked the wrong flag to represent the movement.

Confederate Stars and Bars
edit on 6-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes



Wrong. The Bible addressed what was a common practice of the time, but what is promoted as right is one man, one woman.


So you are saying that the laws written in the Old Testament which describe and regulate at least SEVEN different marriage structures are lies? Solomon had 700 wives. Is this not just as abhorrent to God as David and Jonathon's relationship? And we are told that David has 'many' wives as well. The mind boggles at the combinations that are possible there. Why did God tolerate that situation, and who are you suggest that God got it wrong - haven't you read Job?

You cannot show one example where a loving homosexual relationship was condemned in the Bible. NOT ONE. But there are many examples where marriage relationships other than 'one man - one woman' are, if not celebrated are at least acknowledged as lawful. Again I ask: who the heck are you to suggest that the written word of God is wrong on this topic.


No, I stated quite plainly that the Bible addressed social norms of the day, which, at some points, included people having multiple wives. However, it is stated plainly later that one wife is the preferred number, not several. Reading comprehension matters.

There was no illicit relationship between David and Jonathan, as much as some of you want to pretend there was. It's really sad that some people don't understand that people can love one another without having sex involved. With that attitude so on display, how can anyone wonder why some of us don't agree with adoption by same sex couples? I mean, gee, if you can't have a friend you love without having sex involved, why would anyone assume it stopped there?

Who are you to suggest that words mean things not stated? If you don't accept God's Word, then don't try and use it as a defense. That is utterly lame. You can argue with it, but trying to twist and distort things with which you disagree, to pretend they agree with you, flat doesn't work. No one buys that nonsense.




top topics



 
14
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join