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.

 

Court says 'gay' rights trump Christian rights

page: 11
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by observer

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
reply to post by observer
 


What is wrong with having my own take on the myth of Icarus? If that disqualifies me from discerning Biblical truth, then I don't know what to tell you.

Sin separates us from God whether we are saved or not. The difference is if we are saved the separation isn't permanent. I believe homosexuality is the unnatural use of God's gift, our bodies, according to Romans 1. You are free to agree or disagree with me on that. You are free to question whether I am a "True Christian" or not. My comment on what True Christians do is founded on the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20. I believe it. God's Truth is incorruptible, discernible through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by Icarus Rising]


Well you discount your whole fundamentalist argument by saying it is "ok to have your own interpretation of the myth of Icarus". By this logic you are ok with reinterpreting religious texts to ones taste. This you cannot argue against as the original text of Icarus does NOT agree with your account. So if you are ok with reinterpretation of literal texts why are you so against the reinterpretation of others? Are you and your texts best? Better, Best? Or is it that you view the story or Icarus as a moral parable that teaches us something, and you are attached what you believe to that to expand on that and give it deeper meaning to you? If this is the case, what makes your "interpretation" of the NT so definitive and absolute? Jesus was real, he died for us (as far as I am concerned) but was his word not intentionally confounding. For the development of mankind, for the changing world. This world is not stuck in the same sand soaked backward backwater that Jesus lived in, and nether is God himself, that is why Jesus (not Paul, who was NOT a disciple of Jesus until is gained him some earthly fame) was so obtuse. Paul was after control (and most of the anti gay arguments come from his writings), not converts. Paul was not even a Jew, Paul did not even KNOW Jesus when he lived. Again, Paul wanted converts, and hatred sold just as well then a it does now. Jesus was after rebels, I hope I am a rebel, God loves the different, why else would he create the platypus? We will have to agree to disagree on this. I (begrudgingly) respect your opinion for what it is, yours. That of a mind God created, I just believe you are wrong.


Omg why oh why did I not come up with that. I just fell in love with "Observer". (Playing on the whole gay thing) lol, there is life in the universe!

~Hypno




posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by HypnoAsp
 


The post you refer to is not out of line. It is a statement of my personal belief. Any sinner, homosexuals included, who doesn't profess Christ as their Lord and Savior and turn away from their sin will stand before The Judge on their own merit. Their opportunity for salvation is virtually nil unless they are covered in the Blood of the Lamb.

Having said that, I also believe in each and every person's right to self-determination. I also believe God already knows each and every choice each and every one of us will ever make. Supernatural, inexplicable, logic defying Creator God.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


Laws are written by man, not god.

And obeying a master you can't communicate with, and refusing to accept anyone here on earth as master, will only serve to land you in a load of trouble with that law.

Careful. That's the same thought pattern the radicals take.
The whole "Your laws don't matter, cause my god says it's right."

People all over the world wouldn't be dying right now if wasn't for that line of thought.

Quite frankly, you can't know what your god or savior wants, because you can't communicate with them, until your dead (IF they exist).

For all you know, they could hold you accountable to the law of your earthly masters, because that is the law you have been presented.
(And if god is omnipotent, then whatever laws we create, are in fact his own. Making the law your earthly master.)


Aside from this...

I can't see how it would be possible, that any form of god, (of whatever religion you follow) could possibly forsake his own creation, gay or otherwise, because of the way he consciously made them.

Clearly, if there is a god, and he created the gays, then their differences are to serve as a test to see whether you are capable of loving them like all other fellow man, or whether you will take the easy way out, judge them, and exclude them.

It's your call... but I'm quite confident exclusion isn't what any "god" has in mind.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by observer
 


There is a big difference between the myth of Icarus and the Living Word of God. I think you know that. I would never take such license with the Bible.

You should also know that Saul of Tarsus was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin. Also a Pharisee trained by Gamaleil. He had an encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. The Apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas. Christ chose Saul. He changed his name to Paul.

Its ok with me if you think I am wrong. I am still working out my salvation with fear and trembling. I will make mistakes, and I pray that god will continue to reveal them to me along with His Truth.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Just a friendly reminder that discussion should center upon the topic, "Court says 'gay' rights trump Christian rights".

In context of this thread, the legal definition that the court has arrived at is the point. Please direct any personal theological interpretations to a new thread.

Thank you.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


Believe it or not and/or call me crazy, but I can communicate with God. Anybody can. He is omnipotent and omnipresent. I communicate with Him primarily through prayer and His Word.

I am not trying to say that I am above earthly law. I am accountable to earthly law (Romans 13). My behavior falls well within acceptable limits. However, earthly law is not my master. Where earthly law conflicts with the teachings of Christ, I will follow Christ.

I am not a zealot. I don't believe God will ask me to kill for him. I may end up dying for my beliefs, though. Remember the victims at Columbine.

God doesn't forsake sinners, sinners forsake God.



Romans 1

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:


I love everyone, even people who hate me. Again, love the sinner, hate the sin. Its God's love. God isn't excluding anyone. Everyone has the opportunity to repent of their sins before they die in the flesh.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


Yes this thread has strayed far afield. I hope you will give me some leeway in answering the off topic questions posed to me.

There may be quite a few members who would like to see this thread closed. That doesn't surprise me.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I hope you will give me some leeway in answering the off topic questions posed to me.


No more.

Your leeway stands with the post after my last.

There are other threads where you may address your personal spiritual concerns. Please do so there. Indeed, you may start a thread in a correlated forum.

Please do not derail this thread further.

Thank you.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid


So do you have a problem with Caribana(celebrates Carib and South American heretage)? How about Greek festivals? Italian festivals?

Edit to add: What about the Million Man March?

[edit on 20-7-2008 by intrepid]


Next time you see any of these types of people at a Caribana or an Italian fest, let me know, then we can debate the topic.











posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by HypnoAsp

They parade as they are a minority struggling for their rights.


Really? Men prancing around in thongs are struggling for their rights how? Surely you have a problem with that too because it might offend someone right?




As for rainbows and stickers, we have all seen the naked lady stickers (you know the same symbol on the back of 18 wheeler flaps)? What exactly is that sticker asserting other than straight and sexually active?


I must have missed the memo designating that the official signage of heterosexuals. Could you pass it on to me? Hmmmm, lesbian truck drivers would have the same sticker wouldn't they?



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   


hmmmmm - looks just like Mardi Gras



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
hmmmmm - looks just like Mardi Gras


You beat me to the punch.

In any case, please let's get back to discussing the court case. Things are getting a bit testy in the thread -- please be civil and keep your comments only to the topic at hand.

The photos, while entertaining, apparently did not come from the march in question (those were from 2006 events.) If you want to discuss things like that, please start another thread.

This one is about the court case.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


How can I derail my own thread? Not only would it somewhat schizophrenic, it would be self defeating as well. I am trying to stay on topic as best I can. I never intended this thread to be Christian vs. gay.

The most telling post yet has been the one regarding separtion of church and state and how that has effected the rights of religious people and groups in the public (and private) arena.

I have made it clear that I didn't think the Philly 11 were helping their cause by doing what they did, and that I wouldn't do something like that myself, but I believe they had the Constitutional right to do it. Nobody seems to want to discuss that anymore.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


Sorry, but throughout this thread you have made no reference to the article and just turned this into a promotion of Christianity. Again, you've posted numerous remarks from the bible to say "I'm right because the Bible says.." and are promoting religion.

As the moderators said, you've turned this into a theology discussion and started accusing us of taking away your right to freedom of speech


Your posts highlights a perfect example of why religion should be taken directly out of the legislative branch, courts and the state.

God's place is the Church and the Church only.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The gay people weren't flaunting. They were having a gathering. The Christians showed up and stuck their faces in there. THEY flaunted their Christianity in the faces of the gay people. THEY caused a disturbance. They didn't have to attend.

Right?


They were having a gathering that the Christians helped pay for. Christians think that homosexuality is a slap in the face of their creator and that those who participate in it are destined for eternal torment in hell...and they're helping to pay for it?

What if the government funded an anti-gay gathering. Would that be OK?



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I had to pay for Bush to campaign. Why the president gets to use tax payer's money to campaign never seems right to me.

However - back to churches/Christians. As far as I know churches are not required to pay taxes - at least on church property. I'm not sure if they pay taxes on owned businesses.

But the way I look at it is - they receive lots of benefits from tax payers - a fund that they never contribute to - - but my tax money probably does. Even if these are individuals protesting - they are protesting from a belief of their tax free organization.

Every citizen has their right. In my opinion if a group is going to protest any event - it must not be closer then the perimeter of the event - - not in the actual event so as it disrupts.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
What if the government funded an anti-gay gathering. Would that be OK?


We taxpayers do pay everyday for anti-gay gatherings - because churches are not taxed. And what they don't pay in taxes I have to.

At least that is how I look at it.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 




Originally posted by BlueTriangle
What if the government funded an anti-gay gathering. Would that be OK?


We taxpayers do pay everyday for anti-gay gatherings - because churches are not taxed. And what they don't pay in taxes I have to. At least that is how I look at it.



Government represents 100% of the people. Politics is about how one guy gets more than his fair share. Neighborhoods. Everybody benefits when our neighborhoods are made more friendly, cleaner, and better served by garbage collection and reliable utilities. Communities. Every city has many areas which over time have become "communities" where people of like mind can do things that appeal to them.

We do have a ban on funding religions but OTOH the religious get off without paying taxes others have to pay. Primarily property and net income on non-religious investments. Our system seems to work best for us. But we have no GOD GIVEN right to export it. Au contraire! There should be an international treaty BANNING missionaries. At least until their home country is 100% of what it is they are hustling.

[edit on 7/21/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
Next time you see any of these types of people at a Caribana or an Italian fest, let me know, then we can debate the topic.


Cool. Caribana:



So when do we start this debate?



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


And you aren't promoting your secular views? Don't go all hypocritical on me now. I haven't seen you comment on the story at all, only on my posts citing Scriptural reference. Secular humanism seeks to remove God from everything but the blame for all the world's ills. How hypocritical is that?

This is not a case of "I'm right because the Bible says so", no matter how much you try to belabor your dubious point. I believe God is right about everything, and I turn to His Word for His perspective in all things. The fact that you and others discount the validity of the Bible as a reference does nothing to dissuade me.

Regardless of all that, though the Philly 11 were ill-advised to do what they did, imo, they still had a Constitutional right to do it. That is the bottom line I keep returning to.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join