Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

page: 22
23
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


Nicely done! My own upbringing mirrors yours, as does that of my partner. Loving stable parents (we're pictured together in two sets of golden anniversary photos), hetero siblings, no sexual abuse, just normal childhoods.
This flailing about of the Bible becomes so tiresome. You simply can't avoid it in any thread. I know the book, grew up with it.
In a church that lacked the lenient doctrine that allows "blackguard" words, self righteous posters.
When I came out, some 30 odd years ago, my mother began her questioning of doctrine. Quite the journey for her.
TBefore you cry that your making it fit your intention. Right back at you. Check into the arguements on mistranslation. Many believe it doesn't say what you think it does. Look at some of those who had a hand in it. King James ? Paul? self -loathing closet queens. Ted Haggard carries as much weight.




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Im all for this a marriage or union or partnership of f buddy all amounts to the same thing, something between two people that's no one else's business - let them marry and be happy or sad like everyone else and lets spend the tax dollars fighting cancer instead.

Serious scholars pretty much all believe the same thing about early Christianity circa 300 ad it needs followers like any other religion - childless gays are bad for the whole expansion of movement principle - that's all.

If only god can judge he'll send them to hell if there wrong - unlikely though, Jesus probably didn't care as long as they were good people otherwise.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by circuitsports]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by circuitsports
If only god can judge he'll send them to hell if there wrong - unlikely though, Jesus probably didn't care as long as they were good people otherwise.


Thus the split from the OT and the New. Jesus taught love and acceptance. Hell MM was a prostitute and he backed her up. I think some are confused with what Christ actually taught. Or are we talking about the Gospel according to Paul? Too fouled up with religion. Here's another original. It's not new but it's mine:

"Faith is a beautiful thing, religion is dangerous."



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Good ol Paul.

Forgiven, then appointed leader of the church. Discrediting and perverting everything Jesus taught.

Jesus said you didn't need church.
Paul says you do to pay tribute.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by intrepid
 


Good ol Paul.

Forgiven, then appointed leader of the church. Discrediting and perverting everything Jesus taught.

Jesus said you didn't need church.
Paul says you do to pay tribute.


Who appointed Paul to be the leader of the church? How could Paul have discredited and perverted everything Jesus taught when it was Jesus who called him and taught him?
Where does Paul say you need to pay tribute?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
Who appointed Paul to be the leader of the church? How could Paul have discredited and perverted everything Jesus taught when it was Jesus who called him and taught him?
Where does Paul say you need to pay tribute?


en.wikipedia.org... (background on the fellow)
en.wikipedia.org... (this setup the church as we know it today, with Pauls help)

Ooo lost the source before I copied it but uh...



Paul drew on an analogy to demonstrate that, as those ministering in the temple were supported by the offerings given at the temple, so those ministering in the Church should receive support from the Church. “Even so the Lord hascom- manded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel,” he wrote (1 Corinthians 9:13-14)


But here's a better one.

www.propheticrevelation.net...



Apostle Paul deals explicitly with the matter of Christian giving in several of his epistles. He devotes two entire chapters in 2 Corinthians to this subject. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul declares that those who minister the spiritual things should be supported by their followers. "Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges?" he asks. "Or who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit therof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?" (1 Cor.9:7). Then he continues by pointing back to the Old Testament and showing how the Priests and the Levites who ministered to the people at the Temple were supported by the people. Here he was referring to the law of the tithe of the Levitical system. Then applying this same tithe principle, he states in 1 Corinthians 9:14, "Even so (with the same system and principle) hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel."



Which is in direct contrast to Jesus.

Paul was essentially like, the church is there to help man be saved and to make sure it's there it needs money. So donate to the church so that we may save you.

Removing the direction connection between man and god. It's about being accountable to yourself. Knowing you have tried your best. Not someone else saying "you have done good, you're going to heaven".

And JUST because someone teaches you, doesn't mean you get it or care to put everything into practice. Such is the relationship of student and teacher.

Jesus also taught Judas. But look what happened there.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by Logarock
 


reply to post by Logarock
 


Church is church, and religious authorities are allowed to dictate it's operations as they see fit. In accordance to the Law. It's no different than work banning political discussion. I don't see why them choosing to ban particular discussions is so unseemly.


Well I will tell you why. Becasue its the state coming in and saying that certain areas of scripture cant be read or spoken about. Its just ludacris, its not thier place and rather than folk getting offended they should go to what they feel is a more condusive place. And who but the gays have asked for such suppression of speech and censure of parts of the bible but the gays? At this point fire should be breathed out on them not because they are gay but becasue they do an evil work on free speech and liberty.

The day may be comming when someone speaks against gays at home and his child speak out at school that the mind control police will pay you a vist and requre sensitivity treaing. Welcome to 1984...at your back door! Liberty on its knees with mouth ball and harness.

This is a clear case of the cure being worse than the disease.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


When did this become about gay peopel deciding what cannot be spoken about in church? Is there a case of gay people trying to silence churches related to getting married? I am very confused as to how this conversation got where it did. Can you help?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by Logarock
 


reply to post by Logarock
 


Church is church, and religious authorities are allowed to dictate it's operations as they see fit. In accordance to the Law. It's no different than work banning political discussion. I don't see why them choosing to ban particular discussions is so unseemly.


Well I will tell you why. Becasue its the state coming in and saying that certain areas of scripture cant be read or spoken about. Its just ludacris, its not thier place and rather than folk getting offended they should go to what they feel is a more condusive place. And who but the gays have asked for such suppression of speech and censure of parts of the bible but the gays? At this point fire should be breathed out on them not because they are gay but becasue they do an evil work on free speech and liberty.

The day may be comming when someone speaks against gays at home and his child speak out at school that the mind control police will pay you a vist and requre sensitivity treaing. Welcome to 1984...at your back door! Liberty on its knees with mouth ball and harness.

This is a clear case of the cure being worse than the disease.


I don't recall you stating a law was passed banning particular speech from Church. But that the church banned particular topics. And the church can ban whatever they like from church.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Here is what I am talking about....


Just last week, LifeSiteNews reported that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) threatened to “revoke[] the charitable status of Kings Glory Fellowship (KGF), a Christian church in Calgary. …’The members of the Board of Directors espouse strong negative views about sensitive and controversial issues, which may also be viewed as political, such as abortion, homosexuality, divorce, etc.,’ wrote CRA agent Dian Prodanov in an October 29th letter.” This is proof that European style censorship of pastors like the arrest and conviction of Ake Green in Sweden has crossed the Atlantic and is now in our own backyard.


Church

The gov cant come in and tell churches that basic teachings are political! What maddness.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Here is what I am talking about....

The gov cant come in and tell churches that basic teachings are political! What maddness.


They are not doing any such thing. They are simply saying that it is time to start paying the same taxes the rest of us pay for our freedoms.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by Logarock
 


Is there a case of gay people trying to silence churches related to getting married?


Not at all! I'm gay and I'm all for letting the Church speak and discuss. I'll begin: let's talk about child molestation amongst the clergy.


Originally posted by Logarock

The gov cant come in and tell churches that basic teachings are political! What maddness.


Madness indeed! Because according to the bible, slavery is very much a good thing which has to be endorsed and regulated. At least that's what Christians used to think back then. Are you going to tell me those beliefs are not political?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by Logarock
 


When did this become about gay peopel deciding what cannot be spoken about in church? Is there a case of gay people trying to silence churches related to getting married? I am very confused as to how this conversation got where it did. Can you help?



There is a strong force out there in the world that wishes to shut the church up as a social guild, moral authority, voice of God or whatever, whatever influnce.

Just one head of this beast is the gay agnenda. Not taking about some folks that just want to be left alone and mind their own. Talking about an ugly power that seeks to one day make it manditory that any licensed preacher or church otherwise will be required by law to violate its self by being required to do gay marriage. We are simply in the beginning stages now.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Here is what I am talking about....


Just last week, LifeSiteNews reported that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) threatened to “revoke[] the charitable status of Kings Glory Fellowship (KGF), a Christian church in Calgary. …’The members of the Board of Directors espouse strong negative views about sensitive and controversial issues, which may also be viewed as political, such as abortion, homosexuality, divorce, etc.,’ wrote CRA agent Dian Prodanov in an October 29th letter.” This is proof that European style censorship of pastors like the arrest and conviction of Ake Green in Sweden has crossed the Atlantic and is now in our own backyard.


Church

The gov cant come in and tell churches that basic teachings are political! What maddness.


I posted earlier in the thread that when a church files for non-profit they are forgoing ecclesiastical law and being required to (render unto Caesar what is Caesar's) pay taxes in favor of not paying taxes (being greedy, and caring about keeping the money rather than trusting in God to provide for them), making them bound to government statutes.

[They agreed to it]

They are debating politics, church was meant to come and pray. And read from the book. No sermon mount discussions.

That is to say, when they are reading about homosexuality for example...

"The bible says this about homosexuality." You can clarify where the position is coming from in regards to which book and verse.

You aren't allowed to add...

"Homosexuality is wrong, and does this and this to America. If you know someone who is homosexual do this!".

I'm sure you disagree with even the render unto Caesar thing. Despite it being fact. I would love to see you try to argue the basis of Ecclesiastical law.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by mryanbrown]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
There is a strong force out there in the world that wishes to shut the church up as a social guild, moral authority, voice of God or whatever, whatever influnce.


By denying tax exempt status? Are you perhaps imagining things? I do not have tax exempt status, do you? Are we not free to speak?


Just one head of this beast is the gay agnenda. Not taking about some folks that just want to be left alone and mind their own. Talking about an ugly power that seeks to one day make it manditory that any licensed preacher or church otherwise will be required by law to violate its self by being required to do gay marriage. We are simply in the beginning stages now.


You are not looking at this realistically in any fashion whatsoever. There is no reason a church should be tax exempt to begin with. If they do pay taxes, they will have that much more right to tell the government to stay out of it. At the moment, they enjoy a priveledge they do not deserve. If they want to abuse that by pushing a political agenda, I should not have to fund their "right" to do that.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


About the whole "gay agenda" thing.

You know how there are extremists who obstinately voice their view against homosexuality and sexual expression in the religious community?

There are also gays who do the opposite. It has nothing to do with an agenda. Just choice and upbringing about how to voice their opinion.

I saw a homosexual advocate children in lingerie (one of my threads). I don't blame the gay community. He was just someone who is fundamentally extreme.

I don't claim there's a bible-thumper agenda either despite the fact you could easily claim it was. It's just people who are extremely too vocal about their personal beliefs.

And if they happen to naturally group together (like-minds) then they do. It's not a damned committee voting on motions to shock and awe the public.

(Maybe a few here and there, on either sides to boot. But these are people with no constructive hobbies. Not emissaries for their community.)



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 


You can find what you are talking about among straght people though so since it is not even remotely homo-specific, I do not see how it applies. There are plenty of straight people that want to see kids in lingerie as well.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by mryanbrown
 


You can find what you are talking about among straght people though so since it is not even remotely homo-specific, I do not see how it applies. There are plenty of straight people that want to see kids in lingerie as well.


That's the point I was making in general. Not in response to you. There are people who do this or that on either side of a coin.

There are outlandish homosexuals and heterosexuals.

They aren't a committee voting on motions. Therefor there's no agenda.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by mryanbrown]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Radiobuzz

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by Logarock
 


Is there a case of gay people trying to silence churches related to getting married?


Not at all! I'm gay and I'm all for letting the Church speak and discuss. I'll begin: let's talk about child molestation amongst the clergy.


Originally posted by Logarock



The gov cant come in and tell churches that basic teachings are political! What maddness.


Madness indeed! Because according to the bible, slavery is very much a good thing which has to be endorsed and regulated. At least that's what Christians used to think back then. Are you going to tell me those beliefs are not political?


Many of the churches in the north were known for thier anti slavey position. What we saw in the south was the church as instrument of the environment....and it was wrong and everybody knows it.

The point I am making is that when an evil comes it knows that it has to shut the church up or make it its own and that is measured on controling its speech.
In Cannada! They are already putting pressure on churches to lay off issues or get leaned on.

As far as child molestation amongst the clergy there is no one openly teaching this and if they did they would be subject. Whos going to defend this if they did? The gov steps in as it should, but the thing comes down to rights issues between citizens. Name any orgainzation that as a whole has been taken to court by the state because some members were molesters? I realize that trust issues were vilolated ect and the practice in the catholic church looks like it was institutionalized. Gays that like to point here should be reminded of NAMBLA. Oh yea the the sounds of protest coming out of the gay community here over NAMBLA are just deafining.


And slavery...wow..are guy ready to talk about this issue really in thier context?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by mryanbrown
 


You can find what you are talking about among straght people though so since it is not even remotely homo-specific, I do not see how it applies. There are plenty of straight people that want to see kids in lingerie as well.


That's the point I was making in general. Not in response to you. There are people who do this or that on either side of a coin.

There are outlandish homosexuals and heterosexuals.

They aren't a committee voting on motions. Therefor there's no agenda.


Gotcha. I agree. I think we can even find broader groups that this could all be easily applied to but at the moment the church needs a new witch and cavorting with satan, eating children, and bathing in virgin blood just aint working out for them.





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join