a message from Heaven concerning the Supreme Court decision today....

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Its a symbolic meaning brother...

Like I said... Just forget I said anything

Which is -exactly- my point. Why the symbolism? If homosexuality was so bad why did he need to disguise his words with symbolism? He didn't mince any words about the rich. He said it in plain talk. Rich = Bad. So, is being rich worse than Homosexuality, because he only used cryptic symbolism to possibly mean homosexuality instead of simply spelling it out.

Makes -no- sense.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

Makes -no- sense.

Neither does this thread. But it still happened. And judging by the general responses, I think we can conclude that homosexuality isn't in immediate danger of being lynched. Looks like a good number of clear-headed individuals are speaking up, so that's a good thing, right?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Makes -no- sense.

Neither does this thread. But it still happened. And judging by the general responses, I think we can conclude that homosexuality isn't in immediate danger of being lynched. Looks like a good number of clear-headed individuals are speaking up, so that's a good thing, right?

If we were going to allow a thread on whether or not it makes sense... this place would be a ghost town. XD

Colbe, this thread is now a sick joke.

Look at the fruit it is bearing. You have;

*used the words of false prophets
*further heightened tension between the gay community and Christianity
*smeared the image of an already embattled church just that little bit more
*made a lot of people very angry
*introduced absolutely nothing new or helpful to a very sensitive issue
*Just polarized opinion and made it very difficult for both sides to find any common ground.

None of this, none of this is leading anyone to peace or enlightenment. Please take a step back from your beliefs and ask yourself if you are contributing to the greater good before posting material, especially from questionable sources in the future.

Originally posted by colbe
Notice the last words of Our Lord, your free will to decide if you wish to follow God, He knows best. We all have to be determined, pray, consecrate your families to Our Lord and His mother. Pray, dear Lord help me to persevere.

You can change, realize who "love" is because love here is fickle, our fallen nature.

+ + +

www.holylove.org...



June 26, 2013
Public


Printer Friendly Page

..."I tell you, solemnly, the issue that this country's Supreme Court is considering today - same sex marriage - would have been scandalous a generation ago. That is how compromised the morals of this generation have become."

"The Father created sex for the propagation of life, not for pleasure for pleasure's sake. Mankind is so far removed from the Will of My Father that he now thinks he has the right to legislate what is sin and what is not sin. Sin is never a right, but an erroneous free will choice. The Will of My Father is not debatable. Like Truth, it does not change to please contingencies or garner favor."

"Turn to My Mercy before it is too late."

If it is Gods will then God will but men and woman have no right to tell another who to love or who to share their lives with! Let Gods will be done but we are not he! We can only live our lives according to what we believe is right! We have no ability to live another's life and we should not try to!

People like throwing out the word "Christians". Most "Christians" confuse the term with being "Christ-like" and it couldn't be more of a difference. Most "Christians" I know think just because they follow the Bible teachings, they are following the word of Christ. Little do they realize that the Bible was written by man decades to hundreds of years after Christ died. They think it contains the direct word of Christ, which it doesn't, it's man's interpretation. We don't know for sure JC ever spoke about homosexuality or abortion. Christ for sure would have been empathetic and non-judgemental, unlike most "Christians" I know. In fact most "Christians" I know are the biggest hypocrits. When they're not in church for the hour on Sunday mornings, the rest of the time they're full of dislike for non-Christians and talk and gossip about others, most un-Christ-like. But their rationale is Christ knows they're only human and Christ will forgive them, even after they perform the same boorish behavior all the time. They say they have "faith". "Faith" is a term used by organized religion to validate intellectual laziness. When Galileo said the earth was heliocentric and the sun and planets didn't rotate around the earth, he was shunned and excommunicated from the Catholic church. It took 400 years for the church to finally admit Galileo was right and and offer an official apology. Men judge where only God, if there is one, should be the only judge.

Originally posted by nosacrificenofreedom
If it is Gods will then God will but men and woman have no right to tell another who to love or who to share their lives with! Let Gods will be done but we are not he! We can only live our lives according to what we believe is right! We have no ability to live another's life and we should not try to!

Men laying with men and women laying with women is an abomination before the Lord.

Originally posted by mojo2012

Originally posted by nosacrificenofreedom
If it is Gods will then God will but men and woman have no right to tell another who to love or who to share their lives with! Let Gods will be done but we are not he! We can only live our lives according to what we believe is right! We have no ability to live another's life and we should not try to!

Men laying with men and women laying with women is an abomination before the Lord.

"Men laying with men and women laying with women is an abomination before the Lord", says man because men wrote the Bible, not the Lord.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Actually he did address homosexuality...

he said "love thy neighbour"... So unless they aren't considered "our neighbour"...

the answer is obvious

Nah, that's too vague. None of my neighbors are gay. He didn't specifically say anything about homosexuals. At all. He went on and on and on and on about how bad the being rich is, but not one thing about homosexuality? Sounds like the character either didn't care, or the authors of the books didn't care enough to include it.

edit on 29-6-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)

He saw what was within a person rather then what is on the outside...

What... You don't think people have gay neighbours?

it was an all inclusive statement...

And yes he did speak about homosexuality but he didn't directly call it as such...

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

edit on 29-6-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

OMG, so eunuchs are homo's now. You know how stupid you sound? You gotta a bad habit of making Jesus say things He didn't. Please stop, your just embarrassing yourself.

Eunuchs are gay

I can't believe you let that fall out your mouth.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


Geez... the assumptions around here are astounding sometimes...

Did I say "ALL eunuchs are gay"... or even eunuchs are gay in general... again its a symbolic meaning..

get a grip bro... Judge me however you like... its your issue not mine

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Its a symbolic meaning brother...

Like I said... Just forget I said anything

Which is -exactly- my point. Why the symbolism? If homosexuality was so bad why did he need to disguise his words with symbolism? He didn't mince any words about the rich. He said it in plain talk. Rich = Bad. So, is being rich worse than Homosexuality, because he only used cryptic symbolism to possibly mean homosexuality instead of simply spelling it out.

Makes -no- sense.

I didn't say Homosexuality is bad.... exactly the opposite actually... Notice he said "not all men can hear this saying"?

Let me clear it up for you....

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Its a symbolic meaning brother...

Like I said... Just forget I said anything

Which is -exactly- my point. Why the symbolism? If homosexuality was so bad why did he need to disguise his words with symbolism? He didn't mince any words about the rich. He said it in plain talk. Rich = Bad. So, is being rich worse than Homosexuality, because he only used cryptic symbolism to possibly mean homosexuality instead of simply spelling it out.

Makes -no- sense.

I didn't say Homosexuality is bad.... exactly the opposite actually... Notice he said "not all men can hear this saying"?

Let me clear it up for you....

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

That is also my point.

No one can dispute that Jesus was against being rich. He said it repeatedly. However there is a wide margin of interpretation regarding whether Jesus was for or against homosexuality. Why is this? Because he made a very hard line against being rich, and he didn't say anything with any kind of specifics to homosexuality.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Simply put... there was a lot of things in the OT that Jesus didn't agree with...

As I've said... Love thy neighbour is an all inclusive statement... He didn't single out gays because sexuality is a natural thing... Not a choice like some of these hardline Christians believe.

The OT is an outdated archaic book... even for that time.... in many cases down right barbaric...

Jesus wasn't against gay people... He was against materialistic people...

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

Geez... the assumptions around here are astounding sometimes...

Did I say "ALL eunuchs are gay"... or even eunuchs are gay in general... again its a symbolic meaning..

get a grip bro... Judge me however you like... its your issue not mine

edit on 29-6-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

Then you must be the only scholar in history to see homosexual symbolism is those verses. Geeeze, talk about taking scripture of context.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Simply put... there was a lot of things in the OT that Jesus didn't agree with...

As I've said... Love thy neighbour is an all inclusive statement... He didn't single out gays because sexuality is a natural thing... Not a choice like some of these hardline Christians believe.

The OT is an outdated archaic book... even for that time.... in many cases down right barbaric...

Jesus wasn't against gay people... He was against materialistic people...

edit on 29-6-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

And as I've said, you are interpreting a 2000 year old story to fit your contemporary views and opinions. The New Testament is just as archaic.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


well no its really not...

the gospels are just as relevant today as they were back then.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

well no its really not...

the gospels are just as relevant today as they were back then.

Come on, if a 2000 year old text was archaic to Jesus 2000 years ago, than a 2000 year old text is archaic to us 2000 years later.

This is why I believe in Satan.

You don't have to just "trust" that someone's words are just coming from the heavens, nor do you have to live your life according to a holy book, living unnaturally and ritualistically.

The bible states that - for a man - to lie -with a man- as he would a woman is an abominable sin...gotcha.

Assuming you believe there is a God and that the bible is THE highest word of God, it still mentions nothing about women laying together.

So if the claim of biblical sin that is being used to justify this protest and continued bigotry by uneducated people calling themselves Christians is based solely and only on the bible and the words " a man laying with a man" - then why all the discrimination and hatred towards lesbians?

There is not a single line in the bible that says women aren't allowed to lay with women...so..what gives?

Why suddenly so inclusive?

What bible verse or scriptural basis are you using to justify that abuse of peoples human rights?

If you don't have biblical justification for your vitriol then just how do you justify what you are doing in denying human rights to a large section of the world community?

If you don't have a justification other than personal dislike or hatred..then what does that say about you and what and who you really are?


Ro.