Define Christianity as Hate - The New Homosexual Agenda

reply to post by Varemia


Yes they will, and if your relatives experienced that its sad God will decide who is faithful in the end not man. I hope your relatives find a place to worship.Its about your relationship with the Lord that matters and living a life worthy of their calling and how that is judged will be by God alone. Are they born again, did they get fully immersed and bapised in the name of the Father,Son and Holy Spirit and allow the Holy spirit to teach them the word of God and not by interpretation of man? I hope they will be loved and treated properly whereever they go. Do they know the truth about the place that live Ephesians four. if you would like any help please let me know. bless you.

reply to post by sensible1



EARTCITIZEN23-

Eunoch meant that a persons penis is cut off because they are a guardian to the Kings harem... Eunochs have NO sex.. and NO desire for sex... Some were "born into" that role.. Completely opposite meaning...

reply to post by Believer101


ive tried to answer your points as best i can but you dont seem to want to admit that legislation to make gay marriage a human right would effectivly force churches to marry lgbt or face discrimination lawsuits for following their concience.
once again ill ask what about the christians right to follow church cannon

reply to post by Believer101

just to make one last point marriage isnt a basic human right for anyone.
if it was any single man would be able to go out and drag a single woman into church, caveman style,and demand his human right to be married.

Originally posted by erictcartman
reply to post by Believer101

 

ive tried to answer your points as best i can but you dont seem to want to admit that legislation to make gay marriage a human right would effectivly force churches to marry lgbt or face discrimination lawsuits for following their concience.
once again ill ask what about the christians right to follow church cannon

Simply untrue, and nothing more than propaganda. Is a christian church forced to perform mormon weddings? Nope, and no discrimination charges have ever been filed.

reply to post by erictcartman


Actually, "freedom of religion" includes the right to deny services based on religion. The logic, which seems to have escaped you, goes something like this:

"We don't marry gay couples. You wanna get married in the eyes of God? Find another church. There's another just down the street, go and ask them. Not that it matters...the state wouldn't recognize it anyway."

Originally posted by MamaJ
God is Love.
Love is an emotion, hence FEELING!
People are born with feelings. Male and female .... Have feelings.
WHO they have feelings ( love) for is no care to the one it doesnt harm.
If feelings for another human is wrong..... Tell God. He is the creator and when ya get back home you can plead your case as to what YOU think He should do to the ones who have shown and recieved love from the homosexual.
Its love.... Feelings for another. Let love be where it is and not judge it becuase you dont understand it. Try and understand. It will bring about more peace than not.

God is ultimate love and wisdom. these are two wings of our bird we can not ascend with only one of them.

why wouldn't gay people get married at a courthouse instead of a church? i think gay people should try to find liscensed people who can marry them together without feeling they have to discriminate?

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
why wouldn't gay people get married at a courthouse instead of a church? i think gay people should try to find liscensed people who can marry them together without feeling they have to discriminate?

Are gay people not allowed to be religious?

reply to post by sensible1


Sorry, but you are wrong.
Please read
here is WIKI definition:

A eunuch ( /ˈjuːnək/; Greek: Ευνούχος) is a person who (by the common definition of the term eunuch) may have been castrated, typically early enough in his life for this change to have major hormonal consequences. Less commonly, in translations of ancient texts, "eunuch" may refer to a man who is not castrated but who is impotent, celibate or otherwise not inclined to marry and procreate. Castration was typically carried out on the soon-to-be eunuch without his consent in order that he might perform a specific social function; this was common in many societies. The earliest records for intentional castration to produce eunuchs are from the Sumerian city of Lagash in the 21st century BC.[1][2] Over the millennia since, they have performed a wide variety of functions in many different cultures: courtiers or equivalent domestics, treble singers, religious specialists, government officials and guardians of women or harem servants. Eunuchs would probably be servants or slaves who, because of their function, had been castrated, usually in order to make them reliable servants of a royal court where physical access to the ruler could wield great influence. Seemingly lowly domestic functions—such as making the ruler's bed, bathing him, cutting his hair, carrying him in his litter, or even relaying messages—could in theory give a eunuch "the ruler's ear" and impart de facto power on the formally humble but trusted servant. Similar instances are reflected in the humble origins and etymology of many high offices (e.g., chancellor originally denoted a servant guarding the entrance to an official's study). Eunuchs supposedly did not generally have loyalties to the military, the aristocracy, nor to a family of their own (having neither offspring nor in-laws, at the very least), and were thus seen as more trustworthy and less interested in establishing a private 'dynasty'. Because their condition usually lowered their social status, they could also be easily replaced or killed without repercussion. In cultures that had both harems and eunuchs, eunuchs were sometimes used as harem servants (compare the female odalisque) or seraglio guards.[citation needed] In Latin, the words eunuchus, spado, and castratus were used to denote eunuchs.[3]

Originally posted by Arles Morningside
Yup, dem gays are going to bring us all down. I'm glad the likes of wife beaters, child abusers and cheaters are doing the good work of upholding the sanctity of marriage and protecting society against the minions of anti-christdom who may be latent animal rapers and tree shaggers.

I agree all of them but add homosexual marriage to them !
if one gets pleasure with homosexuality, well it is somehow digestable. but what does homosexual marriage mean!?
why is there so much insistence to call it a marriage! if any sex that can not have a fruit is called a marriage then one can mary with sex toys as well !

Originally posted by EarthCitizen23
reply to post by sensible1

 

Sorry, but you are wrong.
Please read
here is WIKI definition:

A eunuch ( /ˈjuːnək/; Greek: Ευνούχος) is a person who (by the common definition of the term eunuch) may have been castrated, typically early enough in his life for this change to have major hormonal consequences. Less commonly, in translations of ancient texts, "eunuch" may refer to a man who is not castrated but who is impotent, celibate or otherwise not inclined to marry and procreate. Castration was typically carried out on the soon-to-be eunuch without his consent in order that he might perform a specific social function; this was common in many societies. The earliest records for intentional castration to produce eunuchs are from the Sumerian city of Lagash in the 21st century BC.[1][2] Over the millennia since, they have performed a wide variety of functions in many different cultures: courtiers or equivalent domestics, treble singers, religious specialists, government officials and guardians of women or harem servants. Eunuchs would probably be servants or slaves who, because of their function, had been castrated, usually in order to make them reliable servants of a royal court where physical access to the ruler could wield great influence. Seemingly lowly domestic functions—such as making the ruler's bed, bathing him, cutting his hair, carrying him in his litter, or even relaying messages—could in theory give a eunuch "the ruler's ear" and impart de facto power on the formally humble but trusted servant. Similar instances are reflected in the humble origins and etymology of many high offices (e.g., chancellor originally denoted a servant guarding the entrance to an official's study). Eunuchs supposedly did not generally have loyalties to the military, the aristocracy, nor to a family of their own (having neither offspring nor in-laws, at the very least), and were thus seen as more trustworthy and less interested in establishing a private 'dynasty'. Because their condition usually lowered their social status, they could also be easily replaced or killed without repercussion. In cultures that had both harems and eunuchs, eunuchs were sometimes used as harem servants (compare the female odalisque) or seraglio guards.[citation needed] In Latin, the words eunuchus, spado, and castratus were used to denote eunuchs.[3]

government officials and guardians of women or harem servants. Eunuchs would probably be servants or slaves who, because of their function, had been castrated,

Uhhh....... what part of castrated or asexual do you NOT understand... and I don't have to go to wiki to know these things.... I said they were castrated or asexual and were the kings harem guardians...

Originally posted by maes2

Originally posted by Arles Morningside
Yup, dem gays are going to bring us all down. I'm glad the likes of wife beaters, child abusers and cheaters are doing the good work of upholding the sanctity of marriage and protecting society against the minions of anti-christdom who may be latent animal rapers and tree shaggers.

I agree all of them but add homosexual marriage to them !
if one gets pleasure with homosexuality, well it is somehow digestable. but what does homosexual marriage mean!?
why is there so much insistence to call it a marriage! if any sex that can not have a fruit is called a marriage then one can mary with sex toys as well !

edit on 8-8-2012 by maes2 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-8-2012 by maes2 because: (no reason given)

An animals too!!!

Seriously, if you cant see the difference the between love of one person and another person, and an object or animal, you need help.

As a christian i was offended reading this post i mean Jesus is the Light and the Way and how could anyone not see that Truth? There is only one path to heaven and if you are gay i mean homosexual and sin then you won't go to heaven right!!!

I think that in the consitution the founding fathers like george washington who wrote it should have made it a good law to make it the Bible so that everybody has to read the Bible and obey the Bible so that the constitution would be in the Bible because like this they wouldn't have to worry about people like freeMasons who don't read the Bible and want to have gay i mean homosexual intercourse. Because freeMasons are gay i mean homosexual.

the good doctor

an earlier post seemed to suggest that homosexuality was prfectly natural because it is common place in the animal kingdom.
its also natural for chimps to throw sh*t at each other but that dont make it acceptable behaviour for people.

Originally posted by gooddoctorred
As a christian i was offended reading this post i mean Jesus is the Light and the Way and how could anyone not see that Truth? There is only one path to heaven and if you are gay i mean homosexual and sin then you won't go to heaven right!!!

I think that in the consitution the founding fathers like george washington who wrote it should have made it a good law to make it the Bible so that everybody has to read the Bible and obey the Bible so that the constitution would be in the Bible because like this they wouldn't have to worry about people like freeMasons who don't read the Bible and want to have gay i mean homosexual intercourse. Because freeMasons are gay i mean homosexual.

the good doctor

So, basically, you wish the founding fathers had not cared about freedom, but rather pushing a view?

Read and obey the bible? Kiss my a#$.

Originally posted by erictcartman
an earlier post seemed to suggest that homosexuality was prfectly natural because it is common place in the animal kingdom.
its also natural for chimps to throw sh*t at each other but that dont make it acceptable behaviour for people.

And? Are you really comparing love to throwing feces? If so, I feel bad for any relationships you may have....

reply to post by sensible1


What part of Castrated do you not understand,, it means to REMOVE TESTICLES,, not the PENIS

asexual? what?

again, read the Wiki quote for the Information you need to understand the difference.
or go read what Jesus said ,,,, because that is where your point lay,,

He NEVER EVER SAID ONE THING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS,,, EVER...

find a Red letter edition and show me a Jesus quote while he walked the Earth,, on Homosexuality,, you will not be able to do so,,
I am sure Jesus knew at least One gay person,,,, and could have said plenty,,, but did not.

Your hang up with Gay people is not the same as the attitude Jesus presented.

Sorry,, But you still are WRONG.

we can refer to the Greek language if you wish on this,, Latin? Castrate still will mean the same,,, to remove testicles,,, NOT THE PENIS.

Eunuch has multiple meanings regarding such measures.

Originally posted by apushforenlightment

I have two way of looking at this. The first one is that all spirits are homosexuall since sprits are of both gender and no gender. The other way is that all humans are heterosexuall if they are with a body that is different than theirs since only twins are exactly the same. People are born without the abitlity to reproduce. Stop telling people what is right and wrong based on your views when it is no buisness of yours and between them and god. If you do not like the poison of duality and ego then why do you preach it?

I can not perceive why you say that I am preaching duality or ego!
only the private life of people is not our buisness. but when there are issues related to societies it is related to everyone, especially USA that everything starts from there and then spreads.
rt.com...
it seems that it is a new kind of warfare by the excuse of human rights.
but it is because of this human right that we should care about our societies.

reply to post by erictcartman

an earlier post seemed to suggest that homosexuality was prfectly natural because it is common place in the animal kingdom.
its also natural for chimps to throw sh*t at each other but that dont make it acceptable behaviour for people.

You're right just because something comes about naturally does not necessarily make it moral or ideal.

Is that what that post was even getting at?

When I bring up homosexuality in nature it's specifically in response to the idea that gay humans are making a conscious choice to be gay.