Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is it alright, if I come to your business to buy a cake? How about obtaining a marriage license, according to the law of the land in which we live? And you say, you do not discriminate? Just for the record, love does not discriminate, neither does it condemn other people.
You are welcome to buy any baked goods that doesn't require me to get involved with your immoral wedding ceremony. If we were truly discriminating based on your as an individual, we wouldn't take ANY business from you. But yes, we will discriminate against gay marriage because it is wrong to force us to violate our religious beliefs just so you can have your cake.
Jesus Christ is the Word of God, that is what the scriptures say. The means of present-day communication is Christ in you. Paul even challenged the Corinthians by asking them this, "Do you know that Jesus Christ is in you?", he said if you don't know this, you have failed the test (2 Cor 13:5). Not once did he say a day is coming when I am going to send you a compilation of books and letters called the bible and this is what I want you to turn too and use as the means of communication between you and I. If you are honest with yourself, you know that this is right.
WRONG. I have never directly made such a comparison. The only thing that is being equated is sexual immorality as a whole. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of approving of one type of sexual immorality but then being against other forms. Every argument you throw at me for homosexuality can be exchanged with another type that you don't approve of (and the consent argument doesn't cover all categories either).
Jesus was firmly against sexual immorality to such a level that he said even having the mere thoughts about it was sin.
When you lump them together it can be just as easily inferred that they are equal the same as you took the inference that your anti homosexuality rights was equal to the Pittsburgh massacre. I was not arguing the pro or anti sexual immorality but that you were upset by an inference whereas your post do actually infer you see homosexuality as just as bad as raping little children.
If one does not see one as immoral but the other one as immoral it is not hypocritical to support the one but not the other. You claim that if one supports homosexuality they should support raping babies. I can support one but not the other. That you cannot see that the two inferences are equal is going to continue to be a problem as it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that bringing up incest and sex with children when discussing SSM is throwing a strong inference of equality of these things.
When you lump them together it can be just as easily inferred that they are equal the same as you took the inference that your anti homosexuality rights was equal to the Pittsburgh massacre. I was not arguing the pro or anti sexual immorality but that you were upset by an inference whereas your post do actually infer you see homosexuality as just as bad as raping little children.
If one does not see one as immoral but the other one as immoral it is not hypocritical to support the one but not the other. You claim that if one supports homosexuality they should support raping babies. I can support one but not the other. That you cannot see that the two inferences are equal is going to continue to be a problem as it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that bringing up incest and sex with children when discussing SSM is throwing a strong inference of equality of these things.
Sure it is hypocritical:
What's wrong with allowing two people who love each other the right to live their lives? - ok so you can't oppose a grown daughter marrying her father. Or a brother and sister. Mom and son because what's wrong with allowing them to express their love together? Maybe they are just sexually oriented that way, right?
It's wrong to oppose homosexuality simply because you find it "icky" - ok then it's wrong to oppose a grown daughter marrying her father. Or a brother and sister. Mom and son just because you find it "icky".
What's wrong with allowing two people who love each other the right to live their lives? - ok so you can't oppose a grown daughter marrying her father. Or a brother and sister. Mom and son because what's wrong with allowing them to express their love together? Maybe they are just sexually oriented that way, right?
It's wrong to oppose homosexuality simply because you find it "icky" - ok then it's wrong to oppose a grown daughter marrying her father. Or a brother and sister. Mom and son just because you find it "icky".
Shall we continue?
Sure if you want even though I was not arguing for or against SSM or homosexuality but the similarities in the inferences that upset you and what you posts.
Personally I would find seeing the act of two men having sex more ikky than a father and his adult daughter or mother and adult son. Therefore it is not the ikky factor at all that would have me think that one was moral and the other not. But we cannot go any further in this discussion as I you have previously dismissed informed and free consent as part of the discussion.
I would not accept two brothers having a sexual relationship either as it also involves the concept of consent. On the other hand I have been informed that girl on girl sex is quite popular in porn (no I don't watch porn )
Wow that's a desperate statement to make me look bad. Btw, do you pay taxes? Well our taxes go to things like foreign aid to Saudi Arabia. It's a crime punishable by death in Saudi to be homosexual. Therefore you support bills calling for punishment of gay people. See how ridiculous your loose associations become?
And really, what do you gain by such ugly discourse? You don't know me personally so it's just baseless garbage. You certainly move the needle far away from me considering that you could be right in your beliefs.
Sad that your side just seems incapable of having a discussion without turning into personal attacks.
The ones on my side seek to love God and our fellow human beings. We don't discriminate in that way unlike your side.
I pay taxes because I'm forced to do so. You give your money as a GIFT to encourage those who say homosexuals should be murdered in Africa.
You love yourself and your "rights." Jesus had no "rights" (and if one compel you to go with him a mile, go with him two) and suggested "sinners" should be put ahead of self, which time and again you have refused to do. How can you talk about believing the Bible when you don't practice what Jesus taught in word and deed?
Your "side" murders people in houses of worship. Care to explain how that makes your "side" look good?
That's what you and others claim. I guess I don't submit to your standards of Christianity and for lack of anything else to say, you and others throw that out there as though people worship a book.
So don't ask me...
However - it is clear that the Father, Son, and Spirit are ultimately responsible for what those men wrote... and in that regard, it does merit a high place among the Christian faith.
I agree it deserves a high place in our faith. But it cannot be used to usurp the place of Jesus who said ALL authority is in Him.
Quote:
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Matt 28:18
Quote:
For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.
John 17:2
If the Bible was the ultimate authority then the Bible and the Bible alone should be able to save you. But it doesn't claim to be able to do that. Jesus and Him crucified is where our salvation lies.
The many, many inconsistencies of Scripture and the numerous places where God spoke words contrary to what He previously spoke are not problems for me because I see all the words as testimonies. You depend on the Bible to be the foundation of your entire faith system and have to create fictional stories to which you give the same authority as Scripture in order to harmonize the differences. It is a dishonest approach and does damage to the view each author was trying to present.
Yes, Fresno State no longer has the following video because bible fundamentalists protested it. But the truth cannot be silenced, and it can still be viewed.
I agree it deserves a high place in our faith. But it cannot be used to usurp the place of Jesus who said ALL authority is in Him.
OK - There's really nothing else to say here, since you agree.
The problem for you you is that you recently said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Try nailing a Bible to a cross and see if it bleeds. The Bible wouldn't exist if it weren't for Christ--not the other way around.
Put your trust in the Bible--and you go to hell. Put your trust in Jesus, and you are saved. Have you biblical passages that state the opposite is true?
One day you trust the Bible and go to hell. The next day, it deserves a high place.
OK - There's really nothing else to say here, since you agree.
The problem for you you is that you recently said...
One day you trust the Bible and go to hell. The next day, it deserves a high place.
You can't see the difference in that, DRob?
It has perplexed me for some time that there seems to be an either/or to the literalist's thinking. The Bible is not discarded just because we don't believe it is literally God's Word. It is a valuable writing of man reaching to know God. But it is not God's word; that is to say, words actually uttered by God and meant to be taken on their face value.
I don't understand how saying that translates to the idea that the Bible therefore means nothing to non-fundamentalist Christians. There is so much in between those two frames of thought.
It has perplexed me for some time that there seems to be an either/or to the literalist's thinking. The Bible is not discarded just because we don't believe it is literally God's Word. It is a valuable writing of man reaching to know God. But it is not God's word; that is to say, words actually uttered by God and meant to be taken on their face value.
I don't understand how saying that translates to the idea that the Bible therefore means nothing to non-fundamentalist Christians. There is so much in between those two frames of thought.
Matthew 10:16, 19-20 (WEB)
.
19 But when they deliver you up, don’t be anxious how or what you will say, for it will be given you in that hour what you will say.
20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
