• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The only thing they have in common is the name slavery and ownership. I would genuinely like for you to substantiate the rest of your assertion with some kind of evidence, if you do not mind.
The "ownership" part is what makes it wrong, unethical, immoral, and something that no decent person should ever say, under any circumstances, is OK.
Overall, 84 per cent of the world's inhabitants, which it estimated at 6.9 billion, identify with a religion, according to the study entitled 'The Global Religious Landscape' issued by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life on Tuesday. Christianity is the largest faith with 2.2 billion adherents or 31.5 per cent of the world's population. There are 7.4 billion inhabitants on our earth, that leaves just 500 million atheists and agnostics that do not celebrate Christmas and at least 2.2 billion Christians that do.
Actually, many Christians do not celebrate it, given the Pagan roots of the holiday, and many atheists and agnostics do celebrate it as a cultural holiday (peace on earth, good will, and all that stuff), in addition to cultures having long celebrated a holiday around the time of Winter Solstice (a practice that survives to this day).
The reason that it seems like nobody celebrates it now is because almost all major media companies, most politicians and retail company executives and owners are atheists who control what we see and what we don't see. 95% of the worlds wealth belongs to these handful of atheists who control our governments and all media outlets, like the Belderberg Group of billionaires. So, you got it wrong. Christianity will be with us until Jesus Christ returns in all His Glory and majesty and we will be fighting these handful of dictators until He does..
I said it used to be that people didn't celebrate it, but they do today.
And, no, atheists do not run or control the government. There are very few of them actually in office.

Again, you refer to man and not God. It is physically impossible for My God to take any carnal mans life as he cannot dwell in their presence, and if He did He would cease to be God.
Then who did this killing? The Bible makes it clear that it was God's way of punishing these various offenders.
 

Pudding

Well-Known Member
There is a lot of christianity sermon/preaching/proselytize scatter around this thread:speechballoon:
 
Last edited:

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I hope you don't mind me answering your post. It see it sat there with no one answering it for you so here is an article from Wiki detailing what happens when we die.The whole ethos of the afterlife is contained within the Plan of Salvation.

Spirit World


The general Christian believe in a spirit world between death and the resurrection. They believe that the "veil of forgetfulness" will be removed before they are judged thereafter, and that the spirits of all of mankind continue to prepare for judgment day and their eventual resurrection where they will receive a reward according to their faith and works. They believe that righteous individuals continue to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ in the Spirit World, teaching others and offering them the opportunity to accept Jesus Christ as their Saviour and follow Heavenly Father's plan.

Final Judgment

Christian believe that the final judgment of mankind will occur after the final resurrection, and that Jesus Christ is ultimately the Judge of all men.

“ He will judge them, 'not according to what they have not, but according to what they have,' those who have lived without law will be judged without law, and those who have a law will be judged by that law. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed, the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information, and His inscrutable designs in relation to the human family; and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right.


Salvation

Christians believe that the scriptures teach of multiple types or levels of salvation:

  • Immortality is explained as a gift freely given to everyone, made possible by Jesus' death and resurrection.[8] The church teaches that "The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form...even as we now are at this time. ...This restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame."
  • After everyone has been resurrected, all will be judged by God with Jesus Christ as our advocate. As part of this judgment, each person is assigned to one of three heavenly kingdoms (sometimes called Degrees of Glory): the Celestial Kingdom, the Terrestrial Kingdom, and the Telestial Kingdom. The kingdom within heaven for which each person has qualified is conditional upon acceptance of, and true faith in, Jesus Christ as the Savior and Redeemer of mankind - this is demonstrated through baptism and obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel, including repentance.
  • In order to achieve "eternal life", the highest quality and happiest of the degrees of salvation, one must enter into the Celestial Kingdom.
Each level of salvation as explained above relies upon Christ's grace through His infinite atonement, and is conditional upon each person's eventual acceptance of Jesus Christ as their personal Savior from the consequence of sin and spiritual death. Through His physical and spiritual suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross, He makes it possible for each person to be made clean from the metaphorical stains of human imperfections, and justifies and sanctifies each righteous person for admission into the glory that they have merited as they come unto Him with "full purpose of heart."

  • Outer Darkness is reserved for those people who, after gaining a full knowledge of the Gospel, willfully deny and contend against the Holy Ghost. (Satan, his followers from the premortal life, and those who were born on earth but chose to become sons of perdition.) These individuals who inherit no glory are called sons of perdition. Although resurrected, and thus immortal, they willfully rebelled and rejected the right to salvation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_of_salvation_(Latter_Day_Saints)

I don't mind you answering my question at all. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. :)
 

Shad

Veteran Member
The only thing they have in common is the name slavery and ownership. I would genuinely like for you to substantiate the rest of your assertion with some kind of evidence, if you do not mind.



Overall, 84 per cent of the world's inhabitants, which it estimated at 6.9 billion, identify with a religion, according to the study entitled 'The Global Religious Landscape' issued by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life on Tuesday. Christianity is the largest faith with 2.2 billion adherents or 31.5 per cent of the world's population. There are 7.4 billion inhabitants on our earth, that leaves just 500 million atheists and agnostics that do not celebrate Christmas and at least 2.2 billion Christians that do.

The reason that it seems like nobody celebrates it now is because almost all major media companies, most politicians and retail company executives and owners are atheists who control what we see and what we don't see. 95% of the worlds wealth belongs to these handful of atheists who control our governments and all media outlets, like the Belderberg Group of billionaires. So, you got it wrong. Christianity will be with us until Jesus Christ returns in all His Glory and majesty and we will be fighting these handful of dictators until He does..

Tin foil hat nonsense.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
The "ownership" part is what makes it wrong, unethical, immoral, and something that no decent person should ever say, under any circumstances, is OK.

Then why, mat I ask, did they sell themselves into slavery knowing that they would become the property of their master. They must have been in deeper water than they would have been by selling themselves into slavery.


Actually, many Christians do not celebrate it,

How do you know that, only every Christian that I know celebrates Christmas in commemoration of the birth of Emanuel, the son of God.


given the Pagan roots of the holiday,

The Pagan Holiday is a separate event to the birth of Christ. Christ's birth wasn't even in December. It was most likely in April as there were spring lambs about. So, there is no connection between the birth of Christ and the Pagan Holiday, though most atheists will tell you that there is,

and many atheists and agnostics do celebrate it as a cultural holiday (peace on earth, good will, and all that stuff),

Yes, I am aware of that, which only supports the fact that Christmas is still a very popular holiday.

in addition to cultures having long celebrated a holiday around the time of Winter Solstice (a practice that survives to this day).

Yes, I know, however, Christmas was not Born at that time of the year so there could be no connection.

I said it used to be that people didn't celebrate it, but they do today.

How do you work that one out.

And, no, atheists do not run or control the government. There are very few of them actually in office.

Not true, the majority of our government, in the UK, are either gay or atheist, or both. The British government is corrupt and dishonest and controls our media industry.

Then who did this killing? The Bible makes it clear that it was God's way of punishing these various offenders.

Mankind, however, from your perspective, nobody as you believe it is all fictitious.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I like to answer the entity of the posts I get but have to cut some short here as I have a headache that is making me tired and unable to think properly. Sorry about that. If they are important to you just repost them and I will answer them later.

I appreciate that. I get a lot of migraines myself. They can be quite annoying and debilitating.

How did you know that? Do I give my age away in my posts.

No, no. I just find that a lot of times in these “good old days” type of discussions, people are usually referring to the 1950s.

You said "the way that some Christians or some Muslims do when it comes to gay people. That behavior serves to perpetuate institutional or structural violence." The other side of the story is that not all homosexuals are angels and can be equally as badly behaved.

Well sure, but all human beings are like that – some are good, some are bad. That doesn’t really change the point though.

Not enough to make me cry.

Okay good. I’m not into making people cry. :D

I have two very good friend who I have the greatest respect and admiration for. Both are in their eighties and gay, however, they say that they have never had anal sex. I asked what else they did and the answer was quite surprisingly astounding to me, and perfectly acceptable. Not perverted or weird in anyway. I had never thought of it until he told me, but it changed my opinion on homosexuality. You do not have to have anal sex. There are ways to have a perfectly fulfilling sex life without debasing yourself in sexual sin. I love these two guys, who have been together now for many years, yet they never got married. I believe I will see them, without sin, in the afterlife. If I were gay then I would want to meet someone like them. Really nice and sincere people, in fact, you would not even think that they were gay.
This is kind of the point. If two people of the same sex love each other and want to spend a life together, nobody should have a problem with that and nobody really has a right to say they can’t.

We all have different views on what we think is perverted, anyway. Somebody might think their relationship is perverted, whether they have anal sex or not. I’m glad you’re not one of those people.

Well, I hope not, just kidding. I don't really know. It is not mentioned in scripture so I guess it is not. Having said that, the dangers of oral sex are on a par with anal sex, so maybe it is. Sorry if I am a bit vague on it but I don't really know and I have never given it much thought or reasoning to be able to give a reasonable coherent answer.
Fair enough. That’s an honest answer.

Not in my opinion.

Interesting. Yours is a different view than most people I have come across.

I do not believe that there is a single cause. I think there is a multiplicity of factors, which would explain you spectrum theory.

It doesn’t appear that there is a single “cause.” It looks like it involves multiple processes.

It’s not my spectrum theory … but it does seem to make sense.

Please see my experience with my elderly gay friends

Noted.

I have not taken a survey or walked the street monitoring social behavior, however, I do read the news, research it on the internet with both showing a marked decline in our social interaction and behavior.

In what ways?


The world is now totally corrupted.
The world has been corrupt for a long time now, especially among those with power. It’s not a new thing. Think about how kings and queens and popes used to behave; and all on “divine authority” to do whatever they wanted. They’d have people murdered for personal or political gain, witches and heretics were tortured and murdered, wars were fought for power, authority and prestige. And long before that people were stoning people to death (including children), raping and pillaging neighbouring tribes and stealing their virgins to keep for themselves. Women had basically no right at all until well into the twentieth century in the western world. Black people had no rights in the US until the 1960s even though they were freed from slavery a hundred years earlier. If you were gay or mentally retarded or suffered from a mental disorder you were viewed as rubbish until the early twentieth century.

I’m not sure who would be worse off now than at most times in the past.

We do not even really know who is running the show. Look at the Belderberg Group, The New World Order, 911 inconsistencies, The Bohemian Grove, John F Kennedy's mysterious magic bullet, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, The federal reserve, capitalism, democracy, logistics exploitation, Iraq the Illuminati and Freemasonry, the Patriot Act, the FDA, the Pharmaceutical industry, and on and on and on. You may say, but they are conspiracy theories, however, there is seldom any smoke without fire.

I don’t want to totally dismiss this, but I get a little more skeptical when people bring up conspiracy theories.

Yes, that is bound to be a factor in ones appraisal of the past, however, we become more objective as we grow older so those factors are taken into consideration.

Of course that will be a factor, there’s not really a way around it. I don't think we do actually get increasingly more objective with age. I do think we become more rigid and averse to change and more stuck in our ways.

I grew up in the 1980s and I had a blast as a kid. Everything seemed perfect to me. Of course, I had no idea that I was living during a terrible recession smack in the middle of the Cold War.

That was a dreadfully outrageous affair indeed that doesn't bear thinking about, that human beings could do that to another human being. You would not treat an animal like that. Disgusting and an embarrassment on our society for allowing it to happen.

Indeed it was. Gay people are clearly much better off in the UK now than they were in the 1950s.

Again, I am embarrassed for mankind that they are capable of such behavior. I agree wholeheartedly with you, however, I am not claiming that the 50s were utopias, just that they were more morally astute.
So I am.

So I guess I’m wondering what you mean by “more morally astute.”

No doubt you can see the depth to which sex permeates society. One can no longer turn on the television without finding a program that has sexual undertones. Magazines are filled with stories, photos and features that would shock those of past generations. There is now also the Internet, offering a veritable buffet of perversions.

I tend to be more concerned about the amount of violence that permeates our society and our media.

In the world today evil is not so apparent because it has become clandestine in nature. The diseased society is mor cunning, conniving, underhanded and duplicitous.

I’m not so sure that is true. People have always been cunning, conniving, underhanded and duplicitous.

Having said that, our inner cities are rampant with crime and anti social behavior. Elderly people fearing to leave their home in the dark, gang rape, theft, muggings,
I don’t think this is a new thing either. How well would you have fared growing up in any city in medieval Europe, for example?

drug abuse, gang cultures,

These things are a problem, and they are related both each other and the war on drugs.

Police State, Big Brother snooping,

Are you saying the UK is a police state? Imagine living in communist Russia or Nazi-occupied Germany or in a feudal system in the middle ages.

Child abuse is escalating,

In some parts of the ancient world is used to be common practice to sacrifice babies and children to god(s). The ancient Greeks and Romans used to abandon deformed or otherwise unwanted children out in the elements to die. I’m not saying child abuse isn’t a problem that should be eradicated but it seems like children are a lot safer now than they once were in our past. Not to mention that we now have avenues we can take to help children who are being abused.
Syphilis used to be a big problem. STDS have been around for a very long time.

police corruption, deception, dishonesty in our government and places of authority, persecution of the sick and afflicted by those who are supposed to care for us, pedophilia on an ever increasing scale, promiscuity among children, rape, murder, an increase in child pregnancies and abortions, a lack in moral values, TV that desensitizes our children and parents, Cyber bullying, voyeurism, Criminal damage.

Pedophilia used to be an accepted practice in some parts of the ancient world. It certainly is not now and we now also recognize it as a crime. I don’t know that you can say incidences of pedophilia are on the rise.

Rape and murder have been around for as long as humans have occupied the planet. It was much more rampant in the past than it is now where we prosecute such actions as crimes.

If you think TV or the internet desensitizes children, we now have parental controls we can use to regulate what our children watch and look up. Or you could just supervise your children.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
and most importantly, the destruction of the family unit. I know that many of these have always been with us but many are unique to this day and age and the rest have all seen an unprecedented increase, .

How has the family unit been destroyed?

We are going to see unprecedented increases in things like cyber bullying because for most of human history, we didn’t have the technology to do it. But bullying has always been around.

Even after reading the above? But that is good for you. If you are happy then who can knock you for it. I e

I still think we live in the best time in human history. If I lived at any other time I would not be afforded the rights that I am now entitled to. Same goes for a lot of people.

For me, science has all the evidence to indicate the existence of deity. Find tuning, or the anthropic principle, that is, the cosmological principle that theories of the universe are constrained by the necessity to allow human existence, on its own suggest that something was involved in the creation of the universe. biogenesis, that is, the hypothesis that living matter arises only from other living matter, is another area that tell us that something helped to form the universe and mankind, however, I will admit that it is all a little subjective.

It is not God that gives meaning to life is is the continuation of life after we die that give hope and meaning to our existence.
I have seen no evidence of any god having any influence over what goes on here on earth. And I think we each make our own meaning. But to each his own!
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
The word "normal" is very subjective.

I do not consider homosexuality to be "normal". Even speaking statistically, it is not "normal".

How am I to "know what they mean" when they use such subjective language?


This was not at all a "slippery-slope argument".

I never said that "same-sex marriage" would lead to incestuous marriages.

Someone had claimed that the only prerequisite for marriage had been "two adults", so this gave me an opportunity to better clarify what they meant by that. I asked if this should also apply to incestuous relationships.

Obviously, there is more to marriage than simply being "two adults".


You could argue that, under the law, "same-sex marriage" and traditional marriage are "equal", but by definition they are not the "same". They are not "exactly similar".

You could say that they are "similar", much like two siblings would be. But they are not the "same" as identical twins would be.

You may want them to be "exactly simiar", but that does not mean that they are. You cannot claim that they are "exactly similar" and remain honest.



Are you advocating that the only prerequisite for marriage is that two people love one another?

If that is what you are claiming, then I could just as easily present my incestuous marriage scenario again.

A father and daughter could love one another. Therefore, by your only prerequisite, it would be perfectly appropriately for the daughter to marry the father when she came of age?


Are you implying that members of "religious groups" are no longer citizens of this country?

If not, then it very much matters what I or any other member of a "religious group" thinks since we live in a Democratic Republic.


My eyes are open and I see Man trying to change what God has decreed. Which they have no authority to do.

This decision affects everyone, not just homosexuals.


You believe that the religious freedom granted to me by the First Amendment is a "problem"?

Why do you believe that only certain people are free to believe and speak what they want, but others cannot?

How do you judge which should be allowed freedom and which shouldn't?

You are on very thin ice.


That is true. I don't understand why you are arguing this since no one is arguing otherwise.

Do you believe a church or religion can refuse their services to someone if they believe that person is not worthy of the service?


The Law has been fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Does the First Amendment ensure a religion's right to petition the government or not?
Legally, they are the same.
 

Pudding

Well-Known Member
I think that it is partially my fault as I am a Christian.
And how does sharing those unsubstantiated self-subjective self-proclaims correct beliefs about God's moral/law/justice in this debate be able to effectively convince any non-believer or the other debater to believe you're right?
Do you seriously expect you can use this kind of unsubstantiated rhetoric beliefs to convince them that they're wrong and you're right?
That is some wishful thinking there if you really expect that you can...
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
To a degree, we all have closed minds to our beliefs, that is why we are able to debate here.

Again you make the same error in your indictment and condemnation of God. God has never physically killed a living soul, It would be impossible as he is perfect in form and spirit, it was man that did the killing, not God. David was reaping the rewards of His action so the blood of the slain was on his hands. It always comes back to the same old thing. Science calls it cause and effect, philosophers would call it reaping what we sow but the short and tall of it is that we are accountable for our own actions. However, again, this is a story, a tale, it may never have happened.

You need to read Exodus 21:1-11 as it doesn't say what you claim it says. In Judges 11:29-40 it was Jephthah and not God. Isaiah 13:16 is another case of the choices of man and not the actions of God. I give up though. You are just looking to stigmatize the image of God by making false allegation that can be easily deciphered by just reading without bias. 2000 year have passed and 2.2 billion Christians walk the earth believing that God is loving, kind, benevolent, charitable, empathetic, and without the capacity to hurt anyone. It is only His critiques that indict Him thus. The Bible remains the best selling book of all times, which suggests that it is not as you would have us believe it is.

Your Bible says YHVH has physically killed innocent people. Flood, King David's baby, etc.

These are the kinds of things that make me wonder why people follow the Bible.

As to Exodus 21: yes it is about selling your daughter as a sex slave..


HRB - Exo 21:7 And when a man sells his daughter for a slave-girl, she shall not go out as the male slaves go out.

Exo 21:8 If she is bad in the eyes of her master who has appointed her for himself, he shall allow her redemption. He shall not have power to sell her to a foreign people, in his deceiving her.

Albert Barnes' Notes On the Bible - Exodus 21:7 "A man might, in accordance with existing custom, sell his daughter to another man with a view to her becoming an inferior wife, or concubine. In this case, she was not "to go out," like the bondman; that is, she was not to be dismissed at the end of the sixth year."

Keil & Delitzsch Commentary On the Old Testament - Exodus 21:7-11 The daughter of an Israelite, who had been sold by her father as a maid-servant (לְאָמָה), i.e., as the sequel shows, as a housekeeper and concubine, stood in a different relation to her master's house. She was not to go out like the men-servants, i.e., not to be sent away as free at the end of six years of service;

A concubine is a sex slave - which is why she can't be freed with other Hebrew servants.

I assume he is means this verse in Judges 11 -

Jdg 11:21 And YHVH the Elohiym of Israel gave Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they struck them. And Israel took possession of all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that land.

Isaiah 13 says it is a prophecy from God to Isaiah. - Of what God was going to do.

Isa 13:13 So I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall move out of its place, in the wrath of YHVH of Hosts, and in the day of His fierce anger.

Isa 13:14 And it shall be as a gazelle driven away, and as a sheep no one gathers; each man shall look to his own people, and each one shall flee to his land.

Isa 13:15 Everyone who is found shall be pierced through; yea, everyone who is swept away shall fall by the sword.

Isa 13:16 And their children shall be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be robbed, and their wives raped.

*
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
How do you know that, only every Christian that I know celebrates Christmas in commemoration of the birth of Emanuel, the son of God.
Jehovah's Witnesses, for one, do not celebrate it.
So, there is no connection between the birth of Christ and the Pagan Holiday, though most atheists will tell you that there is,
The connection is that it's celebrated in late December because of the influence Paganism had on Christianity. Had it not been for the Pagan influence, it wouldn't be celebrated in December.
How do you work that one out.
Because it was actually banned at one point in time. And banned by Puritans at that.
Not true, the majority of our government, in the UK, are either gay or atheist, or both
That is blatantly and fractally wrong.
Mankind, however, from your perspective, nobody as you believe it is all fictitious.
So, then, humans flooded the Earth, humans turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, humans passed over Egypt, humans destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and a human struck Onan dead?
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN



As I said, there was none of these people that you describe.

In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, God commanded Saul and the Israelites, “This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" God ordered similar things when the Israelites were invading the promised land (Deuteronomy 2:34; 3:6; 20:16-18). Why would God have the Israelites exterminate an entire group of people, women and children included,not God.

I am not changing context I am giving you a reason why God did not murder them, that it was man who did that because of their wickedness. God cannot intervene because he would thwart his own plan of salvation.

We were discussing the horrors - of killing even the children - and YOU said there was no one to take care of them. I said if they had not committed war crimes - killing the non-combatants, - there would have been plenty of people to take care of the children.

And I agree God did not command this. It was men.

I agree, so the Israelite's will reap a just reward for their actions, whether it be a punishment or a blessing, dependent on whether they actually did receive revelation from God to commit genocide or whether they were acting for themselves.. There is no need for you and I to worry about it as God will deal with it.

Killing the innocent is man - period. However, most Christians defend these as God acts, or commandments. That is sick.

Ingledsva said:
And these were supposedly ordered kills. Also according to the stories YHVH kills babies for adult's so-called crimes. Flood story, personally killing King David's baby, etc.

No, that is an impossibility as God cannot interact with mankind, for reasons already given. It is man that murders, not God.

The Bible that gave you Jesus - says YHVH kills, including personally killing a baby.

*
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
That sound like you are suggesting that I am acting inappropriately.

You are setting a premise that slavery is indefensible, even though I have provided three separate articles that show that this kind of slavery was not the same as we saw in Southern America. That leaves a question mark over the morality of this kind of slavery, where many sold themselves into slavery or paid off a debt by it. Therefore, one situations is clearly immoral whereas the other is questionable. They are not the same so they cannot be treated the same, as you are trying to do. Just to bolster my opinion, there is a Mosaic Law that says that man should not lay with man as he would a woman, however, there is no Mosaic Law that forbids slavery, which suggests that it was acceptable to the slaves and their owners at that time.

Why do you keep saying that?

I have shown that it is exactly the same, - with Bible verses.

They could buy, beat, rape them, put other men with them to produce more slaves, and keep them and their children FOREVER!

And apparently sometimes the abuse killed them - as we have a slave law.

People paying off debts by being indentured servants, - has nothing to do with their real slavery.

*
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
The word "normal" is very subjective.

I do not consider homosexuality to be "normal". Even speaking statistically, it is not "normal".

How am I to "know what they mean" when they use such subjective language?

Because you have a brain and can read in context.

This was not at all a "slippery-slope argument".

I never said that "same-sex marriage" would lead to incestuous marriages.

Someone had claimed that the only prerequisite for marriage had been "two adults", so this gave me an opportunity to better clarify what they meant by that. I asked if this should also apply to incestuous relationships.

Obviously, there is more to marriage than simply being "two adults".

Your reply was exactly what a slippery-slope argument is.

You could argue that, under the law, "same-sex marriage" and traditional marriage are "equal", but by definition they are not the "same". They are not "exactly similar".

You could say that they are "similar", much like two siblings would be. But they are not the "same" as identical twins would be.

You may want them to be "exactly simiar", but that does not mean that they are. You cannot claim that they are "exactly similar" and remain honest.

They are the same. Two people in love. Their sexual activity is no one's business. Just as with heterosexual couples.

Are you advocating that the only prerequisite for marriage is that two people love one another?

If that is what you are claiming, then I could just as easily present my incestuous marriage scenario again.

A father and daughter could love one another. Therefore, by your only prerequisite, it would be perfectly appropriately for the daughter to marry the father when she came of age?

And there you go with the illogical slippery-slope arguments again!

Incest is generally outlawed because of genetic consequence.


Are you implying that members of "religious groups" are no longer citizens of this country?

If not, then it very much matters what I or any other member of a "religious group" thinks since we live in a Democratic Republic.

Don't take my words out of context. In fact - if you are going to reply this far removed - with partial sentences, - list the post number so we can go back for the facts.

You said -

I would say that their relationship should be considered "equal" under the law, but that should not mean that a homosexual relationship is the "same" as a heterosexual one. They are fundamentally different.

I SAID - "They are equal, and the same. They are both just the marriage of two people in love. It doesn't matter what some religious groups think about it."

In other words it doesn't matter if certain religions' people believe gay couples shouldn't marry, or black and white people, or that homosexuals should be killed, etc. You can hold those beliefs -

But human rights trump your archaic Abrahamic religious beliefs.


My eyes are open and I see Man trying to change what God has decreed. Which they have no authority to do.

This decision affects everyone, not just homosexuals.

I don't believe in your God, and your archaic religious laws mean nothing to other people.

You believe that the religious freedom granted to me by the First Amendment is a "problem"?

Why do you believe that only certain people are free to believe and speak what they want, but others cannot?

How do you judge which should be allowed freedom and which shouldn't?

You are on very thin ice.

LOL! And where have I said that? I have repeated over-and-over that you can hold any archaic religious tribal laws that you wish. No one is stopping you.

BUT - you cannot force those religious laws on others. As human rights gain, - the outdated religious laws go the way of the Dodo.



That is true. I don't understand why you are arguing this since no one is arguing otherwise.

Do you believe a church or religion can refuse their services to someone if they believe that person is not worthy of the service?

If in the actual church yes and no. Meaning you can do it, - but what would Jesus do? ;)

A business - NO! To put it bluntly - folks that do such - are hypocrites - 1. because they sin too, and 2. because they are not chasing out all other sinners! They illegally discriminate against ONE group.Do they ask the person wanting a wedding cake if they are a whore - having been married before? And refuse them a cake because of Hebrew Law?


The Law has been fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Does the First Amendment ensure a religion's right to petition the government or not?

You are obviously free to petition for ridiculous things. Just don't expect them to be granted anymore. The church no longer has a hold on government.

And the LAW has NOT yet been fulfilled - according to Jesus. Until ALL be fulfilled, - when heaven and earth pass away!


Mat 5:17 Do not think that I came to annul the Torah or the Prophets; I did not come to annul, but to fulfill.

Mat 5:18 Truly I say to you, Until the heaven and the earth pass away, in no way shall one yod or one stroke pass away from the Torah until all comes to pass.

Mat 5:19 Therefore, whoever loosens one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the worst in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever does and teaches them, this one shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.

Mat 5:20 For I say to you, If your righteousness shall not exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of YAHWEH, never!

*
 
Last edited:

JoStories

Well-Known Member
[

To a degree, we all have closed minds to our beliefs, that is why we are able to debate here.

Again you make the same error in your indictment and condemnation of God. God has never physically killed a living soul, It would be impossible as he is perfect in form and spirit, it was man that did the killing, not God. David was reaping the rewards of His action so the blood of the slain was on his hands. It always comes back to the same old thing. Science calls it cause and effect, philosophers would call it reaping what we sow but the short and tall of it is that we are accountable for our own actions. However, again, this is a story, a tale, it may never have happened.

You need to read Exodus 21:1-11 as it doesn't say what you claim it says. In Judges 11:29-40 it was Jephthah and not God. Isaiah 13:16 is another case of the choices of man and not the actions of God. I give up though. You are just looking to stigmatize the image of God by making false allegation that can be easily deciphered by just reading without bias. 2000 year have passed and 2.2 billion Christians walk the earth believing that God is loving, kind, benevolent, charitable, empathetic, and without the capacity to hurt anyone. It is only His critiques that indict Him thus. The Bible remains the best selling book of all times, which suggests that it is not as you would have us believe it is.
[/QUOTE]
Wrong about God not killing anyone. Just off the top of my head there is the alleged 'great flood" where God drowns all but a chosen few. Or Sodom where God destroyed the entire town with Lot looking on.
 

JoStories

Well-Known Member
You speak as if our sexual orientation is what defines people. I don't believe that. I believe it is only a part of who we are.

Bigotry against homosexuals may be "generational", but the homosexuality issue is not. I am not an "older" person and I think you are wrong for trying to claim that our morality should be based on "the times".

Homosexuality is a sin. It has always been a sin and it will forever be a sin. It is a sin because it is contrary to the purposes of God's children both in this life and in eternity.

You know you have to label anyone who is opposed to homosexuality as a "bigot" in order for you to feel justified in rejecting God's Word, but I can assure you that my attitude is anything but.
1. I agree that our sexuality is only a part of who we are. I am more than my Bisexuality.
2. Being gay may be a sin for you and your faith but as I am not a part of that misogynistic, paternally driven organization, I could not care less about what you consider to be 'sin'. But let me ask you something...,,


Do you like to breathe? Because if you and your ilk continue to pop out children like the Duggars, there will be no trees left. No trees..no air,...we all die. Get it?
 

JoStories

Well-Known Member
The word "normal" is very subjective.

I do not consider homosexuality to be "normal". Even speaking statistically, it is not "normal".

How am I to "know what they mean" when they use such subjective language?

Yet the same argument of what is normal and subjectivity could be used for your idea of marriage and people. What about the absolute explosion of divorces in the people of your faith? Or the statistics of spousal abuse? Or the children of your couples getting pregnant at 14? Or the men who cheat on their wives? Would you like me to continue? This is what you consider normal?

My eyes are open and I see Man trying to change what God has decreed. Which they have no authority to do.

This decision affects everyone, not just homosexuals.

And yet, as has been pointed out, the word of God; IE: The Bible, states that slavery is not only acceptable but there are laws and rules that apply. It states that rape is acceptable, provided one marry the woman after the despicable act. Do you not consider the 'rules' of the OT to have been changed? And please spare me the old NT makes the OT no longer pertinent. If that were the case, you would not be running around using the banner that all people who are gay are going against God's law.

Are you advocating that the only prerequisite for marriage is that two people love one another?

If that is what you are claiming, then I could just as easily present my incestuous marriage scenario again.

A father and daughter could love one another. Therefore, by your only prerequisite, it would be perfectly appropriately for the daughter to marry the father when she came of age?

Oh please. Now you are the one being dishonest. You know there are societal acceptances of what is lawful and what is not. Incest is not. Furthermore, any honest adult knows the marrying an underage child is not lawful as a child cannot consent to this. And the same applies to the father and daughter example. I loved my partner with all that I am. I would have given up my life for her. But because of people like you, she is the one that died. For 18 years now, I have remained celibate in honor of her and the fact that she was my soul mate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top