100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: If... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Just because a marriage isn't done by a church does not make it any less of a marriage. A marriage through a justice of the peace is still a marriage. Why do homosexuals wish to get married? For the same reason heterosexuals wish to get married. They love one another and want to be together for the rest of their lives. I know this concept may seem foreign to christians who only think that marriage is about having children. Just because someone is gay does not mean they can't love someone. If you don't like gay marriage, it's easy, don't marry someone of the same gender. Allowing it doesn't mean you will have to nor does it mean you have to approve since it isn't your wedding to approve of. It also does not mean that you have to allow all kinds of other things that regular people would normally disapprove of. It would just be 2 people who love each other a great deal, getting married and spending their lives together. If God doesn't like it, let him/her take care of it in the long run. It is not for general people to decide who has the right to love and marry someone. Why do homosexuals wish to get married? For the same reason heterosexuals wish to get married. They love one another and want to be together for the rest of their lives. ---------------------------------------- No my friend, that is not why people get married, Christians if you may. We get married to enjoy one another for ETERNITY in God's grace and the paradise our father has set up for us. Again, marriage isn't just for the sake of this earth. Heck i could be with a woman for the rest of my life and not marry. So what would the difference there be? What does some legal document mean? You don't have to get married to have a relationship your entire lives. But if you want to be with this person in the paradise, then that is why people get married. =========================================== Just because someone is gay does not mean they can't love someone. If you don't like gay marriage, it's easy, don't marry someone of the same gender. ------------------------------------ No it doesn't mean they can't love someone. BUT, love and marriage mean nothing with one another. Just because you love someone does not mean you will or should marry them. Heck, i love you foliel and everyone else in this forum. That is why i spend countless hours here discussing what the Lord has set before us. I wouldn't want anyone to not enjoy the gift of heaven for any reason, i love every one and want every one there. ======================================= If God doesn't like it, let him/her take care of it in the long run. It is not for general people to decide who has the right to love and marry someone. ---------------------------------- And he will, but that's besides the point. Why waste the peoples time on earth getting married when it's nothing more then just that little piece of paper? Heck, if they want a piece of paper saying they are married, i can print them up all day for any homosexuals that wish to have that little piece of paper stating they are married. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Red wrote:
One final question, why don't Christians simply refuse to marry outside of the church? Why do they need to be married under the law of state and country? That way their precious tradition can retain whatever value they want to assign to it. And the public domain contract of marriage can reflect a legal code that does not descriminat -------------------------------- Cowboy relied: Marriage outside of the church means nothing. The ENTIRE reasoning and why it's done in a church is cause it's a spiritual joining of the two. Making them one flesh in the eyes of the lord. Legal documentation and anything of such means NOTHING. It doesn't matter if two are legally married, or did it behind a barn with their preacher neighbour. The ONLY marriage that holds any kind of power and or is true, is done traditionally. In a church, with the marriage celebration. By a preacher. All other marriages are only real on paper and are pointless. So you people are talking apples and oranges. Redykeulous is speaking about legal matters in law and Cowboy is off dreaming about his Jealous-God Fairytale. 
Clearly we're not even on the same page here. The laws of the land have nothing to do with religion and therefore the Christianity shouldn't give a hoot less what the laws of the land are. They have their churches and their religion and they can clearly keep their traditions going in whatever way they want. There already exist Gay Churches, so clearly the divisiveness of Christianity (and Protestantism in particular) continues to evolve anyway. So Cowboy is just supporting Redy's message that laws should have nothing to do with religion. Sounds good to me. 
I like it when people finally agree on things. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Red wrote:
One final question, why don't Christians simply refuse to marry outside of the church? Why do they need to be married under the law of state and country? That way their precious tradition can retain whatever value they want to assign to it. And the public domain contract of marriage can reflect a legal code that does not descriminat -------------------------------- Cowboy relied: Marriage outside of the church means nothing. The ENTIRE reasoning and why it's done in a church is cause it's a spiritual joining of the two. Making them one flesh in the eyes of the lord. Legal documentation and anything of such means NOTHING. It doesn't matter if two are legally married, or did it behind a barn with their preacher neighbour. The ONLY marriage that holds any kind of power and or is true, is done traditionally. In a church, with the marriage celebration. By a preacher. All other marriages are only real on paper and are pointless. So you people are talking apples and oranges. Redykeulous is speaking about legal matters in law and Cowboy is off dreaming about his Jealous-God Fairytale.
Clearly we're not even on the same page here. The laws of the land have nothing to do with religion and therefore the Christianity shouldn't give a hoot less what the laws of the land are. They have their churches and their religion and they can clearly keep their traditions going in whatever way they want. There already exist Gay Churches, so clearly the divisiveness of Christianity (and Protestantism in particular) continues to evolve anyway. So Cowboy is just supporting Redy's message that laws should have nothing to do with religion. Sounds good to me.
I like it when people finally agree on things.
======================== There already exist Gay Churches, so clearly the divisiveness of Christianity (and Protestantism in particular) continues to evolve anyway. ======================== And that's an oxymoron and contradiction all in it's own. Not denying it happens, just still nevertheless is a contradiction. That's like a bunch of known drug dealers and wanted people going to some party the chief police is holding at his house. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Red wrote:
One final question, why don't Christians simply refuse to marry outside of the church? Why do they need to be married under the law of state and country? That way their precious tradition can retain whatever value they want to assign to it. And the public domain contract of marriage can reflect a legal code that does not descriminat -------------------------------- Cowboy relied: Marriage outside of the church means nothing. The ENTIRE reasoning and why it's done in a church is cause it's a spiritual joining of the two. Making them one flesh in the eyes of the lord. Legal documentation and anything of such means NOTHING. It doesn't matter if two are legally married, or did it behind a barn with their preacher neighbour. The ONLY marriage that holds any kind of power and or is true, is done traditionally. In a church, with the marriage celebration. By a preacher. All other marriages are only real on paper and are pointless. So you people are talking apples and oranges. Redykeulous is speaking about legal matters in law and Cowboy is off dreaming about his Jealous-God Fairytale.
Clearly we're not even on the same page here. The laws of the land have nothing to do with religion and therefore the Christianity shouldn't give a hoot less what the laws of the land are. They have their churches and their religion and they can clearly keep their traditions going in whatever way they want. There already exist Gay Churches, so clearly the divisiveness of Christianity (and Protestantism in particular) continues to evolve anyway. So Cowboy is just supporting Redy's message that laws should have nothing to do with religion. Sounds good to me.
I like it when people finally agree on things.
========================================== Redykeulous is speaking about legal matters in law and Cowboy is off dreaming about his Jealous-God Fairytale.
=========================================== This is a religion forum so i was speaking of marriage in the spiritual/religion perspective. This isn't the place to be talking about man's law or anything of such, this is a place for religion discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Sun 08/22/10 09:38 PM
|
|
"...gay folks have to answer to their god in the end..." 1. Interesting concept, a gay God. Some say Jesus was gay, but others say he was not. Saul hated gays, he called them arsenokoitei, right on the pages of the Bible. It is a horribly rude word, ask any person who talks Greek. 2. Interesting choice of words, on the matter of where it is, co-ordinates wise, that gay people have to answer to their god. If I knew how to put a smiley, I would now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Sun 08/22/10 09:41 PM
|
|
"...gay folks have to answer to their god in the end..." 1. Interesting concept, a gay God. Some say Jesus was gay, but others say he was not. Saul hated gays, he called them arsenokoitei, right on the pages of the Bible. It is a horribly rude word, ask any person who talks Greek. 2. Interesting choice of words, on the matter of where it is, co-ordinates wise, that gay people have to answer to their god. If I knew how to put a smiley, I would now. Gay's god, murderers god, child abductor's god, it's all the same God my friend. There but only one God for us all. And no Jesus was not gay, for he spoke directly against such an action. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we should ban heterosexuals from marrying and having children until they can show they are capable of raising children free from any form of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and free from any form of neglect. Also, until heterosexuals prove they can reliably not conceive children out of wedlock, they should not be allowed to have the right to marriage. Also, until heterosexuals can demonstrate the ability to stay faithful to each other in the marriage, be free from spousal abuse, stay committed to one another and their families for the long term, and raise loving, compassionate, responsible children, they should not be allowed to marry. As far as I am concerned, heterosexuals should be the ones banned from the right to marry and have children. In my opinion...just saying. What is it now, 50% divorce rate? I feel for those kids who have to deal with that feeling of abandonment/or who had to deal with parents that mistreated each other/hated each other/didn't love each other/or just plain didn't care enough to work it out. It would be interesting to have that statistic. This post has made some excellent points to some of the more illogical reasons that others have used to support their opinion that same-sex marriage should not be allowed. Unfortunately, these illogical connections normally stem from an underlaying bais or homophobia, and the only rebuttal will be other more broad and generalized statement of opinion to substantiate the origianl illogical conclusion. One point though - the impact of the first paragraph might prove stronger if the second paragraph had provided acutal facts and better examples and had been less opinionated. (I don't want anyone to think I only ATTACK those whose opinions are in opposition of my own) 
MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE BETWEEN A MAN AND A MAN NOR A WOMAN AND WOMAN. Marriage is a joining of two people. ============================================= Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mark10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; Mark10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh Mark10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. ==================================================== Notice "God made them male and female" and "a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his WIFE." Doesn't say a man and a man, doesn't say a person and person. It specifically says MAN and WOMAN. ==================================================== Leviticous 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. ==================================================== This shows that a man and a man are not to have a sexual relationship. So what would the point of getting married be? No marriage isn't all about being able to have a sexual relation with a spouse. But that's what makes marriage special, because that is the ONLY person you are suppose to do that kind of action with. Since marriage is for the joining of two people making them one flesh, and will spend eternity with that person. Why do homosexuals wish to get married when it's obviously an abomination to be homosexual in the first place, and God obviously won't recognize a homosexual marriage as a true marriage since it specifically states MAN and WOMAN. What are homosexuals trying to gain from being supposedly married? What difference do all these words make to Christians? What value do Christians really place on these words? What other church have you ever heard or witnessed ostracizing a divorced member of their congregation? What level of respect do Christians themselves give to these words? Do you know of any organized religion besides Mormons and Chistian Scientists who meter out justice to thier congregations? Still, Christians want to hold everyone else accountable to the same morals that they don't even try to live up to themselves. Still, Christians want to have say in defining a legal act based on religious morals and values that are not reflected in their own actions. Still, Christians want to lay claim to a customary tradition practiced world wide regardless of religion. And Christions would shape that tradition to their own specifications when the tradition is not even solely related to Chrisianity. One final question, why don't Christians simply refuse to marry outside of the church? Why do they need to be married under the law of state and country? That way their precious tradition can retain whatever value they want to assign to it. And the public domain contract of marriage can reflect a legal code that does not descriminate. It's not just Christianity.No religion anywhere in the world tolerates homosexuality.You keep blaming Christianity yet this is a problem with Atheist and other religions as well. Out of all the countries in the world you have a whopping 10 of them that allows same sex marraige. Seems like you are missing the bigger picture here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
======================== There already exist Gay Churches, so clearly the divisiveness of Christianity (and Protestantism in particular) continues to evolve anyway. ======================== Cowboy wrote: And that's an oxymoron and contradiction all in it's own. Not denying it happens, just still nevertheless is a contradiction. That's like a bunch of known drug dealers and wanted people going to some party the chief police is holding at his house. So? There's nothing new there. The whole Abrahamic religion is one big contradiction from start to finish. That's why it's been falling apart over the ages. It started out as Judaism, then split off into Islam, and finally Catholicism was born, then the masses protested against Catholicism giving rise to the myriad of conflicting and divisive forms of Protestantism. It's no more of a contradiction to suggest that with the "New Covenant" of Jesus the 'old laws' about homosexuality went out with the 'old laws' about stoning sinners to death, etc. Even you have supported the idea that Jesus brought a "New Covenant" and that the old laws no longer apply. That's the only way you could get around the obvious contradictions that Jesus did not support the "Old Laws". So you have no basis for claiming that a Gay Church would be a contradiction. They can use precisely the same kinds of arguments that you use. This is why the religion continues to evolve. In the New Testament the only place these things come up in is the writing of Paul. But Paul's writings are highly questionable by many people. It's obvious that he was using Jesus as an excuse to dredge up a lot of the old bigotries from the Old Testament. Since Protestantism is evolving rapidly in this day and age, it would be reasonable for a group of Protestants to get together and reject the writings of Paul from the Biblical Cannon suggesting that Paul's hatred toward Gays and toward Women is clearly out of line with the Love the was taught by Jesus. So the Gay Christian Churches can be just as 'sound' as any other forum of Christianity. (if you can call any form of it 'sound') I've personally shown why the whole thing breaks down and that Jesus could have only been a mortal Buddhist and it makes no sense at all to pretend that he was the son of the god of the Old Testament. Even the Jews could see that fallacy in that idea. Christianity itself is already a "contradiction" to Judaism. So for Christians to claim that a Gay Church would be a "contradiction" to Christianity is equally absurd. It's just more Protestants continually to protest is all. Nothing new there at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Red wrote:
This is a religion forum so i was speaking of marriage in the spiritual/religion perspective. This isn't the place to be talking about man's law or anything of such, this is a place for religion discussion. Well, even so, you're just spewing the views of a single hateful religion that's based on the folklore of a jealous hateful God. All spiritual/religious views aren't so bigoted. There's nothing inherent in Mysticism that would deny same gender love. There's certainly nothing in Wicca that would deny same gender love. There's nothing in Shamanism that would deny same gender love. In fact, outside of the Abrahamic religions it would probably be difficult to find such hateful religious bigotry. This is a strong reason why the Abrahamic religions should be recognized as being ungodly. They clearly do not reflect love, which is what their God is supposed to stand for. So they have a serious problem of being oxymoronic in their description of their God's characteristics. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Mon 08/23/10 06:52 AM
|
|
Red wrote:
This is a religion forum so i was speaking of marriage in the spiritual/religion perspective. This isn't the place to be talking about man's law or anything of such, this is a place for religion discussion. Well, even so, you're just spewing the views of a single hateful religion that's based on the folklore of a jealous hateful God. All spiritual/religious views aren't so bigoted. There's nothing inherent in Mysticism that would deny same gender love. There's certainly nothing in Wicca that would deny same gender love. There's nothing in Shamanism that would deny same gender love. In fact, outside of the Abrahamic religions it would probably be difficult to find such hateful religious bigotry. This is a strong reason why the Abrahamic religions should be recognized as being ungodly. They clearly do not reflect love, which is what their God is supposed to stand for. So they have a serious problem of being oxymoronic in their description of their God's characteristics. NO NO NO - Red DIDN'T write that first quote, that was Cowboy.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
======================== There already exist Gay Churches, so clearly the divisiveness of Christianity (and Protestantism in particular) continues to evolve anyway. ======================== Cowboy wrote: And that's an oxymoron and contradiction all in it's own. Not denying it happens, just still nevertheless is a contradiction. That's like a bunch of known drug dealers and wanted people going to some party the chief police is holding at his house. So? There's nothing new there. The whole Abrahamic religion is one big contradiction from start to finish. That's why it's been falling apart over the ages. It started out as Judaism, then split off into Islam, and finally Catholicism was born, then the masses protested against Catholicism giving rise to the myriad of conflicting and divisive forms of Protestantism. It's no more of a contradiction to suggest that with the "New Covenant" of Jesus the 'old laws' about homosexuality went out with the 'old laws' about stoning sinners to death, etc. Even you have supported the idea that Jesus brought a "New Covenant" and that the old laws no longer apply. That's the only way you could get around the obvious contradictions that Jesus did not support the "Old Laws". So you have no basis for claiming that a Gay Church would be a contradiction. They can use precisely the same kinds of arguments that you use. This is why the religion continues to evolve. In the New Testament the only place these things come up in is the writing of Paul. But Paul's writings are highly questionable by many people. It's obvious that he was using Jesus as an excuse to dredge up a lot of the old bigotries from the Old Testament. Since Protestantism is evolving rapidly in this day and age, it would be reasonable for a group of Protestants to get together and reject the writings of Paul from the Biblical Cannon suggesting that Paul's hatred toward Gays and toward Women is clearly out of line with the Love the was taught by Jesus. So the Gay Christian Churches can be just as 'sound' as any other forum of Christianity. (if you can call any form of it 'sound') I've personally shown why the whole thing breaks down and that Jesus could have only been a mortal Buddhist and it makes no sense at all to pretend that he was the son of the god of the Old Testament. Even the Jews could see that fallacy in that idea. Christianity itself is already a "contradiction" to Judaism. So for Christians to claim that a Gay Church would be a "contradiction" to Christianity is equally absurd. It's just more Protestants continually to protest is all. Nothing new there at all. Since it's so contradicting, give me a couple contradictions. And both verses used have to be either from old or new testament, you can not intertwine New and Old testaments. They are two totally different set of laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Red wrote:
This is a religion forum so i was speaking of marriage in the spiritual/religion perspective. This isn't the place to be talking about man's law or anything of such, this is a place for religion discussion. Well, even so, you're just spewing the views of a single hateful religion that's based on the folklore of a jealous hateful God. All spiritual/religious views aren't so bigoted. There's nothing inherent in Mysticism that would deny same gender love. There's certainly nothing in Wicca that would deny same gender love. There's nothing in Shamanism that would deny same gender love. In fact, outside of the Abrahamic religions it would probably be difficult to find such hateful religious bigotry. This is a strong reason why the Abrahamic religions should be recognized as being ungodly. They clearly do not reflect love, which is what their God is supposed to stand for. So they have a serious problem of being oxymoronic in their description of their God's characteristics. Love and sex have NOTHING to do with each other my friend. I love you, i love funches, i love everyone on this forum, I love EVERYONE in the world. Male or female it doesn't matter, child or elderly doesn't matter. Does NOT mean i would have a sexual relation with these people whom i love. Again, God tells us not to have a "sexual" relation with the same gender, does NOT say you can't or aren't suppose to love them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a frog had wings, would it bumps its azz when it hopped?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Red wrote:
This is a religion forum so i was speaking of marriage in the spiritual/religion perspective. This isn't the place to be talking about man's law or anything of such, this is a place for religion discussion. Well, even so, you're just spewing the views of a single hateful religion that's based on the folklore of a jealous hateful God. All spiritual/religious views aren't so bigoted. There's nothing inherent in Mysticism that would deny same gender love. There's certainly nothing in Wicca that would deny same gender love. There's nothing in Shamanism that would deny same gender love. In fact, outside of the Abrahamic religions it would probably be difficult to find such hateful religious bigotry. This is a strong reason why the Abrahamic religions should be recognized as being ungodly. They clearly do not reflect love, which is what their God is supposed to stand for. So they have a serious problem of being oxymoronic in their description of their God's characteristics. I find it hard to take anything you say seriously since what you think are facts are so off track I'm not even sure you believe them let alone anyone else. 10 countries out of 195 allow same sex marriage.We all know those 185 countries are going to cover all religions,all viewpoints,and Atheism as well.You think Christians are intoralant?Many of those countries no matter what religion or no religion will kill homosexuals. As a matter of fact if you knew anything about this issue except your biasis hatred towards Christianity you would realize the most tolerate nations towards homosexuals are the CHRISTIAN ones! Christianity is not about religious bigotry.It's about having standards for people to live by.Those standards do not include putting a mans penis into another mans anus for sexual pleasure.When God said "Your body is a temple onto the lord",I'm positive God would not be happy seeing a man pull his penis covered in fecal matter out of a guys rear end.I'm also positive God would be furious of a man shooting sperm into a guys or girls rear end. I've said it before.You think the Christians are bad and intolerant on this issue.Go move to another country where there are no Christians and tell them they are bigoted and have to accept homosexuality.You will be thrown in prison if you are not murdered first by the police. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Red wrote:
This is a religion forum so i was speaking of marriage in the spiritual/religion perspective. This isn't the place to be talking about man's law or anything of such, this is a place for religion discussion. Well, even so, you're just spewing the views of a single hateful religion that's based on the folklore of a jealous hateful God. All spiritual/religious views aren't so bigoted. There's nothing inherent in Mysticism that would deny same gender love. There's certainly nothing in Wicca that would deny same gender love. There's nothing in Shamanism that would deny same gender love. In fact, outside of the Abrahamic religions it would probably be difficult to find such hateful religious bigotry. This is a strong reason why the Abrahamic religions should be recognized as being ungodly. They clearly do not reflect love, which is what their God is supposed to stand for. So they have a serious problem of being oxymoronic in their description of their God's characteristics. Love and sex have NOTHING to do with each other my friend. I love you, i love funches, i love everyone on this forum, I love EVERYONE in the world. Male or female it doesn't matter, child or elderly doesn't matter. Does NOT mean i would have a sexual relation with these people whom i love. Again, God tells us not to have a "sexual" relation with the same gender, does NOT say you can't or aren't suppose to love them. That may be how it is for you, but I was raised to not have sexual relations with someone I do not care for and love. It seems that in todays world love is being forgotten and people just want to have sex. This is the wrong attitude especially if someone gets pregnant. I can't have sex with a woman as I just am not attracted to them. I do not believe in lying so I refuse to be with someone I don't love just so everyone else will be happy. I also refuse to stay single just because people don't want to accept that I am gay. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Red wrote:
This is a religion forum so i was speaking of marriage in the spiritual/religion perspective. This isn't the place to be talking about man's law or anything of such, this is a place for religion discussion. Well, even so, you're just spewing the views of a single hateful religion that's based on the folklore of a jealous hateful God. All spiritual/religious views aren't so bigoted. There's nothing inherent in Mysticism that would deny same gender love. There's certainly nothing in Wicca that would deny same gender love. There's nothing in Shamanism that would deny same gender love. In fact, outside of the Abrahamic religions it would probably be difficult to find such hateful religious bigotry. This is a strong reason why the Abrahamic religions should be recognized as being ungodly. They clearly do not reflect love, which is what their God is supposed to stand for. So they have a serious problem of being oxymoronic in their description of their God's characteristics. Love and sex have NOTHING to do with each other my friend. I love you, i love funches, i love everyone on this forum, I love EVERYONE in the world. Male or female it doesn't matter, child or elderly doesn't matter. Does NOT mean i would have a sexual relation with these people whom i love. Again, God tells us not to have a "sexual" relation with the same gender, does NOT say you can't or aren't suppose to love them. That may be how it is for you, but I was raised to not have sexual relations with someone I do not care for and love. It seems that in todays world love is being forgotten and people just want to have sex. This is the wrong attitude especially if someone gets pregnant. I can't have sex with a woman as I just am not attracted to them. I do not believe in lying so I refuse to be with someone I don't love just so everyone else will be happy. I also refuse to stay single just because people don't want to accept that I am gay. Yes i understand that. I didn't mean you can have sex with anyone and everyone, of course it's gotta be with that one special person you love tremendously. What i was meaning is even if you do love the person, that doesn't mean you do or want to have a sexual relation with them. I was referring to just because you love them that doesn't mean you have, will, or want to have a sexual relation with. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gay's god, murderers god, child abductor's god, it's all the same God my friend. There but only one God for us all. And no Jesus was not gay, for he spoke directly against such an action. God save us then. ----- I don't remember one word of Jesus in the Bible in which he spoke directly against homosexuality. I could have sworn Jesus was gay, but I appreciate you know his lifestyle much more in-depth than I do. It's just he associated with men mainly, he never got married, he was still single and probably a virgin at 33, except losing your virginity in a gay sexual relationship did not count as losing your virginity at all. Like look at all the bloody vestal virgins a thousand miles west of there, in Rome, at the time. Okay, their hymens may have been intact, but they were no innocent lambs by a long shot. And I know this for a fact about vestal virgins. My aunt Hilde was one. So if you were gay and not married in Biblical times, they called you a philosopher or a religion-founder. And you can't deny that Jesus was a religion-founder. He was very found of his religion, Judaism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a frog had wings, would it bumps its azz when it hopped? The female chula-chula frogs of eastern Brazil can jump off a coca leaf, make seven summersaults in the air, both frontward and backward, and land on the male with the loudest mating call in one shot to be in the fornicatory position with him. Gravity as a matchmaker. So, to answer your question, yes, those of the chula-chula that have wings still get their buttocks whopped. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Mon 08/23/10 06:49 PM
|
|
MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE BETWEEN A MAN AND A MAN NOR A WOMAN AND WOMAN. Marriage is a joining of two people.
============================================= Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mark10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; Mark10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh Mark10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. ==================================================== Notice "God made them male and female" and "a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his WIFE." Doesn't say a man and a man, doesn't say a person and person. It specifically says MAN and WOMAN. ==================================================== Leviticous 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. ==================================================== --------- All of these talk about something but marriage. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. -- but no word at all who can marry whom. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; -- yes, for this cause. For another cause, shall a man leave his father and mother and go out with guys. Even get married to them. No forbidding of this here. A man just has to choose his cause wisely. And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh -- what does this have to do ANYTHING with heterosexual marriage, or more importantly, with forbidding gay marriage? What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. -- his has nothing to do anything with marriage. Nothing whatsoever. I think the interpretation that Mark was talking about airplane models or lego train sets that God put tother is equally as valid as the interpretation that after a man and a woman marry, they ought not to divorce. If this was true, no fundamentalist Evangelical church would allow divorces, and yet they do. Because it talks about divorce more than about gay marriage. That's A, and B, once a heterosexual couple fornicates, they ough not to go asunder, since they have been made one flesh by god, so for them to disengage from the fornicatory position is nothing but pure, unadulterated blasphemy. Remember, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -- Oh yeah? Then a woman having sexual relationships with a man, even if he is her husband, is an abomination. Don't believe me? Then check the gender of "thou", the pronoun of the subject of the advice or the order by Leviticus. It is genderless, "thou" is. So not only for a man, but for anyone who can be called a thou, is lying with a man an abomination. Maybe Leviticus was giving a sermon to sheep, after word got around that there is an alarmingly growing tendency of Sheep seducing men for sexual favours. I don't know why everyone points fingers at gay people exclusively when they read this passage. People lost their senses, they don't know how to read, they are screwed up totally in the language understandation department in their heads. What has happened to 2000 years of men of the Christian faith? They can't read? they can't think? Christian women have known that all along. The Christian bible is so easy to pick on and to analyze apart! Much easier than to put it into a perspective that makes sense and analyze it together into a unit that is not 100% pure jiveless mumbo-jumbo. That's a task even I would not want to undertake. What a thankless job it would be for a logician. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE BETWEEN A MAN AND A MAN NOR A WOMAN AND WOMAN. Marriage is a joining of two people. ============================================= Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mark10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; Mark10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh Mark10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. ==================================================== Notice "God made them male and female" and "a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his WIFE." Doesn't say a man and a man, doesn't say a person and person. It specifically says MAN and WOMAN. ==================================================== Leviticous 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. ==================================================== --------- All of these talk about something but marriage. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. -- but no word at all who can marry whom. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; -- yes, for this cause. For another cause, shall a man leave his father and mother and go out with guys. Even get married to them. No forbidding of this here. A man just has to choose his cause wisely. And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh -- what does this have to do ANYTHING with heterosexual marriage, or more importantly, with forbidding gay marriage? What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. -- his has nothing to do anything with marriage. Nothing whatsoever. I think the interpretation that Mark was talking about airplane models or lego train sets that God put tother is equally as valid as the interpretation that after a man and a woman marry, they ought not to divorce. If this was true, no fundamentalist Evangelical church would allow divorces, and yet they do. Because it talks about divorce more than about gay marriage. That's A, and B, once a heterosexual couple fornicates, they ough not to go asunder, since they have been made one flesh by god, so for them to disengage from the fornicatory position is nothing but pure, unadulterated blasphemy. Remember, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -- Oh yeah? Then a woman having sexual relationships with a man, even if he is her husband, is an abomination. Don't believe me? Then check the gender of "thou", the pronoun of the subject of the advice or the order by Leviticus. It is genderless, "thou" is. So not only for a man, but for anyone who can be called a thou, is lying with a man an abomination. Maybe Leviticus was giving a sermon to sheep, after word got around that there is an alarmingly growing tendency of Sheep seducing men for sexual favours. I don't know why everyone points fingers at gay people exclusively when they read this passage. People lost their senses, they don't know how to read, they are screwed up totally in the language understandation department in their heads. What has happened to 2000 years of men of the Christian faith? They can't read? they can't think? Christian women have known that all along. The Christian bible is so easy to pick on and to analyze apart! Much easier than to put it into a perspective that makes sense and analyze it together into a unit that is not 100% pure jiveless mumbo-jumbo. That's a task even I would not want to undertake. What a thankless job it would be for a logician. How is this scripture hard to understand? ========================================= Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -- Oh yeah? Then a woman having sexual relationships with a man, even if he is her husband, is an abomination. ========================================== In modern day english would say "You will not lay with a man as you do with a woman, it is an abomination." A man lays with a woman to have sex, to cuddle, and things of that nature. So God specifically tells us for a man and a man not to do this. |
|
|
|
|
